Judge Awards Tri-Custody of Child to Former Couple and Their ‘Polyamorous’ Lover

NEW YORK — A New York judge has awarded tri-custody to a former couple and their neighbor, who they entered into a “polyamorous” relationship with over a decade ago.

“Tri-custody is the logical evolution of the Court of Appeals decision in Brooke S.B., and the passage of the Marriage Equality Act and DRL [Domestic Relations Law] §10-a which permits same-sex couples to marry in New York,” Suffolk County Supreme Court Judge Patrick Leis III wrote.

According to reports, in 2001, Michael and Dawn Marano began as friends to neighbor Audria Garcia, who was living with her boyfriend at the time. But when Garcia split with her significant other, she moved in with the Maranos, where she began to engage in “intimate relations” with both of them.

In 2006, Garcia became pregnant with Michael Marano’s child—an agreement made between the three since Dawn Marano was infertile—and they all raised the boy together. However, in 2008, Dawn Marano left her husband to solely be in a relationship with Garcia.

The development prompted Michael Marano to file for custody of his son, and Garcia soon agreed to joint custody. However, Dawn Marano, who divorced her husband for Garcia, then also sued him “because she fears that without court-ordered visitation and shared custody, her ability to remain in [the boy’s] life would be solely dependent upon obtaining the consent of either Audria or [Michael].”

Michael Marano opposed his wife’s efforts to obtain joint custody of the child.

The matter went to trial, and the boy told the court that he has “two mommies,” and that he tells them apart as being the “mommy with the orange truck” and the “mommy with the gray truck.”

  • Connect with Christian News

On Wednesday, Judge Leis granted custody to all three, opining that it was in the child’s “best interests” to also keep Dawn Marano in his life.

“J.M. considers both plaintiff and Audria to be equal ‘mommies’ and that he would be devastated if he were not able to see plaintiff,” he wrote. “The interview with J.M. also clearly shows that he enjoys his present living situation and would not want it altered in any way.”

“J.M.’s best interests cry out for an assurance that he will be allowed a continued relationship with plaintiff,” Leis stated. “No one told these three people to create this unique relationship. Nor did anyone tell defendant to conceive a child with his wife’s best friend or to raise that child knowing two women as his mother.”

He said that granting tri-custody was the “logical evolution” after the state approved of same-sex “marriage” in 2011, as well as a 2016 ruling expanding custody rights for unmarried couples.

While the women state that they are pleased with the ruling, Michael Marano told the New York Post that he plans to appeal.

19th century statesman Daniel Webster, who held office both in the House and Senate, once said, “If the power of the gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Nidalap

    And society continues to break down…

    • Amos Moses

      child abuse …………

    • Chris

      Exactly. Now if it had been one man and two women that would have been a marriage like Solomon. Well, only if the guy added on a few hundred more women.

      • Chet

        Solomon was under Old Testament Law, we’re not. Further, you find no approved multi husband or multi wife relationship written in the New Testament. Remember the woman at the well… God allowed men to do such but it was never His will that man should have as many ladies as he so desired.

        • Chris

          “Solomon was under Old Testament Law, we’re not.”

          How does that stop it from being a biblical relationship?

          “Further, you find no approved multi husband or multi wife relationship written in the New Testament.”

          Ah, you mean the anonymous books written by men who never knew or even heard Jesus. You mean that New Testament?

          • Chet

            How is it that you and I linked up again on this board? Divine providence, perhaps? What, with myriad others posting. I think you and I have gone about as far as congenial communications can do. I’ll stick with Christ in my heart and die with my innumerable sins washed away in the precious blood of Jesus never to be remembered again… And you’ll do whatever you plan.

          • Chris

            So you’re not interested in the facts, your mind is made up. Got it. Thank you for your civility.

          • Chet

            Fact is, I know what a sad sack wicked life I led before Christ took control and I know I no longer desire such living. And when I sin today, the indwelling Holy Spirit serves to alert me to such and my need for simple confession and forsaking of such. Jesus has made all he difference in the world to me and I merely take Him at His Word. And thank you for your congeniality as well. Though we’ll likely never agree we can communicate without being disagreeable.

          • Chris

            “Though we’ll likely never agree we can communicate without being disagreeable.”

            Very true. I couldn’t agree more.

  • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

    How sad.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Systematic education to be immoral for lifetime. Laws are only lawless apart from the Judeo-Christian teachings.

  • InTheChurch

    Well, all three need to pay child support and all three need to be equally responsible. Stop fighting and take care of the child. But, this is the future of marriage and divorce.

    • Chris

      I fear you’re correct. The real shame is when a mother and father divorce [or even separate] and then use the children as weapons in their constant attempts to run each other down. In some cases the parents even make the children choose sides.

      • InTheChurch

        I was a CPS social worker for years, I would see this a lot. This is not good for the child. What I encourage the children to do, starting at age 10, seek a private meeting with the judge and give them their side of the story. Judges will side with the kids 95% of the time and the parents would have to follow.

  • Omnicopy

    As the days of Noah

    • Chris

      Well then you can relax. Noah didn’t exist and there was no universal flood.

      • Omnicopy

        Says who ? You? Glad your opinion means so much!

        • Chris

          Sex who? Well about every historian and geologist in the world. As to the impossibility of Noah’s flood go to youtube and watch two videos:
          1) Noah’s Flood Debunked.
          2) Noah’s Ark and the Cheetah.

          Both of those should explain why it’s impossible. So am I saying it was all a lie? No. It’s a myth – a story meant to contain deep truths which the writer felt couldn’t be told any other way. To treat myth as merely another story in history is to degrade it.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Poor child. Being gay is a choice.

    • Chris

      Poor you. Homosexuality is found in every single animal species on the planet. Did they ‘choose’ it too?

      • C_Alan_Nault

        Humans are animals?

        • Chris

          Yep. According to the definition of biologists humans are animals.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Not while I studied at Harvard. Where did you learn that?

          • Chris

            What did you study at Harvard? Humans have been considered to have met the definition for animal for over a hundred years.

            I learned the definition at Monash university when I attended.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            We have not referred to human as animals since maybe the 80’s as they do not share the cell molecular structure. As of 2013 we know that human DNA and animal DNA is not as singular as we once thought.

          • Chris

            “We have not referred to human as animals since maybe the 80’s as they do
            not share the cell molecular structure.”

            Garbage. I’ve already provided the modern biological definition of animal. We meet the definition therefore we are animals. But please show me your evidence that biology no longer defines humans as animals. And please no creationist sources.

            “As of 2013 we know that human
            DNA and animal DNA is not as singular as we once thought.” You mean like how we know that human and chimp DNA are so similar? You mean that knowledge?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Actually we are not similar in DNA. The breakthrough in DNA bionic rationing has proven that.

          • Chris

            Then you must inform the Smithsonian of this information since they seem to be under the delusion that our DNA is similar. As does Keith Miller who testified at the Dover trial. Perhaps you could enlighten them.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Old data. Proterious at it’s finest

          • Chris

            Prove it.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Your DNA as a human is “similar” to the DNA in a Redwood tree. Are you a tree?

          • Chris

            I am certainly related genetically to the plant. It’s a matter of degree. Primates are very closely related to us genetically speaking. trees far less so.

            But we were speaking of biological definitions. Animals are given a biological definition and we meet that definition.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            We do not. Current science does not teach this. Wake up it’s 2017 and not 1900’s

          • Chris

            You really have no idea what you’re talking about do you? You’re just trolling. Good one. You had me going there for a moment.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Not trolling. Just laying down some facts.

          • Chris

            Suuuuuure. 🙂

          • Chris

            From the Smithsonian “I’m a primate. You’re a primate. Everyone reading this blog is a
            primate. That’s not news. We hear it all he time: Humans are primates.
            But what does that really mean? What do we have in common with a baboon?
            Or a creepy aye-aye? Or even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee?

            These are simple questions to answer from a genetic perspective—humans share more DNA with lemurs, monkeys and apes than they do with other mammals.”

            It would seem the Smithsonian disagrees with you.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Haha…try again. Are all humans mammals? Are all animals mammals? Do humans have the same cell structure as monkeys or apes?

          • Chris

            Are all humans mammals? Yes.

            Are all animals mammals? No. Mammals are less than 1% of all animals. For instance, insects,birds, fish, and reptiles are all animals but not mammals.

            “Do humans have the same cell structure as monkeys or apes?”

            So basically, although there is a huge similarity with humans and other primates you’re going to point to the few percent differences and go look at that, see we can’t be primates.
            Sorry but the genetic similarity is taken overall. Try not to use the traditional creationist response next time. M’kay?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Humans are not animals. You are silly. You sound like you are 40 years old or older. Colleges offer science classes. You mind would explode if you knew modern science.

          • Chris

            Troll

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Not trolling.

          • Chris

            Suuuure you’re not. 🙂

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Are humans related to birds? This is hilarious.

          • Chris

            Sorry. Not reacting to the trollin. Good try though.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It was a simple question that is on every bio 201 exam.

          • Chris

            Sorry. Not reacting to the trollin. Good try though.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Simple bio 201. Keep up….you reptile

          • Chris

            Sorry. Not reacting to the trollin. Good try though.That’s the only reaction you’re getting to your trolling.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Take a science class. Also, those dinosaur sounds at the Smithsonian are fake as are the skin color and texture. We have no idea what they sounded like or looked like.

          • Chris

            Still not reactin to the trollin.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It seems that you are. Just a curious cat. Are you a cat. Did you not evolve????????HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAJHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

          • Chris

            If you take this as reacting then I won’t feed the troll anymore. See ya.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Are you now hibernating like a Ursus arctos ssp? You really are an animal….lol

          • C_Alan_Nault

            LOl….we do not teach evolution as fact….OMG are you for real?

          • Chris

            Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. But then you’re just trolling me. 🙂

          • C_Alan_Nault

            There is not a school in the USA that teaches evolution as a fact. Are you a moron? Jebus Christ you are dumb.

          • Chris

            See, you gave yourself away again. No fundie would refer to Jesus as Jebus.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Why?

          • Chris

            A fundie like you’re supposed to be and you don’t know why calling Jesus ‘Jebus’ would be disrespectful? Keep giving yourself away.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Try again. You animal…haha

          • Chris

            Sorry. Not reacting to the trollin. Good try though.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I hope that you enroll in a science program at a local college and learn the advances in science. I would just hate for you to think that humans are animals….lol

          • Chris

            Still not reactin. Plus your trolling is overdone. Once someone recognises you as a troll you really should move on.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Not trollin’! Enroll for a summer science class. You animal…lol

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I bet you think those sounds you hear dinosaurs make in the Smithsonian are real too..LOL

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Noun
            1.
            biologist – (biology) a scientist who studies living organisms

            That is the definition of biologist.

          • Chris

            Very funny. The dbiological definition of animal is “A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:
            (1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions)
            (2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
            (3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
            (4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
            (5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
            (6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment”

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Exactly. That is why we no longer classify human life with animal life.

          • Chris

            Evidence please. I’ve already provided the modern definition which would include humans. Please provide evidence that humans are no longer classified as animals.

  • Imporess Gigi

    What a croc of bull baloney. The wages of sin is death. In this case it’s death of a normal and healthy childhood for that kid. Shame on that judge for not adhering to righteousness regarding that child’s upbringing. What a mess.

  • Chet

    This, is a fine example of what the consequences of sin is all about…