family

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

In a precedent-setting decision that could bode well for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Philippines, the country’s Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples can be considered co-owners of property acquired over the course of their relationship.

The ruling came about based on a lesbian couple that is decidedly not interested in getting married, the Philippines Star reported.

The ruling promulgated on February 5 and penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez made its way to the country’s highest court after the two women had lived together for several years. In that time, they purchased a house and lot in Quezon City, and registered it under only one partner’s name.

Then they decided to split.

The two women initially agreed to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally. Knowing they wouldn’t benefit from community property laws afforded to married couples, the partner who officially owned the house and lot signed an “acknowledgment” confirming that the other had paid for roughly 50% of the purchase and renovation costs of the property.

Then she reneged on the deal.

After she denied the other woman’s co-ownership and refused to sell, the scorned partner went to court, filing a case based on the signed acknowledgement.

A back-and-forth over culpability, damages, and lack of proof ensued across two courts and appeals before the case landed at the nation’s highest court.

A case pitting a similar but married plaintiff and defendant would normally fall under Article 147 of the Philippines Family Code. That article applies to couples who are legally eligible to marry and “presumes” joint ownership of property acquired during cohabitation, the high court explained.

But because the Family Code limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman, the high court held that the case of the battling lesbian couple necessarily fell under Article 148, which applies to those prohibited from marriage and requires proof of actual contribution for a property to be considered common.

That signed “acknowledgement” provided the proof.

“Having admitted the actual contribution of petitioner, their corresponding shares are prima facie presumed equal. Thus, with Article 148 of the Family Code and the Acknowledgement executed by respondent, petitioner is a co-owner to the extent of 50% share of the subject property,” the ruling read.

“Considering that there is co-ownership between petitioner and respondent, then each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as her share is concerned. Having rightful interest over the subject property, petitioner has the right to demand the division of the subject property,” Judge Lopez added.

Legislation legalizing civil unions or full marriage equality for same-sex couples in the Philippines has been stalled in the country’s Congress over multiple sessions.

Concurring opinions in the case noted the gap between public opinion, which is generally supportive of LGBTQ+ rights in the Philippines, and legislative action.

Justice Lazaro‑Javier recognized “the prevailing values in modern society as well as the glaring yet unjustified difference in the treatment of heterosexual couples vis-à-vis their homosexual counterparts,” while the majority ruling called on Congress to address the issue at the core of the case more broadly.

“Mostly, public reason needs to be first shaped through the crucible of campaigns and advocacies within our political forums before it is sharpened for judicial fiat,” the court said.

Read more at WGBH.

A pair of Christian couples in Massachusetts are suing the state, saying their rights were violated when they lost their foster licenses over their views on gender and sexuality.

The couples — Audrey and Nick Jones, in Worcester County, and Greg and Marianelly Schrock, in Middlesex County — argue their First Amendment rights to freedom of religious exercise and freedom of speech are being violated in the lawsuit filed in federal court this month.

Their argument hinges on a state requirement that foster parents sign an agreement that they will “support, respect, and affirm the foster child’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression” — and that refusing to do so forced them out of the foster parent role.

The case comes as Massachusetts faces a dire shortage of families willing to serve as foster parents. The Joneses and Schrocks would provide a loving home for any child — including a gay or transgender child, their attorney told GBH News.

But, as Audrey Jones told their licensing agent, she and her husband “cannot support a child dating someone of the same sex or affirm a child who wanted to use different pronouns.” They argue the policy is unconstitutionally restrictive and ultimately harms foster children who have no place to go.

LGBTQ+ advocates told GBH News they were saddened and outraged by the case and worry it will test the strength of anti-discrimination laws. They specifically point to the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ youth in foster care: Nationally, 40% have run away or have been kicked out of their homes for being LGBTQ+, and LGBTQ+ youth who are in foster care are three times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBTQ+ youth who are not, according to the Trevor Project.

“These are already traumatized kids facing additional trauma because of their identity — and this isn’t about the foster parents,” said Tanya Neslusan, the executive director of MassEquality. “When you are parenting children, it is never about the parents — it is about the children and making sure that their needs are prioritized. And if you can’t in good conscience do that, then that’s really what it comes down to.”

This lawsuit follows a similar case filed two years ago by Mike and Kitty Burke, a Catholic couple from Southampton. They sued after being denied a foster care license because they would “not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA,” per court filings. Attorneys for the state recently asked the court to dismiss that case since the Burkes have since moved to Florida.

“Because it’s a state-run system, the state has to have some leeway to make some decisions about … what it means to keep a child emotionally safe and healthy while that child is in state custody.”

Josh Gupta-Kagan, Columbia Law School

Mallory Sleight, an attorney on the Jones-Schrock case who works for the Alliance Defending Freedom’s parental rights team, says her organization has been contacted by six Massachusetts families about this issue. The Joneses and Schrocks, she says, previously served as foster parents without issue and want their licenses back. But she said requiring them to sign the agreement violates their religious beliefs.

“DCF has said that these families are required to agree ahead of time that they would use any chosen pronouns,” she said. “And by using chosen pronouns, you are agreeing that a boy is in fact a girl, or a girl is in a fact a boy. And biblically, these families simply do not hold that belief. And by speaking that belief, especially to a child, they are violating their own religious convictions.”

Legal experts say this case follows more than a century of legal battles and legislation about the role religion can play in the foster care system — and, in the last few years, how that overlaps with LGBTQ+ foster children. Experts agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent openness to religious discrimination lawsuits could give the plaintiffs reason to hope.

In the lawsuit, the families suggested a less restrictive policy that would give the Department of Children and Families discretion about which children are placed with which parents. Department leadership could choose to not revoke foster parents’ licenses and instead just give social workers leeway to not place gender non-conforming children with such parents — a stance the Boston Globe Editorial board endorsed last week.

“If the department wants to, the department can specifically match them with children that they think would be good fits for their homes. So that could be religious children — because there are religious foster children who would love to be with religious foster parents who they could go to church with and be in Sunday school and read the Bible with,” Sleight told GBH News.

“By using chosen pronouns, you are agreeing that a boy is in fact a girl, or a girl is in a fact a boy. And biblically, these families simply do not hold that belief.”

Mallory Sleight, an attorney representing the Joneses and Schrocks

Still, some experts doubt the merits of the case. They say the rights of the legal parent or guardian and the child’s right to health and safety will outweigh the rights of a foster parent acting as a temporary caretaker.

“This is not like going to speak in the town square,” said Josh Gupta-Kagan, a Columbia Law School professor who focuses on children and families issues. “Because it’s a state-run system, the state has to have some leeway to make some decisions about … what it means to keep a child emotionally safe and healthy while that child is in state custody.”

And advocates say they want LGBTQ+ children to feel safe and comfortable in their foster homes.

“We would hope that the goal of every foster parent coming into the system to help … we hope that everyone comes in thinking: ‘I will affirm every child no matter their race, their gender identity, their sexual and their sexual orientation,’” said Shaplaie Brooks, executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth.

Brooks said the Department of Children and Families has been “moving the needle” on helping LGBTQ+ youth in the foster care system — but says that big steps still need to be taken. Her commission has been helping support couples fostering LGBTQ+ children, connecting them with gender-affirming care resources.

“Especially as of late … DCF has tried to center the needs of each child as best as possible in their care,” she said.

In fact, Gupta-Kagan imagines a hypothetical lawsuit if the policy didn’t exist and the state allowed foster parents to not affirm or support LGBTQ+ youth — a lawsuit “that the state is not fulfilling its obligation to keep children in its custody safe.”

A spokesperson for DCF told GBH News it does not comment on pending litigation. State attorneys have not responded to the complaint in court, and an initial hearing hasn’t been set yet in the case.

Tag: family

Same-sex couples just won a crucial Supreme Court victory in the Philippines

Do foster parents have to affirm LGBTQ+ kids? Massachusetts says ‘yes.’

Ohio Republicans introduce ‘Natural Family Month’ bill, excluding LGBTQ families