>..
it:
5.
I
»
|
-
r

- -.tv»~\.,....-.._,

8 ° O|Tf'l november 2001

Join us in celebrating our

l

rev

Q

 anniversary as we  
V isit pastissues of the
aper throughout 2001 . 

"E}-’)}:i.mt._.‘

It, Number 2

 issoartase res i..'t'£$'SiAi‘si, s, , a 8

Lesbian Second Parent Adoption

Approved in Vermont

(Note: The names of the parties to this adoption
have been changed.)

On December 20, 1991, in Addison
County Probate Court. legal history was
made in Vermont when Judge Chester S.
Ketcham approved the first second parent
gay/lesbian adoption in the state. The

- state did not contest the adoption, which «

came final one month later. There are

.ty a handful of these adoptions in the
country, putting Vcnnont in the forefront
on gay/lesbian family law issues. All cas-
es to date involve lesbians. What makes
the Vermont case especially significant
from a legal standpoint is t.liat Judge
Ketcham wrote an opinion which can be
used as a legal precedent in future adop-
tions. This case demonstrated once again
the essential fairness of the Vcnnont ju-
diciary, which decided a case on its mer-
its. rather than on the sexual orientation
of the parties involved.

The circumstances of the case are these.
A lesbian couple who had been together
for more than ten years decided to adopt
a child. The adoption agency they con-
tacted was fully aware of the nature of
Beth and Laura’s relationship when it
placed Hannah, who was then about a
month old, with them. Since single-
parent G/L adoptions are relatively com-
mon and second parent adoptions prac-

' tically unheard of, they were advised to

adopt Hannah one at a time. Accordingly,
Beth petitioned to adopt the child first.

A home study was undenaken which
"nund Beth to be an excellent potential

titer and recommended approval of the
adoption. As before, all parties knew

,about Beth and Laura's relationship.

Beth's adoption of Hannah was approved
in November 1990. ~

A month later Beth and Laura went to,
see Middlebury attorney Susan Murray
about Laura's adoption of Hannah. Mur-
ray has developed considerable expenise
in gay/lesbian family law in Vermont,
partly because. as she says. “there aren't
a whole lot of attorneys out there who
are thinking about the kinds of issues
that lesbians and gay men have to think
about from a legal standpoint. I've [also]
thought about a lot of these issues from
my own personal life.“ Murray's best
known G/L family law case is the Collin

Hamilton "custody case (see the De- _

cember 1991 issue of OIT M).

Nonnally, an adoption takes three to four
months to complete. This one took about
ten months because of the extensive le-
gal research Susan Murray had to under-
take. There is no central repository of in-
fomiation on G/l.. second parent adoption
cases. and finding them look a lot 0 leg-
work. The most useful wn a Washing-
ton. D.C. case from August 1991, be-
cause it was the first time a legal opinion
was written when theiadoption was ap-
proved.

Then there was a second home study.
this one looking specifically at Laura. It
was ordered by the judge and carried out
by Vcnnont Children's Aid, under its
contract with the Vermont Department of
Social and Rehabilitative Services
(SRS). In her report, Ann Clark, the Di-
rector of Children's Aid, wrote that she
wholeheartedly endorsed the adoption if
the court found that Vermont law al-
lowed it.

Throughout the process SRS's position
was unclear. It sent letters to Vermont
Children's Aid and to the Addison

Continued on page 18

Lesbian Second Parent Adoption
Approved in Vermont

continued trom page 1

County Probate Court which took the po-
sition that G/L second parent adoptions
were not permitted under Vermont's
adoption law. However, SRS did notat-
tend the hearing in November 1991 and

did not file an appeal during the statutory ‘

waiting period after the adoption was ap-
proved. » -

In reaching his decision, Judge Ketcharn
considered four main issues. The first
was to determine whether the adoption
was in the best interests of the child. All
the evidence clearly indicated that it was.
According to the opinion, “The Court is
fully aware that the love of a child toward
adults is not related to the sex of the
adult. The evidence is undisputed that the
Petitioners have extended their love and
care to [Hannah]. [Hannah] has re-
sponded to that love. It is in the best in-
terest of [Hannah] to be assured that each
of these two people have the same degree
of legal relationship to her.”

The second concern was what would hap-
pen if Beth and Laura ever broke up. The
judge concurred with the testimony of the
director of a local child care center who
said that when a couple separates. it is in
the best interests of the child to maintain
a relationship with both parents in all cas-
es except where there has been child
abuse. if in the future Beth and Laura

separate. they will have to work out a
custody an-angement just like any set of
divorcing parents.

A third issue concerned Betli’s parental
rights. Nonnally in an adoption, the nat-
ural parent gives up all claim to the
child. Beth isn't Hannah's natural moth-
er, but the question remained whether

Latua would gain, parental rights at ~

Beth's expense if the adoption were ap-
proved. Murray argued that this case
most closely resembled a step-parent
adoption. in which natural parents do not
lose their rights when their new spouse
adopts their children. The judge also cit-
ed the District of Columbia opinion,
which found that the so-called “cut-off"
provision does not have to be applied in
situations where it is clearly in-
appropriate. Although Beth is not Han-
nah's biological mother, Murray feels
the issues would have been the same if
she were.

And finally the big question: even
though the adoption was clearly in the
best interests of the child and the cor-
ollary issues had been satisfactorily re-
solved, is the adoption of a child by both
members of a gay or lesbian couple legal
in Vermont? Vermont adoption law al-
lows “a person or husband and wife to-
gether" to adopt a child. When Beth

Victory

Continued from page 1

couple and that it will encourage other
lesbian and gay-couples to adopt. Ac-
cording to various studies discussed by
the court, three to four million lesbian
and gay Americans have had children.

In an editorial the following day in‘ the
.New York Times, the couple's lawyer,
iames Marks of the American Civil Lib-
erties Union, described the case as a, “tri-
umph. recogniz(ing) a functioning family
in law as well as in practice.” V '

The   ,rican Family

Victory in New
York; Rights for
Lesbian and Gay
Parents

A judge in Manhattan approved the adop-
tion of a 6 yearvold boy by the lesbian
partner of his biological mother, in the
latest in a series of such cases in the past
year. The adoption January 30, is the first
in New York State. Other cases in Wash-

.ington, D.C. last fall and here in Vermont

this December, all add to the growing list
of jurisdictions in which second parent
adoptions have been approved.

In a ruling similar to the Vermont de-
cision. Judge Eve Preminger said that,
“No provision of New York law requires
that the adoptive parent be of any par-
ticular gender.” “The fact that the peti-
tioners here maintain an open lesbian re-
lationship is not a reason to deny
adioption." Addressing the issue of
whether a child can be properly raised in
a lesbian or gay household, Judge Pre-
minger added: “concern that a child
would be disadvantaged by growing up
in a single-sex household is not borne out
by the professional literature examined
by this court."

The court said there is a significant e'mfo-
tional benefit to the child from adoption.
“The adoption brings him the additional
security conferred by fonnal recognition
in a organized society. As he matures, his
connection with two involved, loving
parents will not be a relationship seen
outside the law."

Lesbian and gay rights advocates hailed
the decision. saying the court had ex-
tended the legal status of a family to the

Continued on page 3

originally adopted Hannah, she did so as
a person under Vennont law. Susan
Murray argued that Laura was also a
person under Vermont law and, as such,
could adopt Hannah, adding that a pri-
mary purpose of the husband and wife

_ provision was to ensure that neither

spouse could adopt a child without the
consent of the other. In effect, she
argued that Vemiont law permitted the
adoption by not specifically prohibiting
it, and the ‘udge agreed with this inter-
pretation o the law.

when asked about the imponance of this
decision Susan Murray says, “There are
only two cases now in the entire country
that have written opinions in this kind of
case, one in Vermont and one in Wash-
ington, D.C. So this will be used when-
ever anybody anywhere wants to make
the same kind of arguments. It was well

remoned. it was thorough, which is very '

rare, and it wasn't based suictly on the
facts of this case. He (Judge Ketcham)
clearly found that it was in the best inter-
ests of this child for this woman to Map’
her. But he went further than that. Ht.
said in addition, '1 find that Vcrmont

law allows these adoptions.'...So he did.

go beyond just the facts of this case.
And for that it's very helpful."

Although this case isn’t as famous as the
Hamilton custody case. legally it is
much more significant Asked how she

. feels about making legal history in Ver-

mom, Susan Murray says, ‘'It always
feels good to win a case. And while l‘ve
won other kinds of cases, this one felt
especially good because gay and lesbian
family issues have become important to
me."

Relive our history online at -5‘ www.m‘ofn'ritainprideimedia.org/

‘March 1992

m_index.h"cm