## Facts

- Two women residing in New York began a relationship, lived together, and jointly raised two children born to one partner through artificial insemination.
- The parties obtained a marriage license and later married in Ontario, Canada, because New York did not then issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
- The first child was born shortly before the marriage; the second child was born during the marriage; the nonbiological spouse attended both births and participated in parenting from birth.
- The nonbiological spouse paid for at least one insemination procedure, provided health insurance coverage for the family, and the parties arranged finances and estate planning consistent with a family unit.
- The biological mother did not permit the spouse to adopt either child, but both children used the spouse’s surname and called her “mom.”
- After the relationship ended, the spouse filed for divorce in New York and sought determinations regarding custody/visitation and child support.
- The biological mother moved to dismiss the divorce action, arguing the marriage was void under New York law; the spouse opposed dismissal and sought recognition of parental rights and responsibilities.

## Issues

1. Whether New York recognizes a same-sex marriage validly celebrated in a foreign jurisdiction for purposes of maintaining a divorce action when New York did not then authorize same-sex marriage licenses.
2. If the marriage is recognized, whether the nonbiological spouse’s custodial claims and support obligations concerning the children may be adjudicated based on marital status and equitable estoppel.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss and recognized the parties’ Ontario marriage as valid in New York for purposes of divorce.
- The court held that New York’s general rule recognizes marriages valid where celebrated unless barred by a specific statute or a strong, fundamental public policy.
- The court rejected reliance on New York’s then-existing marriage-licensing limitations as a basis to refuse recognition of a foreign marriage.
- The court concluded that, given the recognized marriage and the parties’ conduct in creating and presenting a parent-child relationship, issues of custody/visitation and child support could proceed and required further adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- New York generally recognizes a marriage valid where celebrated unless (1) prohibited by positive law or (2) contrary to a strong, fundamental public policy.
- A decision holding that New York law did not authorize issuing same-sex marriage licenses does not, by itself, establish a rule refusing recognition of valid foreign same-sex marriages.
- Equitable estoppel may prevent a party from denying parental-type obligations where that party fostered and benefited from a parent-child relationship and denial would harm the children’s interests.
- In determining custodial access and support in this setting, the court may consider the parties’ marital status, their shared intent and conduct regarding parenting, and the children’s reliance on the relationship.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a same-sex marriage validly celebrated in Canada as valid in New York for purposes of divorce and permitted litigation of custody/visitation and support, relying on New York’s marriage-recognition rule and equitable estoppel principles tied to the children’s welfare and the family structure the parties created.


Beth R. v. Donna M., 853 N.Y.S.2d 501 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)