WASHINGTON (AP) – For the second time, the Supreme Court on May 22 shied away from getting involved in a child custody fight between a San Diego woman and her former partner.

The birth mother, known as Sharon S., is trying to prevent her former partner from adopting one of the two children the women were raising together.

Sharon S. and her partner Annette F. separated after an incident of domestic violence that Sharon blames on Annette.

The California Supreme Court rejected the attempt by Sharon to prevent the adoption, which she consented to by signing an adoption petition in August 1999. The following July, with the lengthy adoption process still pending, Annette struck Sharon in the face, injuring her, it was asserted in the case. This prompted Sharon to request dismissal of the adoption petition.

The U.S. Supreme Court had declined the case in March 2004 without comment. Sharon argued that her constitutional rights would be violated if an unrelated person were allowed to adopt her child over her objections.

In a response to Sharon’s latest petition for U.S. Supreme Court review, lawyers for Annette said that Sharon’s main argument is identical to the one made in her last petition.

“In California, adoptions are founded on the consent of birth parents. … Sharon consented,” Annette’s lawyers stated.

The case is Sharon S. v. Annette F., 05-1313.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not block a lesbian from seeking parental rights to a child she helped raise with her longtime partner, Page Britain, in the case Britain v. Carvin, 05-974. The court had been asked to review a ruling of Washington state’s highest court that said Sue Ellen “Mian” Carvin could pursue ties to the girl as a “de facto parent.” Justices declined to take up the case.

Carvin and her lawyers said they were pleased that the justices did not disturb last fall’s Washington state court ruling, which said even though Carvin was not the girl’s natural or adoptive mother, she may have been a “de facto parent.” That is someone who, though not legally recognized, functions as a child’s actual parent.

“Symbolically it is definitely an important decision, acknowledging that families are changing,” said Nancy Sapiro, a senior attorney with the Northwest Women’s Law Center and one of Carvin’s lawyers.

Carvin said in a statement that she was “thrilled that the United States Supreme Court decided not to review this case and that the Washington State Supreme Court decision will stand.”

Despite her court victory, the case could soon end.

Kristen Waggoner of Seattle, one of the lawyers for Britain, said the two sides have reached an agreement that could be final in a few weeks. She refused to disclose the details.

Carvin’s attorneys said there was no final settlement.

Eighteen states recognize “de facto parents” over the objections of fit biological parents, according to Britain’s lawyers.

“This is becoming a huge can of worms when courts do not follow the more conventional lines of parental rights,” Lorence said.

Nancy Polikoff, who teaches family law at American University, said: “As lesbian and gay couples more frequently raise children together, breakups of those families are more likely to happen and there will be more disputes. Courts will have to deal with it.”