This is a story that must be read, about Roger and Steven Ham, a gay male couple in Arizona (Roger changed his last name to Steven's in 2007, and all the children have the same last name), and their 12 adopted children. That's right, 12. First there was one child, who missed his four younger siblings. The five had been split into three foster homes when they were taken from their mother. Sibling groups are almost impossible to place in foster homes or with adoptive parents. Roger and Steven took all five. Then they took the children's 11 year old cousin. Then, as foster parents, they took any child the caseworker placed in their home (42 over 10 years -- some arriving with no notice), and eventually they adopted six more children, some with special needs. Roger is the youngest of 12 siblings; Steven the youngest of 14.
The Arizona Republic ran a seven-page spread about the family this past Sunday. I'm sure I have never read a more glowing review of foster/adoptive parents. Even Gov. Jan Brewer thought they were outstanding when she signed an award they received from the Arizona Association for Foster and Adoptive Parents in 2009. The award commended them for their secure and loving home, and for working so hard to keep siblings together.
But that didn't stop Brewer from signing into law last month a preference for placing children with married parents, a topic I posted about here.
The article points out that in Arizona only one of the men can be the children's legal parent. That's Steven. Two of the twelve were adopted from the Washington state foster care system, and both men are legal parents of those two. Roger is a school bus driver and the family's primary breadwinner. If he dies or becomes disabled while the children are minors, only the two who are legally his will get Social Security child benefits. Although the couple has signed all the legal documents they could, the lack of legal parentage leaves the children vulnerable in numerous situations. Nothing makes less sense.
I have to commend the Arizona Republic for running this story and giving it prominence. If it doesn't change some hearts and minds, I'd be surprised. I'll also be surprised if you can get through the whole article without tears in your eyes.
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
New Arizona adoption statute prefers married heterosexual parents
Leave it to the Arizona legislature to enact another bad piece of legislation that reflects extreme right wing views. On Monday, Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1188 which creates a preference that a child be adopted by "a married man and woman." The act applies to anyone licensed to place children for adoption.
A single individual can be an adoptive parent if one of the following conditions exists: a married couple is not available; the single person is the child's legal relative; the child would otherwise be in extended foster care; there is an established "meaningful and healthy relationship" between the child and the single person; the birth parent(s) places the child with the single person; or the child's best interests require adoption by the single person.
This is different from other adoption statutes. Most statutes are silent about marital status and base adoption on a child's best interests. The Arkansas statute struck down recently (see my post here), as well as the one in place in Utah, ban adoption by a single individual living with an unmarried partner. Arizona's new statute is less restrictive than that because it is not an outright ban on such an adoption. On the other hand, with a preference for a married couple in every case, there is no telling how that will impact a lesbian or gay man -- or a single heterosexual -- seeking to adopt a child. It does suggest that if an agency has a married couple approved to adopt -- or even in the pipeline -- they must choose such a placement over anyone else. It may mean that married heterosexuals get their choice of child while an unmarried person gets the children such couples reject.
The exceptions to the married couple preference show a somewhat sophisticated understanding of the common circumstances cited by opponents of adoption restrictions, such as a birth parent's choice or a person with an established relationship with the child. And since best interests itself can be the basis for an exception, there is enough flexibility to permit placements to continue. The statute requires the judge to make written best interests findings for every adoption. It remains to be seen whether judges will require some proof of the unavailability of a married couple unless one of the enumerated exceptions other than best interests applies.
One more thing: The consistent use of "single person" in contrast to a married couple makes clear that two unmarried persons cannot adopt together. So much for the best interests of children.
A single individual can be an adoptive parent if one of the following conditions exists: a married couple is not available; the single person is the child's legal relative; the child would otherwise be in extended foster care; there is an established "meaningful and healthy relationship" between the child and the single person; the birth parent(s) places the child with the single person; or the child's best interests require adoption by the single person.
This is different from other adoption statutes. Most statutes are silent about marital status and base adoption on a child's best interests. The Arkansas statute struck down recently (see my post here), as well as the one in place in Utah, ban adoption by a single individual living with an unmarried partner. Arizona's new statute is less restrictive than that because it is not an outright ban on such an adoption. On the other hand, with a preference for a married couple in every case, there is no telling how that will impact a lesbian or gay man -- or a single heterosexual -- seeking to adopt a child. It does suggest that if an agency has a married couple approved to adopt -- or even in the pipeline -- they must choose such a placement over anyone else. It may mean that married heterosexuals get their choice of child while an unmarried person gets the children such couples reject.
The exceptions to the married couple preference show a somewhat sophisticated understanding of the common circumstances cited by opponents of adoption restrictions, such as a birth parent's choice or a person with an established relationship with the child. And since best interests itself can be the basis for an exception, there is enough flexibility to permit placements to continue. The statute requires the judge to make written best interests findings for every adoption. It remains to be seen whether judges will require some proof of the unavailability of a married couple unless one of the enumerated exceptions other than best interests applies.
One more thing: The consistent use of "single person" in contrast to a married couple makes clear that two unmarried persons cannot adopt together. So much for the best interests of children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)