LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Last Tuesday, the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments in a case about parental rights concerning a Kalamazoo County same-sex couple whose relationship has ended. The justices will now consider the case and render a decision this summer.

MORE NEWS: Know Your Rights? Saline Immigration Panel Loaded With Anti-ICE Sources.

Carrie Pueblo is seeking seeking joint legal and physical custody of a male child, John Paul, who was born to her ex-partner, Rachel Haas, via in-vitro fertilization in November of 2008. The couple had agreed to conceive a child this way and chose Haas to be the one to carry the child.

The committed couple had a civil commitment ceremony in 2007 because the laws did not allow them to legally marry. In court papers filed by Pueblo’s attorneys, it says that for all intents and purposes “the parties were equitably, or de facto, married; it was the parties’ intent to be and portray themselves as a wedded couple. The parties wore wedding bands, lived together, paid bills together, and – most importantly – chose together to become pregnant via in-vitro fertilization and rear that child in the course of their equitable, de facto marriage.”

The court filing went on to say, “Both parties entered into the contract with the IVF clinic. Ms. Pueblo paid for the IVF procedure on her Discover credit card. The successful IVF procedure occurred in approximately December of 2007. The parties entered into an agreement to conceive and raise their child with attendant parental rights and responsibilities. The parties/parents enjoyed prenatal visits together, the parties picked out a name for their child, together they obtained all things baby, and they even indulged in a 4D ultrasound.”

John Paul Haas-Pueblo (“JPHP”) was born on November 2, 2008. Ms. Pueblo was present for the labor and JPHP’s birth and in a personal document provided to the court, Haas specifically identifies Carrie Pueblo as JPHP’s “father.”

The court filing says, “Throughout and after the parties’ partnership, the parties shared parental responsibilities and duties equally. In 2014, the parties ended their life-long partnership, but continued to informally share custody and parenting of JPHP.”

The court filing goes on to say, “On or about February 20, 2016, tragically, JPHP suffered a stroke. Ms. Pueblo continued to assist in the child rearing of JPHP including, but not limited to, being JPHP’s putative father; providing love, care, affection, and guidance to JPHP; bonding with JPHP; providing food, clothing, housing, transportation, and other necessities for daily living; providing financial support for JPHP; attending JPHP’s healthcare appointments; making medical decisions with Haas regarding JPHP’s care; and more.

MORE NEWS: Consultant or Chairman? Dave Woodward’s Two Hats Draw Scrutiny.

Ms. Pueblo participated in the care and rearing of JPHP until Haas prevented her from doing so. In March of 2017, shortly after the St. Patrick’s Day holiday, Haas contacted Ms. Pueblo. During that contact, Haas aggressively, disrespectfully, and inappropriately demanded that Ms. Pueblo have no future contact with JPHP.”

In 2020, Haas initiated the court proceedings in order to share custody with JPHP.

The relationship between Pueblo and Haas had ended before the 2015 United States Supreme Court held in Obergefell v Hodges that Michigan’s law barring marriage by same-sex couples was unconstitutional.

In Haas’ answer to the lawsuit, she said the couple terminated their relationship in 2012, not 2014 and that they were not “equitably married” or de facto married. Other statements included the fact that Haas is the biological mother, the couple was not married, Pueblo did not adopt the child and Pueblo is not identified as a parent on the minor child’s birth certificate.

ACLU attorney Miriam Aukerman said in a court filing concerning the case, “The children of same-sex couples should be able to maintain their relationships with their parents regardless of whether the parents remain together.”

Aukerman goes on to say, “Custody and parenting time decisions for the children of same-sex couples should be made based on the best interests of the child, just as they are for the children of different-sex couples.”

In the original court filing, Haas, asserts that Pueblo lacks standing to seek custody of the child under the Child Custody Act of 1970 (CCA) because she has neither a biological nor adoptive relationship with the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed this in an unpublished opinion.

That decision was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court where they will decide if the equitable parent doctrine should be extended to provide standing to persons such as the plaintiff (Pueblo), who, at the time of the parties’ same-sex relationship, was not permitted by Michigan law to legally marry the defendant, and if so, what the parameters of that extension should be.

Reh Starks, Pueblo’s attorney, told the Michigan Supreme Court, ”Unfortunately Michigan law has not had the opportunity to keep up with the modern family style, with the modern family dynamics, with the modern family composition.”

George Perrett, Haas’ attorney, wants the court to stay out of the argument and let the state Legislature to change the law if they think it’s appropriate.

Perrett said, ”We need a comprehensive approach to this, not a piecemeal approach.”

The court’s decision is expected to set new legal precedent for same-sex couples and they have until July 31st to issue their opinion on the case.