Out in the Mountains

Second Parent Adoption

(Cont from page 1)

job in Washington, DC in 1987, Deb-
orah left her job in Boston so that Jane

could take advantage of the op-‘

portunity. At around the same time,
they began to discuss their plans to
raise a family together.

Jane became pregnant and both women
attended childbirth classes together.
Their first son was born in November,
1988.They attended to a number of
things such as wills, medical power of
attorney, guardianship agreements and
an agreement to raise jointly their son
and any other children they might have.

After some time in DC, they sought a
-more attractive environment for their
child rearing. As both Deborah and
Jane have roots in_New England, they
explored the area and bought the house
with the porch in Burlington. Jane’s
family was nearby, and Deborah’s fa-
ther was in Boston. Their children
would be closer to their grandparents,
which made everyone happy.

In 1991, while she was pregnant with
their second son, Jane was laid off from
her job. Deborah put the boys on her
health insurance, but was told by her
boss that she couldn’t do that. Unless
the boys were legally her children, the
insurance policy her company had at
that time would not allow her to insure
them. The two women decided to pur-
sue adoption, and they contacted an at-
tomey. They met with David Curtis and
Julie Frame to discuss their options. At
that time a related case was pending in
Middlebury. They hoped for a positive
decision which would set a precedent,
thus helping to pave the way for their
own adoption petition.

Their second son was born in August of
that year; the (favorable) Addison
County decision came out in De-
cember, and Jane and‘ Deborah filed
their adoption petitions with the Chit-
tenden County Court in January.

They approached the adoption process
matter-of-factly, each of them confident
that this was something that should hap-
pen, and that it was what was best for
the children. “It just felt like something
that needed to be done,” said Jane. They
agreed that they wanted to have Deb-
orah’s parental status legally recognized
for a number of reasons, most of them
related to legal, financial, or custodial
issues. Deborah’s father had revised his
will to include the two boys equally
along with his other grandchildren.
They wanted to be certain that health in-
surance would not be a problem, and
that both women would be recognized
as authorized to make various decisions
for the children regarding school, med-
ical care or other issues.

As part of the adoption process, a home
study, was ordered, consisting of three
visits with a social worker and a written
report . The hearing in front of the pro-
bate judge took place in June of 1992.
“until we got to the hearing,” said Deb-
orah, “at least for me, there wasn’t a lot
of emotional stuff going on It was pretty
routine kinds of things.” Ja-
neinterjected, “It was exciting. We were
excited about it.” Deborah agreed, “But
there was a lot of sitting around waiting
for things to happen.”

The reality of the probate court hearing
altered their matter-of-fact perspective
slightly. Jane wasn’t nervous about hav-
ing to present their case, “Because it
was so clear that it was what should
happen.” But, she said, “We were def-
initely nervous when we got there.”
Deborah offered that talking about their
lives to a judge was a bit different from
sharing it in a written brief. Addi-
tionally, their expert witness, Donald
Hillman, Ph.D., a well known VT child
psychologist, raised a number of issues
regarding step parents who haven’t
adopted their partner's children.
“There’s something about adoption”,

said Deborah, “That makes this very
real and very final. It’s a commitment
on the part of the other parent.”

Right up until that time, they were op-
timistic about the outcome. “We
thought we were going win! People
were winning all over the country!,
Jane said. Deborah agreed, “Especially
after what happened in Middlebury.”
But it didn’t happen in Washington
County Probate Court. Even after fa-
vorable testimony from their expert
witness, and the recommendation from
the social worker that the adoption was
in the best interests of the children,
Judge Belcher ruled that since Jane and
Deborah could not marry, Deborah
could not adopt.

Although they had discussed with their
attorneys the possibility of an appeal in
the event that the adoption petitions
were denied, three weeks later, when
Judge Belcher issued his decision, the
abstract became reality. It was frus-
trating. “It felt like we had to keep go-
ing with this”, Jane said.

Between June and November 1992, the
lawyers were hard at work. The appeal
was filed in November, and an amici
curiae (friend of the court brief) was
filed by Paula Ettlebrick and Susan
Murray on behalf of Lambda Legal De-
fense Fund, GLAD and the National
Center for Lesbian Rights. Jane in-
dicated that it was a thrill to meet Et-
tlebrick, but that they realized that they
were perceived as a vehicle (The Case)
rather than individuals. “At the probate
level,” said Deborah, “it was different,
because it was much more personal.”
Jane noted that at the Supreme Court
level, “It’s bigger than you.”

“And then you wait,” said Deborah.
“And then we waited and waited”.
Things actually moved with relative
speed. The appeal was filed in No-

985-2102

Shelbume Bay Plaza
Shelbume, VT 05482

Hair styling for women and men

Mon. - Thurs. 0 Fri. 0 Sat.

Milton, VT

Kara Marabella (802) 893.4816

Janet K. Brown, M A,C.A. C Jean Townsend, M.A.
Licensed Psychologist
Certified Alcohol Counselor

Certified Mental
Health Counselor

- ACOA - IDENTITY ISSUES
0 TRAUMA AND LOSS
- DEPRESSION
Individuals Couples Families

Burlington, VT
(802) 863-8162

;