Supreme Court: Same-Sex Couple Who Split Disagree on Parental Rights

Parental rights in a case involving two women in a same-sex relationship will be considered next week by the Supreme Court of Ohio. During the couple’s 12-year relationship, one of the women had three children using artificial insemination. The couple separated and are at odds over the parental rights of the partner who isn’t a biological parent the children.

Carmen Edmonds, who didn’t give birth to the children, points out that same-sex couples couldn’t marry under Ohio law during her relationship, nor could she and her partner have both been legal parents of the children. In 2015, after the couple split, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the benefits of marriage are constitutionally protected for all, including same-sex couples. Edmonds, and amicus briefs supporting her, contend that parental rights are a benefit of marriage. They argue parental rights were unconstitutionally denied to many Ohio families before 2015 and should be extended to them. Correcting the error would prioritize the best interests of children, Edmonds and the amici maintain.

The biological mother, Priya Shahani, argues that whether she and Edmonds would have married is irrelevant. She contends that giving Edmonds parental rights can only happen by allowing the recognition of common law marriages in Ohio. That’s not possible because Ohio has banned common law marriages since October 1991, Shahani argues.

Couple Relies on Artificial Insemination
Shahani and Edmonds decided that Shahani would be artificially inseminated. The couple chose an anonymous sperm donor with the same ethnicity as Edmonds. Shahani gave birth to L.E.S. in 2012 and twins E.S. and N.S. in 2014, and the children were given the last name of Edmonds-Shahani.

After the relationship ended in 2015, the separation agreement between the exes set child support and a schedule for parenting time. However, in 2018, Shahani asked the Hamilton County Juvenile Court to end their arrangement, claiming Edmonds’ involvement wasn’t in the children’s best interests. Edmonds submitted that she and Shahani became engaged early in their relationship and presented themselves as married to others throughout their relationship. Edmonds asserted she is a legal parent of the children. Shahani maintained that she wouldn’t have married Edmonds.

The juvenile court kept visitation in place for Edmonds, but also ruled she couldn’t be a legal parent under Ohio law. Both Shahani and Edmonds appealed the decisions to the First District Court of Appeals. The First District overruled the juvenile court regarding Edmonds’ parentage. The appeals court ordered the juvenile court to hold a hearing to determine whether the couple would have been married at the time the children were conceived if same-sex marriage hadn’t been prohibited by Ohio law.

Shahani appealed. The case, In re L.E.S., is one of four the Supreme Court will hear during oral arguments on April 22. On April 23, the Court will travel to Monroe County to hold arguments in three cases before high school students.

Biological Mother Argues Marriage-Based Laws Don’t Apply
Shahani contends that she and Edmonds were never married in any state, and couldn’t have a common law marriage in Ohio because it is prohibited. The common law marriage statute, R.C. 3105.12, explains that marriages in Ohio are recognized only if they are licensed and solemnized. Yet, Shahani asserts, the First District improperly created a judicial exception to the statute by indicating that same-sex relationships could be recognized as marriages.

Shahani also rejects the First District’s “would have been married” directive to the juvenile court. She argues the standard assumes everyone in a committed relationship endorses marriage and would choose to marry. Also, a decision to marry is only a plan, she maintains. She mentions that Julia Roberts called off her wedding to Keifer Sutherland three days prior, and NBA player Richard Jefferson cancelled his wedding while guests were arriving for the ceremony.

Shahani argues that analyzing whether two people would have married rewrites people’s pasts. She suggests it would also destabilize state law, asking whether couples who would have been married would have to file amended tax returns or whether one person’s health insurance company would have to cover the partner’s earlier medical bills.

Former Partner Contends That Constitutional Rights Should Be Extended
Edmonds counters that the barriers before Obergefell to same-sex marriage and related rights, such as parenting, violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. R.C. 3111.95 addresses parenting rights for husbands when non-spousal artificial insemination is used. The law, which applies to married couples, is unconstitutionally under-inclusive, she argues. The statute fails to protect same-sex couples who couldn’t marry until 2015, Edmonds maintains. She argues her parental rights were violated because they hinged on her ability to marry Shahani at a time when Ohio banned all same-sex marriages.

Edmonds agrees with the “would have been married” standard. If she can show that she and Shahani would have been married when the children were born if not for the ban on same-sex marriages in Ohio, she is entitled to be a legal parent of the three children, she contends.

She notes that the courts can either strike down laws that offend the constitutional rights of individuals or extend the protections to those who have been harmed. She maintains that parenting rights should be extended to those, like her, who have been aggrieved by past violations.

Watch Oral Arguments Online
Oral arguments begin each day at 9 a.m. They will be streamed live online at SupremeCourt.Ohio.gov and on the Ohio Channel, where they are archived.

Detailed case previews from the Office of Public Information are available by clicking on the case names throughout the article or in the list of cases in the sidebar.

Tuesday, April 22
Reopened Appeals
A man pled guilty in Medina County to 13 of 30 counts. The offender later asked to withdraw his plea and changed attorneys multiple times. In a second appeal, the appellate court overruled the offender’s claims but then allowed him to reopen the appeal to consider whether his earlier attorney on appeal was ineffective. The court rejected his arguments, concluding that he failed to directly address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The offender contends in State v. Clark that raising new legal arguments establishes the ineffectiveness of his prior attorney, who didn’t make the arguments. The prosecutor responds that appellate court rules require the offender to explicitly explain how his legal representation was deficient and how he was prejudiced by the deficient performance.

Property Maintenance
A riverfront property owner in Huron was cited by the city for violating laws on property maintenance and care. The city alleged that the property had no water for nearly 12 years; the house and other structures were deteriorating; and there was debris strewn throughout the property. In Huron v. Kisil, the property owner argues the ordinances are unconstitutionally vague because they don’t explain what “clean,” “safe,” and “sanitary” prohibits. The city contends that no ordinary person would be confused about the property code violations.

Utility Refund
In 2019, AES Ohio, which provides electric utility service to the Dayton area, withdrew its electric security plan, which the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio had approved. When the plan was withdrawn, the commission reinstituted an electric security plan initially approved in 2008. The 2008 plan included a rate charge that the Ohio Office of the Consumers’ Counsel contends AES used to illegally collect $76 million annually from customers. In In re Dayton Power and Light, the Court will consider whether the charge is appropriate and, if not, if the commission can order AES to refund customers for the charge.

Wednesday, April 23
Stalking Conviction
In 2022, a Montgomery County man reacted to a 29-year-old woman’s Instagram posting. The two went to grade school together but were never friends and never talked. The man wrote, “Happy Birthday, baby girl. I love you.” A week later, he responded to another of her posts, writing, “Is this your house, boo?” About a month later, he showed up at her apartment unannounced and tried to turn the doorknob. She called the police, and he was arrested and convicted of stalking. In State v. Crawl, the man challenges his conviction, arguing his social media posts couldn’t be considered as part of a pattern of conduct required for a stalking charge because the posts didn’t cause the woman to be in fear or experience mental distress.

Impaired Driving
At an intersection in Lorain County where the traffic signal wasn’t working, Ohio State Highway Patrol troopers were directing traffic. As one driver turned through the intersection in the late afternoon, he struck one of the state troopers, causing serious injuries. The driver gave a urine sample and submitted to field sobriety tests. His urine sample showed a level of THC metabolites nearly 10 times higher than the limit allowed in state law. The driver in State v. Balmert acknowledged that he smoked over-the-counter “hemp” that morning and noted that he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, vertigo, and other health issues. He maintains that drug metabolites aren’t psychoactive and don’t cause impairment. The prosecutor counters that by driving with a prohibited amount of marijuana metabolites in his system, the driver’s accident was foreseeable.

Search Warrants
In 2020, a Columbus man used a fake name to arrange the sale of a laptop using the social media app Letgo. Instead of selling the computer, he allegedly robbed the buyer. The buyer provided the detective with details of the robbery. Through a subpoena, the detective received a single GPS data point from Letgo for a McDonald’s restaurant. Through other searches, the officer learned the McDonald’s was near the suspect’s apartment, and the man was arrested and charged with robbery. A trial court agreed with the suspect’s request to suppress the evidence gathered in the case. In State v. Diaw, the Court will consider whether a search warrant was required to collect the GPS location data from the app.