When adopting a child, the overall goal is to provide the child in question with the best living situation possible. The motivation is to provide a safe environment for the child to be raised in. The term “foster parent” is given to those parents who are in the process of adopting a child and for those whose specific roles is to care for the child until a permanent home can be found. To foster means to promote the growth or development. It is the duty of the parents to do this.
There are many other reasons for adopting as well, like in the case of infertility or homosexual couples where conception is impossible. However, whatever the reason for adopting may be, it always comes down to the care of the child, or at least it should.
In 2006, Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith adopted their son, then renamed him “J.C.” in New York. The couple, who is originally from California, were not married because at that time, the state did not recognize same-sex marriages.
Generally, parents who adopt get a new birth certificate issued that recognizes them as the parents of the child, rather than the biological parents. This allows the child to receive the full benefits of a child from the parents.
When Oren and Mickey petitioned to have their names placed on J.C.’s Louisiana birth certificate, they were denied that right.
Darlene Smith, the Louisiana state registrar who denied the couple’s request argued that she could not place both men’s names on the certificate as the state does not recognize adoptions by unmarried couples. Smith (who has no relation to Mickey Ray Smith) said that she would be able to place only one of the names on the certificate, as Louisiana does allow single parents to adopt.
Washington Attorney Paul Smith (again, no relation) argued that Louisiana unconstitutionally treated the child differently because of the marital status of the adoptive parents. Because both parents’ names were not allowed on the birth certificate, J.C. would not be able to qualify for any benefits that his father (because he still counts as a legal guardian, mind you) might otherwise award him (e.g. insurance).
Paul Smith also argued that Darlene had violated the Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause.” This clause basically states that a state must recognize legislative acts, public records and judicial decisions made by other states. Paul Smith argued that Darlene ignored the New York adoption (legally making both Oren and Mickey guardians, and therefore parents of the child) and refusing to place both names on the new birth certificate.
Oren and Mickey opened a court case in October of 2007. By December of 2008, the district court sided with the couple, only to meet an appeal of the decision the next month. The case was appealed again in February of 2010 in front of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel of three judges unanimously sided with the original ruling in favor of the couple. In April of the following year, a full 5th Circuit Court repealed the previous rulings, denying Oren and Mickey the changed birth certificate.
The case went to the Supreme Court in July of 2011, and recently in October, the Supreme Court decided to stand behind the final decision to deny the birth certificate.
By denying the issuing of the new birth certificate, the Supreme Court stripped the rights of both the men, and the child that were given to them by the New York adoption. By granting the adoption in the first place, the state of New York was affirming the couple’s ability, and right to properly care for a child with whose biological parents could not. The adoption placed it upon the couple to foster the child in a caring environment.
Now I may just be a little sensitive to the subject, but it seems a bit unfair that after being legally made the parents of the child, Oren and Mickey’s rights as parents were taken away. So what, they get the title of “parents,” but don’t get to do anything with it.
Oren and Mickey can technically call themselves the legal guardians of J.C., but one of them is still raising J.C. without being able to claim him or raise him with the same benefits that he could if both names were on the birth certificate.
The basis of Darlene’s decision to refuse the issuing of a new birth certificate with both men’s name on it was that the two were not a married couple, and the state does not recognize adoptions between unmarried couples.
Okay, that’s fair, no one wants to open the door allowing people who are not seriously invested in each other to adopt a child because you then run the risk of them breaking up (though with the number of divorces in our country that seems to be almost a moot point).
But it isn’t like the couple had that many options. At the time, California did not allow marriages between same-sex couples. Even if it had and the couple were married, the Louisiana Civil Code, Article 3520 Section B states that, “a purported marriage between persons of the same sex violates a strong public policy of the state of Louisiana and such a marriage contracted in another state shall not be recognized in this state for any purpose, including the assertion of any right or claim as a result of the purported marriage.”
That is to say, the only way that the couple would be allowed to adopt the child and have a new birth certificate issued would be if the couple were not of the same-sex.
This decision by the Supreme Court to refuse an appeal of the trial, a trial that won in lower courts twice already, only affirms, and essentially OK’s the discrimination that Oren and Mickey, and even J.C. face because of the sexual orientation of the parents.
Taylor Dean Whitcomb can be reached at taylor.whitcomb@spartans.ut.edu.