parent. In granting the joint petition, the court first cites the section of the adoption statute that allows a single adult to adopt. Then the court cites the rule of statutory construction that states the singular includes the plural, thereby allowing two single adults to adopt together. Finally since the statute is silent about the consequences of a joint adoption by two single adults, the court rules that, as joint petitioners, the two adults both become legal parents upon the granting of the adoption The courts that grant same-gender co-parent adoptions also rely on the legislative intent of the adoption codes to support their statutory-interpretation analysis Most states= adoption codes specifically state that the adoption statutes should be interpreted to promote >the best interests of the child. Even if the code does not state this principle specifically, under the common law, all proceedings involving children, including adoptions, are governed by this general, and overriding, legal principle, court decisions involving children must be made >in the best interests of the child. Because of the facts presented in the es the courts find that to deny the adoption contravenes this overrid ing legal principle Although the various state-court decisions that grant the adoptions are interpreting statutory language that differs from state to state, the factual analysis and rationale in these co parent adoption cases are remarkably similar. The cases generally involve a lesbian relationship in which the couple has decided to have children and one, or both, of the women have had a child by alternative insemination. #The child ren nave been born into a two-parent family and have been raised by both women as equal co-parents. The petition for adoption by the co-parer is an attempt by the couple to legalize what is occurring in fact-that the children have two parents. The adoption is the only legal solution that creates this parent-child relationship. The language of the first case in which the highest state-appellate court granted a same-gender co- arent adoption clearly shows this analysis The intent of the legislature was to protect the security of family units by defining the legal rights and responsibilities of children who find themselves in circumstances that do not include two biological parents To deny the children of same-sex partners, as a class, the security of a legally recognized relationship with their second parent serves no legitimate state interest By allowing same-sex adoptions to come within the stepparent exception of 448, we are furthering the purposes of the statute as was originally intended by allowing the children of such unions the benefits and security of a legal relationship with their de facto second parents []t is the courts that are required to define, declare and protect the rights of In re M M.D.& B H.M., 662 A2d 837(D. C Cir. 1995) See the following highest-appellate-court opinions in the states of Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts: Adoptions of B L.V.B. and E L.V.B., 160 Vt. 368, 628 A 2d 1271, 27 A.L.R. 5th 819 ( 1993), Matter of Jacob, 86NY 2d 651, 660 N E 2d 397, 636 NY..2d 716(1995)(also involving Matter of Dana, which the court combined with Matter of Jacob), Adoption of Galen, 425 Mass. 201, 680 N.E. 2d 70(1997), Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 619 N E 2d 315(1993)
parent. In granting the joint petition, the court first cites the section of the adoption statute that allows a single adult to adopt. Then the court cites the rule of statutory construction that states the singular includes the plural, thereby allowing two single adults to adopt together. Finally, since the statute is silent about the consequences of a joint adoption by two single adults, the court rules that, as joint petitioners, the two adults both become legal parents upon the granting of the adoption.42 The courts that grant same-gender co-parent adoptions also rely on the legislative intent of the adoption codes to support their statutory-interpretation analysis. Most states= adoption codes specifically state that the adoption statutes should be interpreted to promote >the best interests of the child.= Even if the code does not state this principle specifically, under the common law, all proceedings involving children, including adoptions, are governed by this general, and overriding, legal principle; court decisions involving children must be made >in the best interests of the child.= Because of the facts presented in these cases, the courts find that to deny the adoption contravenes this overriding legal principle. Although the various state-court decisions that grant the adoptions are interpreting statutory language that differs from state to state, the factual analysis and rationale in these coparent adoption cases are remarkably similar. The cases generally involve a lesbian relationship in which the couple has decided to have children and one, or both, of the women have had a child by alternative insemination.43 The children have been born into a two-parent family and have been raised by both women as equal co-parents. The petition for adoption by the co-parent is an attempt by the couple to legalize what is occurring in fact - that the children have two parents. The adoption is the only legal solution that creates this parent-child relationship. The language of the first case in which the highest state-appellate court granted a same-gender coparent adoption clearly shows this analysis: The intent of the legislature was to protect the security of family units by defining the legal rights and responsibilities of children who find themselves in circumstances that do not include two biological parents. . . . To deny the children of same-sex partners, as a class, the security of a legally recognized relationship with their second parent serves no legitimate state interest. . . . By allowing same-sex adoptions to come within the stepparent exception of ' 448, we are furthering the purposes of the statute as was originally intended by allowing the children of such unions the benefits and security of a legal relationship with their de facto second parents. . . . [I]t is the courts that are required to define, declare and protect the rights of 42 In re M.M.D. & B.H.M., 662 A.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 43 See the following highest-appellate-court opinions in the states of Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts: Adoptions of B.L.V.B. and E.L.V.B., 160 Vt. 368, 628 A.2d 1271, 27 A.L.R.5th 819 (1993), Matter of Jacob, 86 N.Y.2d 651, 660 N.E.2d 397, 636 N.Y.S.2d 716 (1995) (also involving Matter of Dana, which the court combined with Matter of Jacob), Adoption of Galen, 425 Mass. 201, 680 N.E.2d 70 (1997), Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 619 N.E.2d 315 (1993)
children raised in these families, usually upon their dissolution. At that point courts are left to vindicate the public interest in the children=s financial support and emotional well-being by developing theories of parenthood, so that >legal strangers= who are de facto parents may be awarded custody or visitation or reached for support. Case law and commentary on the subject detail the years of litigation spent in settling these difficult issues while the children remain in limbo sometimes denied the affection of a >parent=who has been with them from birth It is surely in the best interests of children, and the state, to facilitate adoptions in these circumstances so that legal rights and responsibil ities may be determine now and any problems that arise later may be resolved within the recognized framework of domestic relations law We are not called upon to approve or disapprove of the relationship between the appellants. Whether we do or not, the fact remains that [the co-parent petitioning for the adoption] has acted as a parent of [these two children] from the moment they were born. To deny legal protection of their [parent-child lationship as a matter of law, is inconsistent with the children=s best interests and therefore with the public policy of this state, as expressed in our statutes affecting children The courts granting the adoption discuss the importance of providing legal protection to the emotional reality that the children of same-gender partnerships have two parents. In addition, the social and economic implications of granting the adoption in the United States are quite significant. The highest appellate court in the state of New Y ork spoke directly to these issues when it stated The advantages which would result from such an adoption include Social Securit and life insurance benefits in the event of a parent=s death or disability, the right o sue for the wrongful death of a parent, the right to inherit under the rules of intestacy and eligibility for coverage under both parents= health insurance policies In addition, granting a second parent adoption further ensures that two adults are legally entitled to make med ical decisions for the child in case of emergency and are under a legal obligation for the child =s economic support Even more important, however, is the emotional security of knowing that in the event of the biological parent=s death or disability, the other parent will have presumptive custody, and the children=s relationship with their parents siblings and other relatives will continue should the coparents separate. 45 Citations omitted] Adoptions of B. L.V.B.andE.LⅤB.,160Vt.368,373,375,376,628A2d1271,1274,12 1276, 27A. L.R.5th 819(1993). Contrary to the American courts, the Dutch courts do not truly look at the best interest of the child in every situation; see HR 5 september 1997, NJ1998, 686, rek nr 8940 Matter of jacob,86N.Y.2d651,636NY.S.2d716,660N.E.2d397(1995)(a Matter of Dana, which the court combined with Matter of Jacob)
children raised in these families, usually upon their dissolution. At that point, courts are left to vindicate the public interest in the children=s financial support and emotional well-being by developing theories of parenthood, so that >legal strangers= who are de facto parents may be awarded custody or visitation or reached for support. Case law and commentary on the subject detail the years of litigation spent in settling these difficult issues while the children remain in limbo, sometimes denied the affection of a >parent= who has been with them from birth. . . . It is surely in the best interests of children, and the state, to facilitate adoptions in these circumstances so that legal rights and responsibilities may be determined now and any problems that arise later may be resolved within the recognized framework of domestic relations law. We are not called upon to approve or disapprove of the relationship between the appellants. Whether we do or not, the fact remains that [the co-parent petitioning for the adoption] has acted as a parent of [these two children] from the moment they were born. To deny legal protection of their [parent-child] relationship, as a matter of law, is inconsistent with the children=s best interests and therefore with the public policy of this state, as expressed in our statutes affecting children.44 The courts granting the adoption discuss the importance of providing legal protection to the emotional reality that the children of same-gender partnerships have two parents. In addition, the social and economic implications of granting the adoption in the United States are quite significant. The highest appellate court in the state of New York spoke directly to these issues when it stated: The advantages which would result from such an adoption include Social Security and life insurance benefits in the event of a parent=s death or disability, the right to sue for the wrongful death of a parent, the right to inherit under the rules of intestacy and eligibility for coverage under both parents= health insurance policies. In addition, granting a second parent adoption further ensures that two adults are legally entitled to make medical decisions for the child in case of emergency and are under a legal obligation for the child=s economic support. Even more important, however, is the emotional security of knowing that in the event of the biological parent=s death or disability, the other parent will have presumptive custody, and the children=s relationship with their parents, siblings and other relatives will continue should the coparents separate.45 [Citations omitted] 44 Adoptions of B.L.V.B. and E.L.V.B., 160 Vt. 368, 373, 375, 376; 628 A.2d 1271, 1274, 1275, 1276, 27 A.L.R.5th 819 (1993). Contrary to the American courts, the Dutch courts do not truly look at the best interest of the child in every situation; see HR 5 september 1997, NJ 1998, 686, rek.nr. 8940. 45 Matter of Jacob, 86 N.Y.2d 651, 636 N.Y.S.2d 716, 660 N.E.2d 397 (1995) (also involving Matter of Dana, which the court combined with Matter of Jacob)
a review of the various court=s descriptions of the facts in these cases shows that the judges are using the legal standard of >best interests of the child= within the real-life context of the child=s present circumstances. The factual findings of the courts reveal that the gay or lesbian parents have deliberately planned to have children and arranged their lives so that both parents could be involved in raising their children. For example, the facts of the cases in the highest appellate courts describe the co-parents as persons who have >shared parenting responsibilities and who have >arranged their separate work schedules around the child =s needs. =46 It was not uncommon for one of the co-parents to quit her employment in order to be in the home and raise the child. 4In fact, a study comparing children in lesbian and nonlesbian American, British, and Dutch homes found that >90 percent of the lesbian coparents took an active role in raising the children, while only about 37 percent of the heterosexual fathers did the same =48 Another recent most consistently as the healthiest and strongest of the family structures . =with married o study in the state of Minnesota found that >[in general, gay/lesbian families tended to score couples and their families scoring a strong second place for the healthiest and strongest family structure 49 Therefore, when the facts presented at the adoption hearing overwhelmingly supported that the children in same-gender co-parent households were clearly benefitted by the court granting the adoption, the american courts that grant these adoptions did so by interpreting the >G M. and P.l. [co-parents] have shared parenting responsibilities since Dana=s birth and have arranged their separate work schedules around her needs. ld N.Y. 2d at 657, N.E. 2d at 398, N.Y.S2d at 171. >For some time prior to the birth of Galen, Nancy and Laura planned together for one of them to have a child, and in 1995 Galen was conceived by Nancy from an anonymous donor from California. The petitioners share all parenting responsibilities, including all decisions concerning Galen=s health, education, and welfare. Adoption of Galen, 425 Mass. 201, 202; 680 N.E. 2d 70, 71(1997). >For several years prior to the birth of Tammy, Helen and Susan planned to have a child. . Susan successfully conceived a child through artificial insemination. . . Since her birth, Tammy has lived with and beer raised and supported by, Helen and Susan. Tammy views both women as her parents, calling Helen Amama@ and Susan Amommy Tammy has strong emotional and psychological bonds with both Helen and Susan.... Both women jointly and equally participate in parenting Tammy Adoption of Tammy 416Mass.205,207,619NE.2d315,316(1993) 47 >In July 1996, Nancy was not working so that she could be at home with Galen, and Laura financially supported both Nancy and Galen. Adoption of Galen, 425 Mass. 201, 202; 680 NE2d 70, 7 Cooper, Network Briefs, supra note 4 The least strong family structures in the Minnesota study were co-habiting heterosexual families, especially when there were children present in the home. The researchers hypothesized as follows The strength of the gay/lesbian families is striking, particularly in contrast to those heterosexual couples who are cohabiting. While neither group is legally married, their results in terms of family strength are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Perhaps same-sex couples, in their struggle to adapt in a relatively hostile culture, have developed certain strengths-better communication skills or support systems, for example Judy Watson Tiesel, Minnesota Family Strength Project, Research Summary, 5(Oct. 1997)(on file with the authors)
A review of the various court=s descriptions of the facts in these cases shows that the judges are using the legal standard of >best interests of the child= within the real-life context of the child=s present circumstances. The factual findings of the courts reveal that the gay or lesbian parents have deliberately planned to have children and arranged their lives so that both parents could be involved in raising their children. For example, the facts of the cases in the highest appellate courts describe the co-parents as persons who have >shared parenting responsibilities= and who have >arranged their separate work schedules around the child=s needs.= 46 It was not uncommon for one of the co-parents to quit her employment in order to be in the home and raise the child.47 In fact, a study comparing children in lesbian and nonlesbian American, British, and Dutch homes found that >90 percent of the lesbian coparents took an active role in raising the children, while only about 37 percent of the heterosexual fathers did the same.= 48 Another recent study in the state of Minnesota found that >[i]n general, gay/lesbian families tended to score most consistently as the healthiest and strongest of the family structures . . .= with married couples and their families scoring a strong second place for the healthiest and strongest family structure.49 Therefore, when the facts presented at the adoption hearing overwhelmingly supported that the children in same-gender co-parent households were clearly benefitted by the court granting the adoption, the American courts that grant these adoptions did so by interpreting the 46 >G.M. and P.I. [co-parents] have shared parenting responsibilities since Dana=s birth and have arranged their separate work schedules around her needs.= Id. N.Y.2d at 657, N.E.2d at 398, N.Y.S.2d at 171. >For some time prior to the birth of Galen, Nancy and Laura planned together for one of them to have a child, and in 1995 Galen was conceived by Nancy from an anonymous donor from California. . . . The petitioners share all parenting responsibilities, including all decisions concerning Galen=s health, education, and welfare.= Adoption of Galen, 425 Mass. 201, 202; 680 N.E.2d 70, 71 (1997). >For several years prior to the birth of Tammy, Helen and Susan planned to have a child. . . . Susan successfully conceived a child through artificial insemination. . . . Since her birth, Tammy has lived with and been raised and supported by, Helen and Susan. Tammy views both women as her parents, calling Helen Amama@ and Susan Amommy.@ Tammy has strong emotional and psychological bonds with both Helen and Susan. . . . Both women jointly and equally participate in parenting Tammy . . .= Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205, 207, 619 N.E.2d 315, 316 (1993). 47 >In July 1996, Nancy was not working so that she could be at home with Galen, and Laura financially supported both Nancy and Galen.= Adoption of Galen, 425 Mass. 201, 202; 680 N.E.2d 70, 71 (1997). 48 Cooper, Network Briefs, supra note 4. 49 The least strong family structures in the Minnesota study were co-habiting heterosexual families, especially when there were children present in the home. The researchers hypothesized as follows: The strength of the gay/lesbian families is striking, particularly in contrast to those heterosexual couples who are cohabiting. While neither group is legally married, their results in terms of family strength are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Perhaps same-sex couples, in their struggle to adapt in a relatively hostile culture, have developed certain strengths - better communication skills or support systems, for example. Judy Watson Tiesel, Minnesota Family Strength Project, Research Summary, 5 (Oct. 1997) (on file with the authors)