The legal recognition of alternative "families" in today's world continues unabated with a Manhattan judge ruling that two people who are not romantically involved and don't even live together can adopt a child.

According to the New York Daily News, the couple, known only as LEL and KAL, have been close friends since 2000. KAL wanted to become a mother and LEL offered to be her sperm donor, but when she couldn't conceive, they decided to adopt a child instead.

In 2011, the two traveled together to Ethiopia to adopt a little girl, known only as G, but because they weren't married, only KAL was permitted to serve as the adoptive parent.

However, when they returned to the U.S., they petitioned Manhattan Surrogate's Court to have LEL named as the second legal parent even though the couple is not romantically involved and does not live together. LEL claimed that by making him a legal second parent, G would have better health care and school options and a more secure future.

In what is being called a "landmark ruling", Judge Rita Mella agreed.

She based her decision on a 2010 state statute that allows "intimate partners" to adopt, noting that the phrase can also mean a close, long-term relationship such as what KAL and LEL share.

The judge also relied on the findings of a social worker who was familiar with the family and who determined that “even though their relationship is not based on what many consider a traditional family, they exhibit a love and respect for one another and clearly cherish the family they have created.”

Court papers reveal that G lives part of the month at LEL's home in Brooklyn and the rest of the month with KAL in her Manhattan apartment. They also spend time together as a "family" and even travel to visit one another's relatives.

Judge Mella claims G "transitions easily and smoothly between her two homes" and has good relationships with both LEL and KAL.

The case proves that the state's view of the family has become utterly distorted from what it was just 20 years ago, and has become far too unconcerned about the welfare of children. To base this decision on the fact that a toddler, who doesn't know any better, appears happy in such a family arrangement is beyond the pale. Is anyone really thinking about this child's future? Have they made arrangements for what will happen to her if the two friends have a falling out? What if they meet other people and decide to get married? Who gets the child?

And what explanation of this bizarre alternative living arrangement do they plan to give G when she's old enough to understand? Can they tell her they did this because they loved her so much, or because Mommy was dead set on having a child, no matter what, and she just happened to be available? And what impact will all of this have on G's emotional well-being and self-esteem, especially when she enters those fragile teen years?

These new family arrangements are nothing more than outright experimentation on the lives of children. We are one of the most educated societies on earth and yet these reckless rulings are establishing alternative families in spite of mountains of evidence that children fare best when raised by a married man and woman in an intact home. It might not be politically correct, but it works!

May God help these children and all those who are much too willing to throw them under the bus just to satisfy their own selfish whims.

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com