Sessions Information

  • May 7, 2019
    9:00 am - 10:15 am
    Session Type: Works-in-Progress
    Session Capacity: N/A
    Location: N/A
    Room: Union Square 12
    Floor: Fourth Floor

     

    Illegitimate LGBT Parents

    Susan Hazeldean, Brooklyn

    Many states’ parentage regimes exclude unmarried same-sex parents from legally recognized relationships with their children. Before marriage equality became the law of the land in Obergefell v. Hodges, some commentators expressed concern that winning access to marriage would restrict, rather than enhance, LGBT people’s liberty. Leaders in the battle for marriage equality countered that they were fighting to make marriage available, but not mandatory, for same-sex couples. But it appears that the concern about marriage becoming mandatory had some validity, at least for same-sex couples who want to be parents.  

    In many states, the only way a same-sex couple can both be legal parents of their child is to be married so that they can benefit from the marital presumption of parentage or access step-parent adoption. Unmarried same-sex couples, who cannot both be the genetic parents of their children, often cannot obtain legal recognition as co-parents even if one of them is biologically related to the child. Unmarried heterosexual couples can have children without worrying that one of them will not be recognized as a parent. Beginning in the 1970s, the Supreme Court repeatedly held that non-marital fathers could assert rights to their children. But the impact of these decisions is limited because they focus on the biological relationship between the parent and child. This article explores the constitutional implications of this exclusion, arguing that same-sex relationships will not truly be treated equally until LGBT people can freely choose to marry (or not) without fear of losing their children if they decline.

     

    Disaggregating Title IX

    Emily Suski, South Carolina

    This article explores the stark differences between Title IX policies and procedures at the K-12 level and the college and university level. Despite the significant disparities in specificity and process, the courts treat all Title IX claims the same. This article critiques this treatment in the context of the Title IX deliberate indifference standard. It proposes doctrinal and policy changes to remedy the disparity focused on disaggregating the treatment of Title IX claims in the K-12 context and the college and university context.


     

Session Speakers
Brooklyn Law School
Works-in-Progress Presenter

University of South Carolina School of Law
Works-in-Progress Presenter

Session Fees

Fees information is not available at this time.