adoption – Pursuit of Liberty

Who Should Adopt?

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The debate over who should be allowed to adopt a child is a sensitive one. We have a system which tries to provide the best situation to children in need of good families, but there are more children than available families under the current definition. I think it is natural to be skeptical of the idea that we should let unwed partners adopt because that opens a door for some very unstable situations which are not beneficial to the children involved. The gay community (those that are interested in this particular issue) consider this to be discrimination because in this state all gay couples are unwed by definition. Of Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck’s "Forever Homes for Every Child" bill Senate President-elect Michael Waddoups accurately identifies the major objection/hurdle by saying:

That sounds like they’re trying to set up a family relationship that under [Utah’s same-sex marriage ban] isn’t allowed. … If we’re going to change the definition of a family, we should do it constitutionally — not through end runs.

Even if this is not intended as an end run around our Constitutional ban on gay marriage it will easily be perceived as such. The proposed bill gives adoption preference for married couples – which respects our value favoring a traditional family structure – but it opens the door for adoption by unwed couples with the consent of the biological parent(s) or if the child is in state custody. I believe that one minor modification the bill would support our value of granting primacy to the institution of family in this state. Simply put – I do not trust the state to make the decision to allow unwed couples to adopt children. If this proposal were changed to allow an unwed person or couple to adopt a child only "with the consent of the biological parent(s) and any legal guardian" I would fully support it.

The couple cited in the article is a biological mother (using a sperm donation) and her partner who are the only family their child has ever known. It makes perfect sense that the partner would be allowed to adopt and naturally the biological mother would grant the necessary consent. This change in the proposal would allow the biological parent(s) to specify one unmarried person or both members of an unwed couple as potential adoptive parents. It would allow the state or an established legal guardian to block such an adoption where the biological parent(s) choice of adoptive parents may be undesirable. Most importantly it would prevent the state from selecting unwed couples or individuals as adoptive parents for children who’s biological parent(s) objects or who do not have biological parents to speak in their defense or grant the necessary consent.

Bureaucracy in Action

This is what happens when we expect government bureaucracy to manage something rather than leaving things in the hands of individuals.

Loving couple. Loving home. Steady jobs. No criminal history. Kids like them and the birth mother wants it.

Despite all that, Michael Valez and Michael Oberg are wading upriver through the state child protection system to be able to take care of four kids belonging to Valez’s niece. . .

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge’s directive that Valez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

The rules governing DCFS are quite reasonable – I don’t think that they should be running around placing kids in unstable situations such as with a couple that has decided that they should move in together to save rent. On the other hand we are faced with the question – who is responsible for raising these kids? Is it the state (DCFS) or the mother? I would argue that too often the state is given precedence over the parents and it is only rarely justified. I think that cases like this, where DCFS is actively trying to help the mother to prepare herself to resume raising the children (as they ought to), should make it that much easier to admit that primary responsibility lies with the mother and therefore her wishes, not to mention the wishes of the children, should take precedence over "the rules." (Maybe if there was a criminal history to consider I would change my mind.)

Luckily reason has prevailed (so far) –

On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children.

"The judge said, ‘I see absolutely no reason why the kids can’t stay where they’re at,’" Valez said.

If only this were the case all the time.