France: Court of Cassation rules for the first time on the possibility for the husband of the father to adopt through full adoption, the child born through surrogacy

France: Court of Cassation rules for the first time on the possibility for the husband of the father to adopt through full adoption, the child born through surrogacy

(reported by #Caroline Mecary who as the lawyer involved)

In two decisions dated February 12, 2020, the Court of Cassation ruled for the first time on the possibility for the husband of the father to adopt through full adoption, the child born through surrogacy.

The Court of Cassation declared inadmissible the appeals lodged by the Public Prosecutor in Paris against the decisions of September 18, 2018, which admitted for the first time the full adoption of the husband’s child in case of surrogacy, reiterated in another décision on November 27, 2018.        

The Court thus validated the full adoptions declared on September 18 and November 27, 2018, by the Court of Appeal of Paris in favour of two families, a couple of men with two children for the first one and a single child for the second.

It is the first time that the Court of Cassation rules on this question of full adoption of the child of the husband, born thanks to surrogacy: assuming that there is only one father on the foreign birth certificate.

The Court of Cassation had already admitted on July 5, 2017, that the simple adoption of the spouse’s child could be pronounced in a specific configuration allowing simple adoption of the spouse’s child only: by supposing that on the foreign birth certificate, the names of the father and the surrogate are mentioned, in that case the only possibility for the husband of the father to adopt the child born through surrogacy, is to request a simple adoption. 

The Court of Cassation thus shows the best way to be taken by the trial judges who could be seized of requests for full adoption of the spouse’s child, by couples of men or hetero couples who had a child through surrogacy.

It is a great victory for the children of these families. The Court of Cassation has just allowed their families to be totally protected by the law, even though it took more than four years of proceedings for these two families to achieve this result.

http://www.presseagence.fr/lettre-economique-politique-paca/2020/02/12/paris-cour-de-cassation-possibilite-pour-le-conjoint-du-pere-dadopter-lenfant-ne-par-gpa/

USA: Texas files suit in Supreme Court over California state-funded travel ban against States that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender

USA: Texas files suit in Supreme Court over California state-funded travel ban against States that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender

Texas filed an original action in the US Supreme Court Monday to overturn California’s ban on state-funded travel to a list of 11 states—including Texas—that have adopted policies that California has deemed discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

California Assembly Bill 1887, enacted in 2016 and expanded in 2017, bans state-funded or required travel of California agencies or their employees to a list currently comprising 11 states that have passed legislation that, according to AB 1887, discriminates or authorizes discrimination “against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as specified, subject to certain exceptions. ”

The expansion of the California travel ban in 2017 added four states—Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas—each for various laws passed affecting LGBTQ individuals and families in the state.

Texas was added to the 2017 list expansion for its enactment of HB 3859, which, according to the press release from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, “allows foster care agencies to discriminate against children in foster care and potentially disqualify LGBT families from the state’s foster and adoption system.”

The action filed Monday by Texas in response to its addition to California’s list of banned states calls into questions whether the restriction on state-funded travel will be able to stand against the 10 other states currently listed.

In the press release announcing the suit’s filing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton characterized the states to which California restricts state travel as states that “uphold First Amendment protections for religious liberty,” defending the Texas bill that landed his state on the list in 2017:

The law California opposes does not prevent anyone from contributing to child-welfare; in fact, it allows our state to partner with as many different agencies as possible to expand the number of safe and loving homes available to foster children. Boycotting states based on nothing more than political disagreement breaks down the ability of states to serve as laboratories of democracy while still working together as one nation—the very thing our Constitution intended to prevent.

The suit filed by Texas cites examples of trips canceled due to the ban, including a group of college students from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, whose trip to a conference of minority architects in Houston was canceled last minute in 2017.

The post Texas files suit in Supreme Court over California state-funded travel ban appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.

Switzerland: Controversial initiative on married couples’ tax equality (excluding same-sex couples) withdrawn

Switzerland: Controversial initiative on married couples’ tax equality (excluding same-sex couples) withdrawn

Proponents of a people’s initiative that seeks equal tax treatment for married and unmarried couples have withdrawn it in favour of relaunching a more gay-friendly version. The formality, which was communicated to the governing Federal Council on Wednesday, was already announced last month by the Christian Democratic Party who were behind it. The initiative sought to prevent penalising a significant number of married couples who would pay less tax if they were taxed individually instead of as a unit. The withdrawal of the text was a result of change of heart by Christian Democrats over the definition of marriage. The new text will also aim to end tax discrimination against married couples but will no longer define the institution as the lasting union of a man and a woman. According to party’s president Gerhard Pfister, the text should benefit all married couples and people living in registered partnership, therefore also gay couples. In 2016, the initiative was put to a …

USA – South Dakota: Republicans kill bill to criminalise doctors who treat trans kids after fierce backlash

USA – South Dakota: Republicans kill bill to criminalise doctors who treat trans kids after fierce backlash

A South Dakota bill that would criminalise doctors who provide treatment to trans kids has been shelved after an outcry from medical experts and LGBT+ campaigners.

Swiss anti-gay discrimination vote sends ‘strong signal’

The Swiss press have largely welcomed voters’ broad support to closing a loophole in lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) rights by extending anti-racism laws to cover sexual orientation.

Sunday February 9 was “a bad day for intolerant people”, wrote the Blick tabloid on Monday. Yesterday, 63.1% of voters came out in favour of extending current anti-racism legislation to make it illegal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. Blick said the vote meant “more freedom for hundreds of thousands of citizens” and was not about censorship or muzzling. The Tages-Anzeiger paper said the result should be seen as a further step towards equality for homosexuals rather than any kind of special protection. “[Homosexuals] are threatened and marginalised. Society is now clearly saying that it will not tolerate this,” it said. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) also largely welcomed the “symbolic” decision. “Voices standing against diversity in life found no support,” …