August 21, 2011

The Law Looks Differently at Mothers and Fathers

What defines a parent? For some, parents are the people to whom you are born. Others define parents as those who raise and care for you as you grow. According to Merriam-Webster.com, both definitions are correct, (1) but what about the legal definition of parent? That’s a question the New Jersey Supreme Court recently agreed to review.

The case involves a woman seeking to be identified as the legal mother of a child born to her husband and a surrogate without having to file for adoption. An appeals court previously heard the case and cited the New Jersey Parentage Act, which states that a woman is automatically granted parental rights only to a child she either carries through pregnancy or with whom she shares DNA. In this case, the husband’s sperm was used to fertilize an anonymous donor’s egg which was then implanted into a surrogate mother, leaving the wife no physical tie to the child. (2)

Prior to the child’s birth, a Camden County Superior Court Judge granted the couple’s request to be named as parents on the child’s birth certificate. The surrogate mother relinquished her parental rights three days after giving birth, the time period specified by law. All seemingly went smoothly until the Bureau of Vital Statistics questioned the wife’s parental claim. Since she did not carry the baby in pregnancy nor share DNA with the child, the Bureau claimed she needed to file for adoption as a stepparent before gaining her parental rights. (2)

This view highlights the difference in the way men and women are considered under the law. In the strictest sense of the word, parent legally “refers only to a mother or father who is related to the child by blood.” (3) However, in light of various infertility remedies, men are normally presumed to be the father to any child born to their wives during their marriage, even if the child was conceived through artificial insemination with donor sperm. This contrasts to criteria used to determine a mother’s parental rights. (2)

The Appellate Division explained the Parentage Act is based on “reproductive and biological differences” between men and women and the law affords extra protection for birth mothers. Arguments in favor of the couple in this case, however, point out that the adoption process allows for a period of time in which only one parent is legally responsible for the child. (2)

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parent
(2) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202508353619&hubtype=MAIN%20PAGE&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(3) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parent+and+Child


Bookmark and Share

August 5, 2011

Court Says GPS Devices Can Be Used to Track Unfaithful Spouses

For most people, a global positioning system -- better known as a GPS -- is a useful tool that can help keep them from getting lost, navigate detours, or find the quickest route between two points. These devices can also be used to track the movements of the vehicle in which it is installed. What if the device was installed without the knowledge of the vehicle’s operator? Would that constitute an invasion of privacy? Not necessarily according to New Jersey courts.

This question came to light in connection with a recent Gloucester County divorce case. In this case, the wife suspected her husband of having an extra-marital affair. She hired a private investigator to confirm her suspicions. At some point, the investigator suggested the wife consider putting a GPS device in one of the vehicles the couple owned together. She followed that advice and information obtained through the use of that device led to the discovery of the husband in the company of another woman. The husband sued the investigator for violation of his right to privacy. (1)

A New Jersey court found in favor of the defendants and that decision was upheld by the Appeals Court just last month. In hearing the case, the court found that there was no evidence that the device tracked the husband into secluded or private areas. (2) The husband’s vehicle was tracked on public roads and was in plain sight of public view. As such, the court ruled, there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, there was no invasion of privacy and no rights were violated. (1)

When its next term begins in October, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether or not GPS devices can be used by law enforcement officials without the aid of a warrant. In the meantime, this court decision opens the door for law enforcement agencies in New Jersey to use such technology not only for catching unfaithful spouses in the act, but also in child custody and insurance fraud cases. (3)

(1) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202500685523&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(2) http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/nj-court-rules-on-gps-tracking-in-divorce-case/492aa7eb5f64447c8c93e49bd21a64a9
(3) http://homelandsecuritynewswire.net/divorce-leads-approval-gps-tracking-new-jersey


Bookmark and Share