?

n

P

.' Out nehalwountains

   
 

VEFlMONT’S NEWSF.-»‘==.

 

 E_E%iSéB|ANS, GAY MEN, AND BISEXUALS

i.VoIume VII, Number 2 March 1992
The New American Family
Lesbian Second Parent Adoption Victory in New

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
became final one month later. There are
only a handful of these adoptions in the
country, putting Vermont in the forefront
on gay/lesbian family law issues. A1lcas—
es to date involve lesbians. What makes
the Vermont case especially significant
from a legal standpoint is that 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 Vermont 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-
rnon 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 undertaken which
found Beth to be an excellent potential
mother 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 expertise
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 OITM).

Normally, 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-
formation on G/L second parent adoption
cases, and finding them took a lot of leg-
work. The most useful was a Washing-
ton, D.C. case from August 1991, be-
cause it was the first time a legal opinion
was written when the adoption 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 Vermont Children’s Aid, under its
contract with the Vermont Department of
Social and Rehabilitative Services
(SRS). In her report, Ann Clark, the D1-
rector of Children’s Aid, wrote that she
wholeheartedly endorsed the adoption if
the court found that Vermont law al-

J 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

York; Rights for
Lesbian and Gay
Parents

A judge in Manhattan approved the adop-
tion of a 6 year-old 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: “concem 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 emo-
tional benefit to the child from adoption.
“The adoption brings him the additional
security conferred by formal 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