Et Satan conduit le bal. Pray the Rosary for Hellzapoppin! The family that prays together stays together. And America has forgotten this wisdom.
By Steve Weinstein
By Devon Maloney
By Tessa Stuart
By Alison Flowers
By Albert Samaha
By Jesse Jarnow
By Eric Tsetsi
By Raillan Brooks
She left behind a baby boy, an estranged lover, and a custody case that would challenge progressive New York
Sporn made no appearance in the photos. He did not speak at the service, and he was not asked to write down his memories of Leutner for the special commemorative newsletter the club published in February.
"I feel like the world is against me," he says. "I'm like the witch in the Salem Witch Trials."
Both Sporn and Sylvester petitioned for custody of Lincoln. Sylvester filed in family court, where custody cases are considered private under New York law. Sporn, at the advice of his lawyers, filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court, where records are public.
"I am begging this court to assist me in piecing together the shattered pieces of my heart," he wrote in his petition.
Much of the coverage delved into the social implications of Lincoln's guardianship. Similar unconventional custody cases have been popping up with increasing frequency. In Texas, a judge is considering whether a woman who gave birth to twins using donor eggs can legally claim to be their mother after the man, a gay friend who donated the sperm, sued for custody. In Massachusetts, a court recently ordered a man to pay child support for twin girls born using donor sperm and eggs—even though he was estranged from his wife at the time of conception.
"Gay rights are moving forward; single women now account for 41 percent of all births," wrote New York Times columnist Ginia Bellafante. "Americans build caring families with lovers, friends and neighbors; from one-night stands and anonymous providers of genetic material. And yet, even in a place as progressive as New York, the legal system has been slow to synchronize to these altered realities."
In some form or another 35 states have attempted to address the issue of parental rights and in vitro fertilization. Most laws aim to allocate parental rights to intending parents, rather than sperm donors, egg donors, or surrogate mothers, says Naomi Cahn, a professor at George Washington University who specializes in reproductive law. For the most part, this prevents a donor or surrogate from making a claim on the child. Few states have addressed the rights of unmarried parents like Sporn.
"We need to decide when someone who has functioned as a parent is entitled to be recognized as a legal parent," Cahn says.
Sporn and Sylvester, overwhelmed by the media frenzy, both petitioned the court to have the case sealed. (Though Sporn agreed to share memories of Leutner and Lincoln, he declined to discuss the custody proceedings with the Voice.)
"The future of a child, not yet eight months old, hangs in the balance of this case," wrote Sporn's lawyers. "Lincoln deserves to live his life without being forever subject to Internet and other publications which reveal intimate details about his mother and himself. If this case is allowed to be publicized, he will spend the rest of his life as the subject of 'Google' searches, insensitive inquires as to his background and scrutiny by strangers. It cannot be that he should be bound to such a life."
Justice Laura Drager, who oversaw the custody proceeding in Manhattan Supreme Court, agreed.
After a social worker inspected Sporn's and Sylvester's homes in January, Drager found both living situations "to be appropriate for Lincoln."
"I believe it would be in the best interest of the child to have this matter resolved as soon as possible," Drager said. But she ruled that "the child will remain in the care of social services pending the outcome of the legal battle."
For six months, while Lincoln was in foster care, Sporn got to visit him for a couple hours every three days. "Things are so accelerated during the first year of life," Sporn lamented. "Every three days Lincoln is different."
He watched wistfully as the baby bonded with his foster parents. When he talked about his life with Lincoln "when all this is over," he considered plans to stay in New York so Lincoln could maintain a relationship with his foster parents. But as the months dragged on without resolution, the optimism drained from his voice.
"I may shoot myself before it's over," he said.
In June, Drager announced her decision to award custody of Lincoln to Sylvester.
Despite the fact that Sporn raised Lincoln as his own, he was fighting an uphill battle in family court, says Melissa Brisman, an attorney specializing in reproductive law. Because Sporn is not the biological father and he was not married to the child's mother, New York law views him as a stranger. In some states, fathers have successfully argued that they cared for the child. But in New York, no one has ever won on that argument.
Sporn is in the process of appealing, but Brisman can't give odds for his success.
"To the best of my knowledge," she says, "there's never been a case quite like this."
Et Satan conduit le bal. Pray the Rosary for Hellzapoppin! The family that prays together stays together. And America has forgotten this wisdom.
INJUSTICE!!! Poor Mr Sporn has been through too much. I hope someone official grows a brain and gives him custody of his child immediately. Ridiculous situation.
It is remarkable that the issue of legal rights for unmarried couples,
which are pretty much non-existent in this inherently morally conservative society, is only given attention by the press and raised to
international status when the couple is white and rich. I think of how
many low and middle-income people this issue affects but which we don't read
about in the Village Voice, which further raises the issue of class and race. I suppose it's not glamorous to read about such ordinary couples struggling to survive in an increasingly gentrified inner city and who don't have the opportunity to make love to the sound of roaring lions during an African safari or vacation in Italy.
Why didn't Leutner put Sporn down on the birth certificate as the father? She had every right to do that, and if she had, the child would never have wound up with social services. I just don't understand that aspect. She was a lawyer, she surely knew Sporn would not have custodial rights in the event of her death. Why did her sister refuse to even tell Sporn that Leutner had died, and then fight him for custody? Something just seems off.
she was in the midst of a serious mental health crisis, was dealing with possible postpartum depression, had attempted suicide at least twice - and Sporn left her in the hospital and the baby with a nanny, while he left the country. i know it's hard dealing with someone with mental health issues, but as a mental health professional none of this should have been surprising to him, and Leutner and the baby were his responsibility - if he was the intended father figure for the child.
It seems Sporn did very little to intervene in Leutner's downward spiral. The fact that she moved her and the baby to another residence right before her death speaks volumes. I think the correct decision was made.
@MissBobWiley I wholeheartedly agree. But then this level of selfishness and arrogance and cluelessness and shortsightedness is typical of the average New York overachiever. The Village Voice has an agenda in propogating the fact that 41% of women now having children out of wedlock is actually a good thing. No, no it's not. It messes kids minds up and creates ridiculous, completely avoidable situations like this. But then again, the Village Voice's agenda has always been to mock anyone who isn't a little red book toting, unthinking, pompous, arrogant atheist who knows everything but who is actually a fairly superficial annoying stereotype of a type of liberal who hasn't been around since the 1940s in the West Village. I think there may be some credence here to some people saying behind Leutner's back saying she treated her kid like a toy. I also am kind of suspicious about the bipolar levels of volunteerism, Type-A aggressiveness and a need to fill every waking minute with doing something without what seems like a moment's peace or reflection by Leutner to be exceptionally troubling. I also think that a neuroscientist and psychiatrist like Sporn should have seen this coming by wanting to get a woman like this pregnant. Something also seems off the way their courtship went down. There was a reason she didn't have custody of her first child, Sporn should have seen this as well as a big red flag. But love is blind, I guess...
new york law is so messed up that even if on birth certificate it would not necessarily secure his parental rights if not yet married and adoption not complete. the baby has Sporn's name - does the mother's intent prior to illness not matter crtically? They were clearly a couple- this is very troubling.
Leutner was not acting reasonably so hard to know and one would imagine sister not involve prior suddently wanted the baby as it was all that remained of her sister- maybe she feels guilty? There is something off about what the friend was doing getting her out of hospital and then leaving her alone while keeping baby with her on New Years eve. The boy will some day know his father at least fought hard for him before he was exiled. There are rumors the friend was going lawyer shopping to try to then get custody of baby herself- even though she was a complete stranger.
Note you indicate what is "possible" but were not there. If someone is living with mental illness it will eventually leave the person exhausted and needing a break in order to continue the battle. Psychiatrists will sometimes refuse to continue to see patients who will not work with them in a therapeutic alliance or will be overwhelmed by the stress of managing a self destructive patient who they only see once a week or so- so imagine having that stress 24/7.
But the larger issue is even if you assume that Sporn should not have used her hospitalization as a chance to go away and recover, is that enough to ignore the intent of the parties to have a child together? It sounds like punishment more than what is right and best for the boy.
Clearly the couple went to an IVF clinic and would have had to sign paperwork that would clearly indicate that despite using a sperm donor that the intended father accepts the child as his own and his heir. If the earlier IVF cycles described in the article had succeeded then Sporn would have been the biological father and he would have not had a problem keeping his son despite the moralizing of judges or the public about a situation they were not present for. In this case an IVF clinic would "bridge" this issue by having the parents sign contractual language that they are the parents regardless of the biological "work around" of a sperm donor (who in this case Sporn chose per article). How different would it be if the mother had used an egg donor? Would you then still think it is the courts role to then decide who should get the baby because obligatory need for assistance in reproduction. In other states with less archaic laws then NY Sporn would have been the parent without question. The courts if they are involved should be guided by the intent of the parents at the time the baby was conceived.
Otherwise it is left to the the whim of a judge and the judge in question has a reputation for having disturbing anger control problems. In this case the intent of the parents was clear: to have a child biologically related to both of them and they worked together to this end-- if this is well documented then the "State" should not be intruding on their lives. A judge making a decision that is not based on intent of the parties is then a decision based on nothing but what they feel like doing using only the vague principle of best interest of the child. This may be in violation of the due process clause of the constitution which protects against vague laws. If this had been about Sporn using embryos after the mother's death then the contract they signed would be binding but in this case because there is a baby the intent of the parents is not thought by this judge to be binding or even guiding for the judge- this is odd from a common sense level putting aside the law.
In this case the child has lost now both his mother and the only father he ever knew and at 1 years old that is relevant already in terms of his attachment. He then is sent to strangers only for the reason that the baby shares 25% heredity with him? The boy would have grown up with a father who is well educated, has resources to bring him up, and where the mother of the child clearly intended him to live. It also takes the child away from the father who is clearly very attached to him and has been fighting for him-- what is the advantage of doing so. We do not know from the article whether the sister who does not appear in the story till after Leutner dies has the intellectual, emotional, and financial resources to do the best by the child.
I hope Sporn appeals this unusual case. The problem of mental illness and the intent to have the child biologically related to both parties should be of interest to the appeals court I would hope. More importantly, NY law should be fixed so this does not happen but given how messed up beyond all repair the NY legislature is this may not happen but lets hope
@richardwad2u1 Actually, if you read the article you will see that Leutner was supposed to be hospitalised at the time, which is exactly where someone who makes multiple attempts on their life should be.
What's unfortunate is that Leutner and her enabler friend, Myra DiDonato, managed to convince the hospital that Leutner was well enough to be discharged when she clearly was not. Unless you mange to have someone declared mentally incompetent, it's very hard to force anyone to do anything they don't want to, so Sporn wasn't exactly in a position to force Leutner to do anything with regards to treatment for her declining mental state.
And, speaking as a long time sufferer of mental illness, we can be remarkably stubborn when we decide we want to self destruct.
Saying Leutner's behaviour shortly before her suicide "speaks volumes" is flawed, because her actions were those of someone in the grips of severe mental illness. You do see the problem with giving her actions a particular significance, right? For all we know she wanted to leave because Sporn was trying to push her into treatment... there's plenty of scenarios that can be hypothesised here and I think that's really important to keep in mind.
what is most relevant and made clear is the consequences of mental illness on decision making. Someone with mental illness can decide to move or be homeless or to isolate from their friends and family- this only speaks volumes regarding the illness rather than being a moral judgment on others involved. In any event people with mental illness have to accept intervention and sadly often do not. Sad that you are so judgmental. Losing a child on top of managing mental illness and losing ones partner seems a bit much
@skram08 This is a sad example of what happens when mental illness meets up with parenthood. Even if a child is not biologically related to either parent he will grow up with at least one who is mentally ill. Whatever good qualities and intentions Leutner may have had, she wasn't clear enough in her mind to make the right decision.
The only place my genes are going is into my grave.
@23RSD, um, genius, the fact that he wanted to co-parent with someone he knew was mentally ill for quite some time - and put her through all that this entailed - brings his judgement into question quite a bit...perhaps not for you but for most functional, thinking individuals.
@10Merc @richardwad2u1 @23RSD And when satanic possession slowly starts, it is not recognized until after death. Pray the Rosary. Or remain defenseless. Your choice.