Ohio Supreme Court Denies Parental Rights in Same-Sex Custody Case
The state’s highest court ruled against Carmen Edmonds in a custody dispute involving three children born during her 12-year relationship with Priya Shahani.
COLUMBUS, OHIO — The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week that a woman does not have parenting rights to children born to her same-sex partner under state law, rejecting arguments about whether the couple would have married if legally permitted.
The state’s highest court decided against Carmen Edmonds, who sought parental rights and shared custody of three children born during her 12-year relationship with Priya Shahani. The court determined that an appellate court had used incorrect logic when considering what rights would have existed if the couple had been married.
The case centered on a relationship between Shahani and Edmonds that lasted more than a decade, during which they discussed marriage and Edmonds proposed. Edmonds’ attorneys argued that a trip to Boston could have led to a wedding, but the journey occurred before the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Legal Marriage Not Possible Under Ohio Law
Because the Boston trip happened before same-sex marriage became legal, Ohio would not have recognized such a union at that time. Common-law marriage also was not an option, since Ohio does not legally recognize common-law marriages that occurred after 1991.
Despite never legally marrying, Shahani and Edmonds entered into a shared custody agreement after ending their relationship. The three children born during their time together initially had hyphenated names reflecting both women, but Shahani later chose to remove the hyphenation.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case one year ago, with attorneys debating whether a “would-have-been-married” test should determine parental rights. In juvenile court, Edmonds had argued that Ohio parentage laws were “deficient and lagging” regarding same-sex parents, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of same-sex marriage.
A magistrate in juvenile court initially denied Edmonds’ request to be named a legal parent for the three children and for shared custody of two of them. However, the magistrate also denied Shahani’s request to terminate the shared custody agreement for the third child and awarded Edmonds “companionship time.”
Implications for Same-Sex Parental Rights
The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant ruling on parental rights for same-sex couples in Ohio, particularly those who had relationships before marriage equality became law. The court’s rejection of the “would-have-been-married” standard suggests that Ohio law requires actual legal marriage or adoption for parental recognition in same-sex relationships.
The case highlights ongoing legal complexities facing same-sex couples who had children before marriage became available to them, and the challenges they face in establishing parental rights under traditional state laws that were written before marriage equality.
