In my reading of the case, available at http://www5.law.com/nj/cases/vc.htm , it seems that the basis of the ruling was that the non-biological parent in the breaking-up unmarried (of course) lesbian couple was a “psychological parent” of the children at issue, and that she was therefore had legal rights with regard to the children.
The court applied the test set forth by a Wisconsin court in determining who would qualify as a “psychological parent”, finding:
[quote]
The most thoughtful and inclusive definition of de facto parenthood is the test enunciated in Custody of H.S.H.-K., 533 N.W.2d 419, 421 (Wis. 1995), and adopted by the Appellate Division majority here. It addresses the main fears and concerns both legislatures and courts have advanced when addressing the notion of psychological parenthood. Under that test,
[t]o demonstrate the existence of the petitioner’s parent-like relationship with the child, the petitioner must prove four elements: (1) that the biological or adoptive parent consented to, and fostered, the petitioner’s formation and establishment of a parent-like relationship with the child; (2) that the petitioner and the child lived together in the same household; (3) that the petitioner assumed the obligations of parenthood by taking significant responsibility for the child’s care, education and development, including contributing towards the child’s support, without expectation of financial compensation [a petitioner’s contribution to a child’s support need not be monetary]; and (4) that the petitioner has been in a parental role for a length of time sufficient to have established with the child a bonded, dependent relationship parental in nature.
[quote]
The court held that the non-biological parent had met this test, and awarded her custody.
I would not say that this case is really in the line of cases leading directly to gay marriage. Rather, it is part of a line of cases recognizing that there are intermediate personal relationships, whether the participants are gay or straight, between marriage and being totally single. Other jurisdictions recognizing de facto relationships are mentioned in this thread.
The Canadian case www.droit.umontreal.ca/doc/csc-scc/en/pub/1999/vol2/html/1999scr2_0003.html mentioned in Cecil’s column on Gay Marriage is another that I would put in that category. In the Canadian case, the court found applicable to gay couples that the Canadian law that provided that unmarried couples who were cohabitating for a sufficient period could apply for support payments if the relationship broke up.
I think that these cases are reacting to the great diversity of human relationships out there, and trying to protect the interests of children or partners that have become economically dependent where a legal marriage is absent. The fact that some of the unmarried couples are gay is almost (but not entirely) incidential. I think the vast majority of the situations to which these developing rules will apply will invlove hetrosexual unmarried couples.
In short, the New Jersey case, and other similar ones around the world, are leading toward a recognition of intermediate de facto relationships, applicable to gays and straights, rather than to gay marriages, with all the right and obligations of straight marriages.
