David Tutera Divorce

[Lorelei Lee]

Some of it depends on the laws in the various states (which may not have caught up with legalized gay marriage). In many states, it is an unrebuttable presumption that the child born to a married woman is her husband's. That means that even if DNA shows that another man fathered the child, the biological father has no legal rights or responsibilities, and the husband can't get out of child support. (Of course, those laws were passed well before anyone even knew what DNA was, never mind how to test for it.)

It may be that they are both the legal parents of both children. But it's hard to say.

I know that there are at least 25 law students writing law review articles on this right now! (I wanted to write an article for my law review analyzing the situation of one egg donor, one sperm donor, a different gestational surrogate, and the two parents who started the process. My editor told me to forget it - it was too far fetched! )

Counselor, how long are you out of law school, may I ask? (Not as long as me,, I'd guess. When I graduated from law school Louise Brown was a very young child and the Baby M surrogacy case hadn't yet happened.)


I am not up on my research on the matter, and yes, the issue is evolving, but I would think there are already a fair number of notes written on the subject. The technology has been around for awhile.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I'm confused, if both "parents" agree how custody should be handled, why the court battle? Is it because the court thinks they should be together?

One way or the other, I hope both babies end up in good homes and are able to have a close relationship with one another. It sadly seems like they are part of a pretty cold hearted baby making deal.

First of all, they are parents, not "parents", both biologically and legally.

Even if the parents come to an agreement on custody and visitation, the judge has the final word on whether the agreement is acceptable -- the court must act "in the best interests of the child."

 

[disykat]

First of all, they are parents, not "parents", both biologically and legally.

Even if the parents come to an agreement on custody and visitation, the judge has the final word on whether the agreement is acceptable -- the court must act "in the best interests of the child."

Personally, I think "parents" expresses what people are if the court system feels they have to overrule the parents in order for the children's best interests to be considered.

 

[JediBonas]

I don't care if they're newborns or not, splitting them up would be bad for them. I have twins, even as newborns they were comforted being near each other. They may not be 100% related but they spent nine months growing together in the womb and then however old they are now together, I think it would be horrible to separate them.

As for the "I'll take mine, you take yours" idea, I just can't understand that way of thinking. At all.

 

[EMom]

If this was a male/female married couple who had conceived twins via ART, no matter whose DNA was or was not in the mix, the children would each be considered to be the child of BOTH parents. No his and hers. I fail to see why a marriage of two males ought to be any different. Neither of these men appear to have given a second's thought as to the impact of their foolish actions (conceiving children when the marriage was already in deep trouble) on these innocent twins.

They seem all too ready to ready to split up those twins like a set of end tables. Neither of them have the sense of a gnat. These children are not pretty little playthings. They will deal with the fallout from their parents' thoughtlessness for years to come.

 

[Jessica14]

It's just bizarre to me that both men would be so willing to give up one of their children. DNA has nothing to do with it. They were conceived to be raised together. How do you decide to abandon one? It's sickening.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

I read something earlier about this and what I didn't know and I don't think it is mentioned here is that David is the biological father of the girl and his husband the biological father of the boy. So it makes sense why they just want their child and to go separate ways. I don't think it is any different then a couple having a child and separating and going on and having another child with another person. They won't live together but still can have a relationship. Not ideal but what is.

 

[JediBonas]

I read something earlier about this and what I didn't know and I don't think it is mentioned here is that David is the biological father of the girl and his husband the biological father of the boy. So it makes sense why they just want their child and to go separate ways. I don't think it is any different then a couple having a child and separating and going on and having another child with another person. They won't live together but still can have a relationship. Not ideal but what is.

I think the babies have the same mother, so they ARE related. They've also developed together in the womb and been raised together, it's soo incredibly wrong to split them up.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

I think the babies have the same mother, so they ARE related. They've also developed together in the womb and been raised together, it's soo incredibly wrong to split them up.

I don't think I denied they were related. I said I didn't understand why they would split them and now that I know why I said I understand. I didn't say it was wrong or right!!!

 

[jrmasm]

I don't think I denied they were related. I said I didn't understand why they would split them and now that I know why I said I understand. I didn't say it was wrong or right!!!

Well I don't understand it. I think it's disgusting.

 

[EMom]

Well I don't understand it. I think it's disgusting.

It is disgusting. Let's say DH and I had decided to use a donor egg with DH's sperm. The child would have been biologically his and not mine. In the event of a divorce, according to Tutero & Co., I would give him the child to raise and just walk away, as the child was not related to me biologically. Ummm......I don't think so.

For decades, people have been using sperm donors when the DH was sterile. The law said that was the DH's child. Adding a surrogate makes it a bit more complicated, but the idea is the same.....Children borne of a marriage are the children of BOTH parents.

The couple being gay should have nothing to do with the outcome. If you want the same rights and privileges as straight couples, you need to play by the same parental rules when it comes time for a divorce. It seems that gay or straight, too many parents find it anything but obvious that the children should come first.

Gay men simply cannot have children by the same methods a straight couple can. ART will often be part of the equation. To simply split the children according to paternal DNA says the children were never really "our" children. And that is not what having children within a marriage is all about.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

It isn't but I just wonder what they had planned before the babies were even here.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Am I supposed to know who this is? Is he someone famous? If not, why is he on TV talking about his divorce?

 

[Sgt Mickey]

Am I supposed to know who this is? Is he someone famous? If not, why is he on TV talking about his divorce?

He does a wedding show....I think on TLC...My Fair Wedding. I don't know what else I am lucky I know that since I have never watched it just advertise

 

[lizabu]

He does a wedding show....I think on TLC...My Fair Wedding. I don't know what else I am lucky I know that since I have never watched it just advertise

I've seen his show a number of times. I alway thought he was very creative and talented. I knew nothing about his personal life before this. I don't think this whole thing has shone a very positive light on him. I think he chose to talk about it because the ex recently went to the press and accused him of going with hookers and he wanted to rebut it. I personally only heard about his ex doing so during his rebuttal so I almost think it would have been better if he just left it alone.

 

[Sgt Mickey]

He is accusing him of being a sex addict. I read he was denying it but if your married and your out with all these other men other then your spouse what else is it

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Personally, I think "parents" expresses what people are if the court system feels they have to overrule the parents in order for the children's best interests to be considered.

But in this case the judge agrees with the custody arrangements. So we can leave it as parents.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

If this was a male/female married couple who had conceived twins via ART, no matter whose DNA was or was not in the mix, the children would each be considered to be the child of BOTH parents. No his and hers. I fail to see why a marriage of two males ought to be any different. Neither of these men appear to have given a second's thought as to the impact of their foolish actions (conceiving children when the marriage was already in deep trouble) on these innocent twins.

They seem all too ready to ready to split up those twins like a set of end tables. Neither of them have the sense of a gnat. These children are not pretty little playthings. They will deal with the fallout from their parents' thoughtlessness for years to come.

I agree with you, the fact that two men are the parents, instead of one man and one woman, should have no bearing on the analysis.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I always liked "My Fair Wedding". He's a wonderful wedding planner. This season the show is being called "David Tutera:Unveiled". Haven't seen it yet, but WE has been running the ads like crazy, and the focus seems to be shifting . . . It's all about David now, not the brides. And baby Cielo puts in an appearance.

 

[snykymom]

Counselor, how long are you out of law school, may I ask? (Not as long as me,, I'd guess. When I graduated from law school Louise Brown was a very young child and the Baby M surrogacy case hadn't yet happened.)


I am not up on my research on the matter, and yes, the issue is evolving, but I would think there are already a fair number of notes written on the subject. The technology has been around for awhile.

I graduated in the early 80's.

Yes, I know that there are a lot of articles now about surrogates, donor eggs, donor sperm, gestational carriers, etc. But not so much about the technologies with now-legal gay marriage (which laws apply, and how), or with two children carried by the same gestational carrier at the same time, born at the same time, to a couple then married, who are at best half-siblings or perhaps not genetically related at all. That's a new twist to an older story.