A custody battle between a famous skier and his former girlfriend has opened up a national discussion on respective paternal and maternal rights. In 2012, the Olympic skier Bode Miller, 36, had a brief relationship with a 27-year-old former Marine and firefighter, Sara McKenna. They dated for just a few months after they had met through an online dating service, when McKenna discovered that she was pregnant with Miller’s child. When she informed him she was going to an ultrasound appointment in June, Miller claimed that he didn’t want to be involved, and that she had made the decision to keep the baby against his wishes. She was living in California at the time of conception, but was considering a move to New York to attend Columbia University on GI Bill benefits, a possibility of which she informed Miller in October.
McKenna went ahead and moved to New York City when 7 months pregnant. In the meantime, Miller had gotten married, to a beach volleyball player named Morgan Beck, in October. In November, Miller began to seek custody proceedings. So, after the baby was born this February, McKenna went to a New York Family Court to seek custody of her child, Samuel Nathaniel Bode Miller-McKenna. (I will refer to the child as Sam, as that is the first name recorded on the birth certificate, despite the fact that Miller calls his son Nate) The Family Court determined that, despite the child being born in New York, which would normally establish that Court’s jurisdiction, the case should be dealt with in California.
The New York court claimed that McKenna’s choice to move from California to New York while pregnant was “unjustifiable conduct,” that she committed “appropriation of the child while in utero” and that it was “reprehensible.” Then, the California court gave full custody to Miller.
So, this November, McKenna brought the case back to New York, where an appeals judge ruled that McKenna’s rights were violated. They stated, “putative fathers have neither the right nor the ability to restrict a pregnant woman from her constitutionally protected liberty.” And on Monday, she received temporary custody of her son again, at least until the next hearing takes place on December 9th.
There are so many things wrong here, I barely know where to begin. Let’s start with the clear blurred lines that New York Family Court created in the distinction between fetus and child. It is illegal to bring a child across state lines if it violates a custody agreement or something of that nature. But she didn’t do that, she, as an autonomous adult who also happened to be pregnant, moved. These blurred lines are concerning in a time where the rights of a mother versus her unborn baby can be tricky at best. A University of Florida law professor, Lee-Ford Tritt, noted, “I’ve never heard of a restriction on a pregnant woman telling her that she can’t move to another state.”
This case is also upsetting in regards to what it could mean for the child. At this point, a child under the age of one has already been bounced from his mother to his father back to his mother again. It is entirely possible that there will be more moving between the two as the hearings progress. For the good of Sam, (or Nate), this case needs to be solved soon.
—
Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.
Featured image courtesy of [Voyager via Wikipedia]