Bode Miller Dispute Raises Serious Questions About Rights of Pregnant Women

            Bode Miller is well known as an Olympic skier, but like any normal person, he sought companionship. He found a woman online in California. Sara McKenna was the woman he met, and they dated for a brief while. During this time period, Sara became pregnant, but unfortunately the relationship with Bode failed. While she was pregnant, Sara, a veteran, was accepted to Columbia University in New York. There was a problem, however, as Bode wanted Sara to stay in California where he lived since she was pregnant. She left for New York anyways, and Bode filed an action in the New York courts alleging that Sara had absconded with the unborn child to seek a sympathetic court.

            The lower New York agreed, which allowed a California court to grant Bode custody over the parties’ unborn child. This allowed a California court to exercise jurisdiction over the case and grant custody to Bode. Sara appealed the order, and a five panel appeals court agreed, finding that the putative father (Bode) cannot restrict the liberty of a pregnant woman in such a manner. The case has been given back to the New York Family Court for further action, but the California Court has yet to cede jurisdiction to New York. While this case will continue to wind their way through both Court systems, the case raises significant questions about women’s liberty rights when they are pregnant.

           

            There are a number of cases that attempt to rule when a fetus becomes “viable” under the law, and such cases are most commonly in the abortion field and we will not go into them in this post. However, the viability of the fetus has taken an unexpected turn as highlighted by the Bode Miller case, in that Mr. Miller was able to get a Court to rule that the mother of his unborn child could not leave California for New York. This type of law can have a chilling effect on the ability of a pregnant woman to pursue her own liberty interests separate from the father’s. The Appeals Court’s decision to reverse the original ruling recognizes this potential effect, and eliminated it before it became law. The concern is that if such a ruling was upheld, it would effectively restrict the mother from leaving the father when she is pregnant. This has upset many women’s rights activists and they have provided assistance to Sara as she fights for her rights in New York. It is our hope that both parties can come to a mutual resolution for the sake of their child, but from a legal perspective this case could have a lot of potential ramifications for pregnant mothers.

            As this case continues to wind its way through both Courts, many family practitioners like Parnell & McKay will be keeping a keen eye on how the Court’s seek to rule on the Miller case. If you need help in the family law field, please contact Parnell & McKay today to put our experience and expertise to use.