hunter of justice

Northern Ireland court hears arguments against discriminatory adoption law

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is arguing this week before the High Court in Belfast that the law barring adoptions by same-sex and other unmarried couples should be invalidated. From BBC:

The NI Human Rights Commission... claims the current arrangements [for adoptions] discriminate against unmarried and civil partnership couples and breach human rights. Opening the application for judicial review, Monye Anyadike-Danes QC said: "Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which provides a gateway for adoption through which only couples who are married may pass." The challenge has been backed by an unidentified lesbian woman and her partner who want to adopt a child together.

In a clear indication of its importance, the executive's chief legal adviser, Attorney General John Larkin QC, represented the respondent, the Department of Health...If the Human Rights Commission succeeds it would remove the adoption ban completely.

It is seeking to ensure everyone, irrespective of sexual orientation or marital status, has the opportunity to provide a loving and secure home, the court was told. Ms Anyadike-Danes told Mr Justice Treacy her client wanted to ensure "the pool of potentially suitable parents is as deep as possible". She stressed that the case was focused on the eligibility stage of the adoption process, rather than the later assessment stage.

"That is the right time to look at circumstances," the barrister said. "Not to exclude people with a blanket barrier without even knowing whether they have the qualities to offer a child a nurturing and loving and permanent home."

She argued that there was no justification for the alleged discrimination. "The current state of the law, we say, is not something that has been established to be in the best interest of the child," she said. "We consider the status quo, as it impacts on all unmarried couples, to be discriminatory."

The hearing... is expected to last for three days...

UPDATE 12/14/11 - The hearing has been adjourned until March to allow the parties to consider the impact of new evidence regarding the legislative intent behind the ban.

Catholic Bishops ratchet up fight against gay rights, birth control, abortion

True to their word, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has launched a new in-house advocacy group devoted to defending that faith's position on a trio of sexuality-related issues: gay rights, birth control and abortion. In a related move, several Catholic dioceses in Illinois announced that they would stop providing adoption services rather than serve same-sex couples on an equal basis.

From today's N Y Times:

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops opened a new front in their fight against abortion and same-sex marriage on Monday, recasting their opposition as a struggle for “religious liberty” against a government and a culture that are infringing on the church’s rights.

The bishops have expressed increasing exasperation as more states have legalized same-sex marriage, and the Justice Department has refused to go to bat for the Defense of Marriage Act, legislation that established the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the bishops conference, said in a news conference Monday at the bishops’ annual meeting in Baltimore. He added that “well-financed, well-oiled sectors” were trying “to push religion back into the sacristy.”...

... The bishops issue guidelines for Catholic voters every election season, a document known as “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” which is distributed in many parishes. But the bishops were informed at their meeting on Monday that a recent study commissioned by Fordham University in New York found that only 16 percent of Catholics had heard of the document, and only 3 percent had read it.

Nevertheless, the bishops remain a forceful political lobby, powerful enough to nearly derail the president’s health care overhaul two years ago over their concerns about financing for abortion. Last week, the White House, cognizant of the bishops’ increasing ire, invited Archbishop Dolan to a private meeting with President Obama, their second. Archbishop Dolan said they talked about the religious liberty issue, among others.

“I found the president of the United States to be very open to the sensitivities of the Catholic community,” Archbishop Dolan said in the news conference. “I left there feeling a bit more at peace about this issue than when I entered.”

Baltimore courts waive venue for Maryland's gay adoptive parents

This is surprising in a liberal jurisdiction like Maryland, but the Baltimore Sun reports that same-sex couples can be assured of a fair hearing if they seek to adopt children only by coming to Baltimore city courts:

...Baltimore has a recorded history of adoption by gay and lesbian couples that dates to 1996, when a written opinion on the matter was issued. In that case, Judge Kathleen O'Ferrall Friedman granted lesbian partners, who each had a child, parental rights over both children. She reasoned, in part, that adultery does not disqualify a person from adopting, so neither should a person's sexual orientation.

Two loving parents, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, were "consistent with the children's best interest," wrote Friedman, who retired in 2002. Her decision became the legal cornerstone for adoption by Maryland's gay residents, and the interpretation of that precedent has expanded to allow gay couples... to jointly adopt children who are not biologically related to either partner...

Since the late 1990s, at least one judge in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's and Calvert counties has granted adoptions to same-sex couples, according to [Mark] Scurti, who also teaches a course on sexual orientation and the law at the University of Maryland School of Law.

The list could be longer, he said, but researching adoption files is "almost next to impossible" because they are sealed. Often the only people who know the gender of the petitioners are judges and attorneys involved in the case.

But Baltimore has remained a more reliably gay-friendly venue. In other jurisdictions, even if one judge in a county has approved an adoption for a same-sex couple, the next couple might appear in front of a different judge who has the opposite opinion.

That happened in June 2000, when Montgomery County Circuit Judge Vincent E. Ferretti wrote an opinion denying a lesbian parental rights over her partner's natural child. It was his last written decision, he said in an interview, and after he filed the 18-page opinion he retired. Ferretti now lives in North Carolina...

...After he left the bench, the couple amended their petition and refiled it in Montgomery County. The amended case was assigned to Judge Paul A. McGuckian, who agreed with Ferretti: Maryland's law is silent on whether two unmarried people, regardless of sexual orientation, can adopt and, in this area of jurisprudence, law created from the bench cannot be a substitute for a statute.

In order to stop the couple filing an appeal — and possibly establishing a legal precedent that could prevent adoptions by same-sex couples — Baltimore City Circuit Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan reached out to the couple.

Come to Baltimore, he told the couple, and we will grant your adoption. Kaplan, the chief judge for Baltimore's Circuit Court at that time, had instituted a unique procedure — called waiver of venue — that made nonresidents eligible to file adoption cases in the city.

The week ahead: November 7, 2011

Tuesday November 8 - Los Angeles - UCLA Professor Mignon Moore, a member of the Williams Institute Faculty Advisory Committee, will discuss her new book, Invisible Families: Gay Identities, Relationships and Motherhood Among Black Women, at UCLA Law School Room 1357, 12:15 to 1:30 pm. 

Also November 8 - Election day, though not many races are happening in this off year. One to watch is in Iowa, where a take-over by Repubicans of a state senate seat now held by Dems could flip the chamber from Democratic to Republican control, which could allow a bill to proceed (and probably get signed by the Republican governor) that would put an initiative to amend the state's constitution to eliminate same-sex marriage on the 2012 ballot.

Thursday, November 10 - The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate and mark-up on S. 598, the bill that would repeal Section 3 of DoMA and substitute the following language: 

For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

Also November 10 - Washington, DC - The Williams Institute is hosting a panel discussion of Innovative Research on LGBT Couples and Families from 6 to 7:30 pm at 1608 Rhode Island Ave., NW. 

Two powerful new reports on lgbt families and youth

Two major reports came out today that have the potential to significantly influence policy debates in their respective, related areas.

A trio of organizations published All Children Matter: How Legal and Social Inequalities Hurt LGBT Families, which spells out in more than 100 pages (with more than 450 footnotes) the ways in which anti-gay policies impede three key needs of every child: stable, loving homes; economic security; and health and well-being. In each area, the report documents the problems, demonstrates the effects of discriminatory laws and policies, and provides recommendations. The Child Welfare League of America wrote the foreword and endorsed the report, which was co-authored by the Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and the Center for American Progress. 

The second publication is from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:  Peer to Peer Violence and Bullying: Examining the Federal Response. As a threshold matter, its very issuance signals that the Commission is alive again, after having been starved and sidelined by years of Republican administrations. This  report, also lengthy and well-documented, includes specific findings and recommendations:

The Commission, by majority vote, concluded  that  bullying and harassment, including bullying and harassment based on sex, race, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or religion, are  harmful to American youth, and developed findings and recommendations to address the problem, including the following recommendations:

 The U.S. Departments of Education and Justice should track their complaints/inquiries regarding sexual harassment or gender-based harassment by creating a category that explicitly encompasses LGBT youth.

 The U.S. Departments of Education and Justice should track complaints that they receive regarding harassment based solely on sexual orientation that are closed for lack of jurisdiction.

 The U.S. Department of Education should track complaints that it receives regarding harassment based solely on religion that are closed for lack of jurisdiction.

 The U.S. Department of Education should consider issuing a new Dear Colleague Letter regarding the First Amendment implications of anti-bullying policies. The new Letter should provide concrete examples to clarify the guidance that the Department of Education previously provided [on] July 28, 2003.

Two really impressive contributions. 

The week ahead: October 24, 2011

Tuesday October 25 - "All Children Matter," an event at which LGBT, allied, and child welfare-focused organizations will release the first comprehensive report documenting the experiences of the 2 million children with LGBT parents and how they are hurt and could be helped by the legal system. Live webcast 10 am to 12 noon.

Thursday October 27 - The final set of briefs from the plaintiffs is due in Gill v. OPM, pending in the First Circuit. 

Also October 27 - Hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction in PFLAG v. Camdenton School District, in which the ACLU is challenging the use of filtering software that blocks all LGBT-support sites, pending before U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Friday October 28 - Deadline for submissions to the LGBTQ Policy Journal of the Harvard Kennedy School.

Disappointing denial of cert in Adar v. Smith

The Supreme Court's denial of review in Adar v. Smith leaves standing an extremely disturbing precedent. The denial sends a signal that a state can evade granting to certain out-of-state adoption orders the Full Faith and Credit protection that adoptions have long received. The Fifth Circuit en banc decision that was left in place may well have harsh consequences for lgbt and other unmarried parents. (Because the state policy is against adoption by all unmarried parents, the issue of whether the state could refuse to recognize a two-parent adoption for a gay couple who had married is still presumably open.)

For gay couples considering adoption, the undisturbed Court of Appeals decision eliminates Louisiana from the possible birth locations of children whom gay couples can adopt (thus probably consigning those children to foster care). And although this is not the factual context in Adar, I would bet that gay parents will think twice about moving to any state that follows this policy, despite, for example, job opportunities there.  Perhaps that was precisely what Louisiana officials were thinking. The risk, of course, is that other states will follow suit.

SCOTUSblog summary:

...[T]he issue was whether [the gay parents] have a right to equal treatment with married non-gay couples in having both parents’ names listed on the child’s birth certificate.  The case also was considered an important case on the meaning of the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, because of the sharply narrow scope given to that Clause by the Fifth Circuit Court.  Louisiana’s records registrar refused to put both parents’ names on the birth record for their adopted son, relying on a state policy that forbids unmarried couples to jointly adopt a child.

The adopting couple, now living in California, had become parents of a Louisiana-born boy who had been put up for adoption.  The adoption was formalized in a court decree in New York State, and the parents sought a new birth certificate for the child in Louisiana.  When the request to have both parents named on the certificate was denied, the couple sued in federal court.  Their claim under the Full Faith and Credit Clause was flatly rejected in an 11-5 ruling by the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc.  It ruled that the Clause only imposes duties on state courts to respect other states’ official decrees, and thus did not apply to a Louisiana records official.  The Circuit, by a 9-7 vote, rejected the couples’ equal protection claim, saying that adoption was not a fundamental right and, moreover, Louisiana had a legitimate reason for refusing to allow unmarried couples to jointly adopt.

In the Supreme Court order denying review, there was no notation of any dissent among the Justices.

The week ahead: October 10, 2011

Monday October 10 - Deadline for workshop proposals for the Creating Change Conference, to be held January 27-29, 2012 in Baltimore.

Tuesday, October 11 - Supreme Court may announce whether it will grant cert in Adar v. Smith, the gay adoption case in which Louisiana officials refused to recognize an out-of-state two-parent adoption. Adar was on the Court's conference calendar last Friday. If the Justices reached a decision during conference on whether to accept the case, the announcement is likely to be made on Tuesday. If there was no decision at conference, the case will be re-listed for a future conference.

Also October 11 - Briefs due in Ninth Circuit on whether videotapes of Prop 8 trial should remain under seal pending a decision on whether District Court Judge Ware's order releasing them to the public was correct.

Wednesday, October 12 - Today is the deadline for those seeking to repeal the California FAIR Education Act by voter referendum to turn in the signatures they have gathered. If they meet the requirement of just under 505,000 valid signatures, the question will go on the 2012 ballot.

Friday and Saturday, October 14 and 15 - UCLA Queer Studies Conference "will explore and exploit issues of fashion, queerly construed." Sounds like fun. More information here.

The week ahead: October 3, 2011

It's going to be a big week at the Supreme Court. Here's what to watch for:

Wednesday, October 5 - The Supreme Court will hear argument in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, a case in which the EEOC is seeking to block use of the "ministerial exception," - under which religious entities are exempt from application of any anti-discrimination laws - in a case involving the firing of a religious school teacher who filed a complaint of disability discrimination. The case is being litigated on a retaliation theory; the school asserts that filing cases against others within the faith violates their beliefs and that the ministerial exception blocks plaintiff's retaliation claim. The case is on appeal from a Sixth Circuit decision.

Also October 5 - Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Scalia will testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at a hearing on "Considering the Role of Judges Under the Constitution of the United States" at 2:30 pm.  The hearing will be webcast.

Friday, October 7 - At the Justices' private conference meeting, the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant cert in Adar v. Smith, a case in which Louisiana officials denied recognition of a two-same-sex parent adoption from another state.

 

Arkansas court skeptical of reasons for banning unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children

By Guest Blogger Nancy Polikoff

It's always risky to predict the outcome of a case based on oral argument. Nonetheless, I'll predict that the Arkansas Supreme Court will affirm the decision of a trial judge that the state's ban on adoption and fostering by anyone living with a nonmarital partner violates the state's constitution. The ban was enacted by voters in 2008. You can watch the argument on the court's website here. Although a lawyer for the state did argue briefly, the lawyer who primarily argued for upholding the ban represented the intervenors, the Family Council Action Committee, the Arkansas group behind placing the matter on the ballot in 2008.

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU, which has once again done a top notch job. Before the US Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that its criminal prohibition on private consensual sex in the home violated the state's constitution. The importance of that case, Jegley v. Picado, played a large role in today's hearing.

The trial court found the ban a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights as articulated in Jegley. The appellants disagree, arguing that the ban is nothing like the intrusion of criminalizing behavior in the home. The justices did not appear to buy it. They repeatedly returned to the fundamental right articulated in Jegley and expressed skepticism that the ban was anything but a direct and substantial burden on the exercise of that right. If the ban violates the fundamental right of the plaintiffs then it cannot stand unless it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. But if there is no fundamental right at stake, then the ban survives as long as it has a "rational basis."

The intervenors and the state argued that the rational basis test allows the generalization that, as a group, the homes of "cohabiting" couples are less stable and more volatile than other homes, and that therefore an individual review of each applicant in such a situation is not required, even though some of those homes would be suitable. When one of the justices asked the lawyer for the intervenors if he conceded he would lose if the court applied "heightened scrutiny," he said no. He said the "life" of the child was at stake (that's how he characterized the state's interest on several occasions) and that the state couldn't be required to place children in the "riskiest" and "poorest performing" home environments.

In what was perhaps the most astonishing part of the argument by the appellants, both lawyers asserted that the state's screening process is not good enough to weed out unsuitable applicants. They called the process "imperfect" and "not foolproof" and said that mistakes are made. When one of the justices responded that the lawyer for the agency was acknowledging his system to be a failure, the lawyer said the Department of Human Services was doing the best it could but that people lie and "slip through" their process. He later backpedaled and said he had misspoken, but in the process he asserted the problem was everywhere and that caseworkers are overworked and the agency does not have sufficient funding.

So this is what it's come to. There is no response to the assertion of the plaintiffs, echoed by judges on the court, that no one is allowed to foster or adopt a child without first going through an agency or judicial approval process. So apparently to justify excluding an entire category of applicants from the opportunity to show that a placement in their home is in the best interest of a child, the government lawyer must argue that his agency is not capable of doing its job properly.

I find it impossible to imagine that the Arkansas Supreme Court will base its decision on such reasoning. The lawyers for the plaintiffs reiterated the individual process each applicant goes through. He said that any studies about groups of children are irrelevant because of that, but he did further argue that whatever correlation there may be between "cohabitation" and child outcome does not demonstrate that the cohabitation causes the problems. He also told that court that it could not rule against the gay and lesbian plaintiffs without overruling the court's decision in Howard. In that case a unanimous court struck down an administrative regulation preventing a gay person or anyone living with a gay person from being licensed as a foster parent.

The authors of both the majority and concurring opinions in Howard remain on the bench. One of the court's newest justices, Courtney Hudson Henry, asked the lawyer for the intervenors the last question of the argument. She noted that a gay person living alone with multiple sexual partners is eligible to adopt, as long as that person doesn't live with a partner. (I wish she has left the qualifier "gay" off her statement, as it is true for a heterosexual with multiple partners as well). The response she received was that the ban is concerned with the dynamics and volatility of cohabiting relationships and break ups and there are a variety of reasons an individual might be denied the ability to adopt or be a foster parent.

And so it has come to this. The same state that cannot be trusted be weed out cohabiting couples whose homes are not good for children can be trusted to weed out single applicants who sleep around (without having police go snooping in their homes, which everyone agrees Jegley does not allow). Of course, that's not the point. In fact, the point of the ban has nothing to do with children and everything to do with stigmatizing both same-sex and unmarried different-sex relationships. I don't think the Arkansas Supreme Court is buying it.

crossposted from Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage

Fifth Circuit hears argument en banc tomorrow on case testing interstate recognition of adoption decrees

Early last year, a panel of the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Adar v. Smith that Louisiana was required to issue a new birth certificate naming two men as the parents of a child born in Louisiana, after the couple adopted the child together in New York. The Louisiana registrar of vital records refused to issue the birth certificate with both fathers' names because unmarried couples are not permitted to adopt in Louisiana.

Well, the court granted the state's motion for rehearing en banc, and tomorrow all the judges on the 5th Circuit will hear oral argument in the case. The state is making an insidious argument that threatens the validity of all second-parent adoptions across state lines. While conceding that the adoptions are valid in the states where they were issued and bind the parties who litigated in all states, Louisiana is arguing that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution does not require it to enforce an adoption decree that is against its public policy.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to enforce judgments from the courts of other states, without regard to their own public policies. A state is not required, however, to give Full Faith and Credit to another state's laws. An adoption decree is a judgment, but Louisiana is saying that the law that allowed a gay male couple to adopt in New York is what is really at issue and it is not required to give Full Faith and Credit to that, at least when it comes to enforcement through issuing a birth certificate that could not be issued under Louisiana's laws.

It's an argument that should lose. The 10th Circuit ruled four years ago in Finstuen v. Crutcher that an Oklahoma statute refusing to recognize adoptions from other states by same-sex couples and provide new birth certificates was unconstitutional. In the pending case, Louisiana tries to distinguish that opinion, but also argues that it was just plain wrong. If the 5th Circuit sides with the state, that will set up a Circuit split that could only be resolved by the US Supreme Court.

The state's argument also reminds me of the permutations argued by Lisa Miller in the longstanding litigation over Virginia's obligation to recognize Vermont's determination that Janet Jenkins is a parent of the child they planned together and entitled to visitation or custody. While that case turned on a specific federal statute requiring recognition of custody rulings from other states, rather than on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, after Miller lost on Virginia's obligation to recognize the Vermont order she argued that the statute did not require Virginia to enforce the Vermont order. It's a distinction with no legal difference, and Miller keeps losing.

While this case involves two men, Oren Adar and Mickey Rae Smith, Lousiana claims it would not issue an amended birth certificate for any unmarried couple who adopted a child born in Louisiana, because Lousiana prohibits such adoptions. A friend of the court brief filed on behalf of two law professors, Joan Hollinger and Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, and one of the most distinguished family law practitioner in Texas, Harry Tindall, who was chair of the committee that wrote changes to the Uniform Parentage Act, argues that this is unconstitutional discrimination against children of unmarried parents. I find it no accident that the first US Supreme Court case declaring discrimination against nonmarital children unconstitutional also came from Louisiana.

Lousiana's response to this? Essentially they say that while it is unconstitutional to discriminate against a child born to an unmarried couple, it is not unconstitutional to discriminate against a child adopted by an unmarried couple. Really.

The court will release a recording of the oral argument (here), but probably not until next week.

cross posted from Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage

NC Supreme Court voids second-parent adoptions, allows custody

By Guest Blogger Nancy Polikoff

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled yesterday that second-parent adoption is not available in the state. Any such adoption previously granted is now void. The case was widely watched in North Carolina because, among other reasons, the nonbio mom, Julia Boseman, is the first openly gay member of the North Carolina General Assembly. (She did not seek reelection this year and leaves office at the end of this month).

The opinion voided her adoption of the son born to her partner, Melissa Jarrell. The court ruled that North Carolina's adoption statute does not allow an adoption in which the legal parent retains parental rights unless that parent is married to the person petitioning to adopt the child. In other words, Boseman could become the child's mother only if Jarrell entirely gave up her parental rights.

This statutory construction issue has faced most appeals courts looking at the availability of second-parent adoption. While most states considering the issue have ruled that second-parent adoptions are allowed, some have ruled as this court did. After similar rulings in Connecticut and Colorado, the legislatures of those states amended their adoption laws to allow second-parent adoption. Republicans are about to take control of the North Carolina legislature and are considering a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thus it seems unlikely they would change the adoption law to favor children raised by same-sex couples.

The opinion noted the practice of obtaining second-parent adoption decrees in Durham County but not in other parts of the state. It is common for lawyers to file adoption petitions in a county, and before judges, who have already construed the state's adoption code to allow second-parent adoption. The adoption decrees stand because no one appeals them.

This case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court because Boseman filed for custody after the couple split up, and Jarrell defended by arguing that Boseman was not a parent because the adoption decree should not have been granted. In a case I commented upon last week, a Minnesota appeals court ducked the question of whether that state allows second-parent adoption because it ruled that the bio mom waited too long to challenge the validity of the adoption. No such luck for Boseman and her son.

The NC court ruled that the judge granting the adoption had no subject matter jurisdiction to do so, and therefore the decree was void from the outset. This means that all second-parent adoptions granted in North Carolina are void, a devastating result for the state's children, who now lose the economic and emotional security of having two legally recognizaed parents.The opinion had two dissenting judges, who did not think Jarrell should have been allowed to challenge the adoption.

The case has a silver lining, as the court found that Boseman does have a right to seek custody of the child under a "best interests of the child" standard because Jarrell acted "inconsistently with her paramount parental status." Here is the court's reasoning:

The record...indicates that defendant [Jarrell] intentionally and voluntarily created a family unit in which plaintiff [Boseman]was intended to act--and acted--as a parent. The parties jointly decided to bring a child into their relationship, worked together to conceive a child, chose the child’s first name together, and gave the child a [hyphenated] last name. The parties also publicly held themselves out as the child’s parents at a baptismal ceremony and to their respective families. The record also contains ample evidence that defendant allowed plaintiff and the minor child to develop a parental relationship [and] created no expectation that this family unit was only temporary. Most notably, defendant consented to the proceeding before the adoption court relating to her child. As defendant envisioned, the adoption would have resulted in her child having “two legal parents, myself and [plaintiff].”

This means that all those gay and lesbian parents whose parental status ended as a result of this court ruling are at least not in danger of entirely losing a relationship with their child. Boseman herself retains joint custody of her son as awarded by the trial judge who heard her case.

But the right to custody and visitation is only one aspect of legal parentage. The child has lost the right to survivors benefits (e.g., social security, workers compensation) should Boseman die and to inherit from Boseman and her relatives in the absence of a will. For other children in similar circumstances, a nonbio mom might be able to walk away without any obligation to provide financial support.

These are cruel results. I want Jarrell to face serious chastisement from her community. She wanted to get rid of Boseman -- a task she did not accomplish -- and to do so she made an argument with enormous cost to North Carolina's children of same-sex couples. She accepted help in the form of friend of the court briefs from the usual right-wing organizations that oppose any recognition of gay and lesbian families. What she did was abhorrent and unforgiveable. The law couldn't stop her, but her peers may have been able to. She has caused substantial damage, and I want someone to remind her of that constantly. Do I sound angry? I am.

There are numerous states with no appeals court ruling on the validity of the hundreds or thousands of second-parent adoptions granted by trial judges. The next time a bio parent thinks to argue as Jarrell did, someone needs to try to stop it. It's bad for the individual child and for gay and lesbian families in general.

Crossposted from Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage

Florida adoption case symbolizes vast cultural change

If you want a sign of how profoundly social views of homosexuality have shifted in the last 20 years, look no further than what happened today in Florida, when conservative AG Bill McCollum decided not to ask the Florida Supreme Court to review an appellate court decision that the state law banning gay men and lesbians from adopting children is unconstitutional.

The law was passed in 1977 in a flurry of anti-gay bigotry inspired by Anita Bryant's victory in repealing an anti-discrimination ordinance that had been enacted in Dade County. The ACLU has brought lawsuits in state and federal and then state again courts for 20 years in the effort to eliminate the prohibition of gay adoption. Last month they won a decision in an intermediate state appellate court, and the state agency responsible for adoptions announced that it had no desire to appeal the ruling.

With McCollum's decision, the last of Anita Bryant's hateful legacy has been erased. Ding dong, the witch is (finally) dead.

Huge congratulations to ACLU lawyer Leslie Cooper.

Florida AG will decide whether decision allowing gay adoption is appealed

Florida's Department of Children and Families has decided not to appeal the ruling last month by a state appellate court that the statutory ban on gay adoption is unconstitutional. However, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has the authority to appeal the decision on his own, even though DCF disagrees. 

McCollum has until October 21 to make his decision.

In an August interview during his unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination for governor this year, the AG told Florida Baptist Witness that he opposed allowing gay people either to adopt or to serve as foster parents.  He explained:

I really do not think that we should have homosexuals guiding our children. I think that it’s a lifestyle that I don’t agree with. I realize a lot of people do. It’s my personal faith, religious faith, that I don’t believe that the people who do this should be raising our children. It’s not a natural thing. You need a mother and a father. You need a man and a woman. That’s what God intended.

Meanwhile, under Florida law, the decision of the intermediate appellate court is binding throughout the state, and would remain so until or unless another appellate court reached a contrary conclusion. 

 

Florida agency ends ban on gay adoptions

The Florida Department of Children and Families has responded to last week's ruling that the state's ban on adoptions by gay men and lesbians is unconstitutional, and the news is great.

In a two page memo dated the day after the ruling, Alan Abramowitz, State Director of the Office of Family Safety, announced that the Department has submitted to the legislature language repealing the statute. "Effectively immediately," the memo states, "staff will discontinue asking prospective adoptive parents their sexual orientation." Forms will also be revised to delete any reference to sexual orientation.

The memo further states that "staff should be instructed not to use this information as a factor in determining the suitability of applicants to adopt and should focus his/her [sic] attention on the quality of parenting that prospective adoptive parents would provide, and their commitment to and love for our children." Thank you! I resent having to be so grateful for so obvious a statement of policy, but grateful I am.

No definitive word yet on whether the state will appeal the court ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. It would seem inconsistent with this swift implementation of the appeals court mandate. But it's a big election year in Florida and there will be a new governor, so it isn't over til it's over.

Thanks to Michele Zavos for passing along the memo, which she received through the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys.

Cross-posted from Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage