Russia Suspends Adoptions by Americans

April 15, 2010
New York Times
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY

MOSCOW — Russia formally announced on Thursday that it would suspend all adoptions of Russian children by Americans, responding to the case of a 7-year-old boy who was sent back to Moscow alone last week by his adoptive mother in Tennessee. The case of the boy, who was named Artyom in Russia before he was adopted last year, has caused widespread anger here, and Russian officials said new regulations had to be put in place before adoptions by Americans could proceed.

The announcement by the Russian Foreign Ministry gave no indication about how long the suspension would last. The State Department in Washington is sending a high-level delegation to Moscow to hold talks on reaching an agreement, and both countries have expressed hope that the matter can be resolved quickly.

“Future adoptions of Russian children by citizens of the United States, which are now suspended, are possible only if such an agreement is reached,” a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Andrei Nesterenko, said at a briefing on Thursday.

Officials at the United States Embassy in Moscow said they had not received official notification of a suspension and were seeking more information from their Russian counterparts.

More than 250 American families have nearly completed the adoption process and were poised to pick up their Russian children, but their cases will not be allowed to conclude until the new rules are approved, Russian officials said.

In all, some 3,000 American families have begun the adoption process, according to the Joint Council on International Children’s Services. Russian officials said they would continue to accept applications and process paperwork from potential adoptive parents.

Russia was the third leading source of adoptive children in the United States in 2009, with 1,586, after China and Ethiopia, officials said. More than 50,000 Russian children have been adopted by United States citizens since 1991, according to the United States Embassy.

Artyom, who was named Justin by his adoptive American mother, arrived in Moscow last week after flying by himself from Washington. He presented the authorities with a note from his adoptive mother in which she said she could no longer handle him.

The mother, Torry Ann Hansen, a registered nurse from Shelbyville, Tenn., said the boy was “violent and has severe psychopathic issues.” She added that she “was lied to and misled by the Russian orphanage workers” about his troubles.

The authorities in the United States are now investigating her conduct.

Russian authorities, who now have custody of the boy, have said he behaves normally and have harshly criticized Ms. Hansen for sending him back.

Cases of children adopted from Russia being harmed in the United States have received intense publicity here. Fourteen Russian children have died of abuse or neglect at their hands of the adoptive American parents since 1996, Russian officials said last year.

Last Friday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, calling Artyom’s case “the last straw” and said he was proposing the suspension.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Huffington Post – April 5, 2010

A North Miami family at the center of a historic court case about Florida’s ban on gay adoptions is attending the White House Easter Egg Roll today.

Frank Martin Gill, his partner, and their three children were invited by the White House to participate in the tradition.

For more than five years, Gill and his partner have raised two half brothers who were taken from their abusive birth parents. A Florida judge approved the couple’s 2008 adoption of the brothers, ruling that Florida’s ban on gay adoptions was unconstitutional. But the state appealed that decision and the family is awaiting a ruling from Florida’s Third Court of Appeals.

Gill told Miami’s WTVJ that the invitation to the White House was “extremely gratifying” and that he saw it as evidence that the Obama administration does not discriminate. “Inviting us knowing that we are plaintiffs in this lawsuit, I think, yeah, it’s a pretty strong statement.”

Florida’s 1977 law against gay adoptions is only law in the country that is an outright bans gay and lesbian parents from adopting, according to The Advocate.

In 2009, the White House sent tickets to the event to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered families. More than 100 gay families were expected to attend last year.

President Obama has been criticized for his administration’s action on gay rights issues. While Obama said he would repeal the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ rule during his State Of The Union Address, critics point to recent moves by Obama’s Department of Justice defending the rule.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay Adoption in Arizona

March 26, 2010 – The State Column

Arizona is considering a bill of a different sort; one that would block gays from the adoption process.

Under the proposal, gays and singles would be exempt from the adoption process; married couples alone would be considered. The bill, written by Republican State Representative Warde Nichols, seems to have little political support. However, it indicates that the gay marriage debate is alive and far from over.

Recent polls indicate voters’ main concern is the economy; however, gay marriage remains in the spotlight. Governor David Paterson, a pro-marriage advocate, recently opted out of the New York gubernatorial race, eliciting an outcry from the gay community. Harold Ford Jr. who is considering a run for the New York Senate Seat, found himself mired in controversy over his stance on gay marriage the same day. Meg Whitman, a gubernatorial candidate in California and the most prominent voice in a state embroiled in the gay marriage debate. Whitman, whose support from voters seems steady, recently came out in support of civil unions, but not marriage—a common position for candidates nowadays.

With the upcoming mid-term elections, state and federal organizations are ramping up their organizing efforts and volunteers. As first reported by the New York Times, a group of well-financed gay rights advocates started a political action committee to take aim at state senators opposing same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the D.C. Appeals court recently unanimously rejected an attempt to stop the city from recognizing same-sex marriages next month. Surprisingly, anti-marriage supporters have found themselves with support in unlikely gay-marriage strongholds such as Iowa, where former-governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee stumped for congressional candidates.

Regardless of what happens with gay marriage one thing is for certain: if the economy does not improve, gay marriage will be a side issue. Voters remain concerned about the direction of the economy and, as indicated by the summit held by U.S. President, Congressional members will be judged according to what happens with health care in the coming months. However, should Republicans reclaim the necessary seats to retake the House and Senate, that could change. The emergence of the Tea Party movement has pinned Republicans in a corner. Moderates can expect challenges to their records (see John McCain), forcing them to take more extreme positions in order to be reelected. If voters opt to dismiss Democrats, look for more measures like that proposed in Arizona.

in Adoption / In the News / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Florida Legislature mulls gay adoption ban

By Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com
03.25.2010 9:00am EDT

The Florida Legislature took a tentative step forward as it considered bills in both the House and the Senate that would allow gay couples to adopt, reversing a ban that has been in place since the 1970s.

Late last week an amendment was attached to a bill seeking to eliminate a requirement to ask prospective parents whether they own firearms. The amendment added language that bans asking the sexual orientation of prospective parents.

“There’s many parents who serve as foster parents for years and are denied the right to adopt because of their orientation,” Sen. Charlie Justice told the Miami Herald. He filed the amendment, but later withdrew it.

“The groundbreaking amendment was immediately withdrawn, but not before giving Florida’s GLBT community a glimmer of hope for the future and the future of our families,” Megan Alfredson, a member of Students Advocating For Equality told 365gay.com, after watching the proceedings.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Man Who Under Cambodian Law Adopted Baby Brought to U.S. Was Entitled to Notice of N.Y. Adoption Proceeding Brought by His Former Companion, W; Adoption by W Therefore Vacated

Both M (for man) and W (for woman), “romantically involved” at the time, brought the then 10-month-old baby (John Doe – “JD”) to New York for medical treatment in 2003. He has lived since then with W in New York, M meanwhile securing an adoption of him in 2004 under Cambodian law. Although “[b]oth parties love the child, and have participated in caring for him”, there was a falling out between them in late 2005 about how to raise JD, and hostility between them since. W secured a New York adoption of JD in a surrogate’s court proceeding in which M – legally JD’s father based on the Cambodian adoption – was not notified. Learning of this later, M brought this proceeding before the surrogate to vacate the adoption. The vacatur is granted. In re John Doe, …. N.Y.3d …., …. N.Y.S.2d …., 2010 NY Slip Op 01345 (Feb. 16, 2010).

M and W each claim to be the sole parent now. The case became “complicated”, but the Court, building its decision on the facts (of the many) that are “material to the legal issues” and either conceded or not contradicted, disposes seriatim of the legal issues, of which it lists five.

The first is whether M “validly adopted” JD under Cambodian law. In the face of conflicting experts, the surrogate found that M did, and the Court sees no basis for disturbing the finding.

The second was whether New York should grant comity to the Cambodian adoption by M. The Court really finds no need to answer that because a potential conflict – and hence a need for comity – would arise only if New York deemed itself required to apply Cambodian law in deciding who could properly adopt JD in 2004. In an opinion by Judge Smith, the Court sees no such obligation under New York law because in 2004 it was “highly unlikely” that JD would ever return to Cambodia. New York’s interest even at that point was “not less than Cambodia’s” and New York law could therefore be applied without deference to Cambodia’s.

The third issue concerned a letter M wrote in 2005 stating that he wanted to consent to W’s adoption. The Court cites two ways in which, by statute, M might do that in these circumstances, and the applicable requirements of neither were met by the letter. Again the Court notes that the issue is between New York parents, and that New York law is hence the relevant source of governance. It writes that

[w]hen New York parents have acquired, by virtue of a foreign country adoption, parental rights that are recognized in New York, those rights can no longer depend upon the vagaries of a foreign country’s law. The rule [W] seeks would create unacceptable uncertainty for every New York parent raising a child … adopted in a foreign country.

Here, incidentally, the Court cites its 1963 conflict of laws decision in Babcock v. Jackson, 12 N.Y.2d 473, 240 N.Y.S.2d 743, which abandoned prior arbitrary choice of law notions and held that the governing law in conflicts cases must be

the jurisdiction which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation.

Babcock could also have been cited as dispositive of the second issue noted above.
Issue number four concerned the Act of State doctrine, of which the Court makes short shrift and we with gratitude make even shorter shrift and turn to number five, “the best interests of the child”.

Those interests, “important though they are, do not automatically validate an otherwise illegal adoption”, an adoption the Court deems it necessary to vacate in this case because it “was gravely flawed as a matter of law”, for, among other things, want of notice to M, the legal father, and W’s failure to disclose an alcohol problem.

The Court is impressed enough with M’s assurances that “his own first concern is [JD’s] best interests, and that he has no intention of removing the child from the only home he has ever known”. Relying on that, it finds the issue of just what powers M would now have “academic”. It adds that “we hope it will remain so”, perhaps a tacit admonition that if M’s conduct violates his assurances, the courts will be on standby to look into things again, and, we assume, with “the best interests of the child” now made the yardstick.

in Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Foreign Adoption Alert – Dual Proceedings Can Be Problematic

In this New York Surrogate’s Court adoption proceeding where the two parties never married, petitioner, the father of the Cambodian child who is the subject of this adoption, sought to vacate the court’s prior order permitting respondent, the New york adoptive parent, to “re-adopt” a Cambodian orphan who was residing with her in New York, and to allow him immediate visitation as the father’s child, pursuant to a Cambodian adoption.

The respondent contended that the petitioner had relinquished his adoptive parental rights by a “letter” provided to the authorities in Cambodia, after which she obtained an order of adoption in Cambodia and a subsequent ex parte “re-adoption” order from the Surrogate’s Court in New York. Respondent also contended that the petition was dismissible under the “act of state” doctrine, whereby “the acts of foreign sovereigns taken within their own jurisdictions shall be deemed valid,” because neither of the Cambodian adoptions were completed with a “Giving and Receiving” ceremony.

At trial, petitioner contended that he never legally relinquished his parental rights, and that the respondent’s “re-adoption” of the infant in New York was invalid because he was not served with notice of the proceedings.

The Surrogate’s Court granted the petition, recognized petitioner as the father, vacated its prior order permitting the respondent to adopt the infant, and granted the petitioner immediate visitation by finding that: (1) petitioner’s Cambodian adoption was valid; and (2) he remained the child’s father because his letter relinquishing his rights was invalid under New York law [DRL §115-b]. The Appellate Division affirmed (4-1) on grounds that: (1) because the respondent never completed her Cambodian adoption proceeding, her ex parte “re-adoption” proceeding in New York was a nullity; and (2) even if the respondent’s Cambodian adoption had been completed, New York was not obligated to recognize it pursuant to the “act of state” doctrine, as a foreign adoption involves private interests, in contrast to the act of a foreign state to give effect to its public concerns.

The Court of Appeals affirms, but for different reasons. The Court finds that, although the validity of the petitioner’s Cambodian adoption need not be questioned, the validity of petitioner’s relinquishment of his parental rights must be determined under New York law in accordance with its choice-of-law rules. In this instance, where the involved individuals — petitioner, respondent, and the infant — each resided in New York at the time of the Cambodian proceedings, New York’s interests are paramount, thus making its law controlling. In so holding, the Court determines that, because the petitioner never properly relinquished his parental rights under New York law, he remained the infant’s sole parent. Matter of Doe. Decided 2/16/10.

 

FAMILY LAW. ADOPTIONS. FOREIGN ORPHAN. “ACT OF STATE” DOCTRINE. APPLICABILITY.

in Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Federal Appeals Court: Louisiana Must Recognize Out of State Gay Adoption

Posted on February 18, 2010 by Gideon Alper – GayCouplesLawBlog.com –

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Louisiana has to recognize the New York same-sex adoption of a Louisiana child even though Louisiana does not itself grant same-sex adoptions.

Last October I talked about Adar v. Smith, the Fifth Circuit case where a couple that went to New York to legally adopt a baby born in Louisiana couldn’t get an updated birth certificate from Louisiana. Back then, Louisiana said it didn’t have to recognize adoptions from other states that it wouldn’t perform itself.

The Court today said otherwise.

Why is This Case Important?

Because it’s about how the full faith and credit clause applies to gay rights. The full faith and credit clause is the part of the U.S. Constitution that makes one state recognize the judgments of another state.

Sound familiar? You often hear about how states that don’t allow gay marriage should have to recognize gay marriages from states that do. Instead, states without gay marriage give a similar argument to the one Louisiana gave in Adar v. Smith–that they shouldn’t have to recognize marriages that they themselves would not allow.

What Did the Court Say?

Here’s why the Fifth Circuit said the full faith and credit clause makes Louisiana recognize the New York same sex adoption:

•First, it recognized that the Supreme Court has said that there are no “public policy exceptions” to the clause.

•Second, it disagreed with Louisiana’s argument that adoption decrees are more like a statute than a judgment. Louisiana said that because the New York adoption decree represents New York public policy created by New York statutes, recognizing the adoption would be replacing Louisiana’s policy with New York’s.

•Instead, the court said that the birth certificate is required because it recognizes what New York has already done (the recognition required by the clause). It does not have to reflect would Louisiana would do on its own.
So what does this mean for gay marriage?

Not much. While the court says that domestic-law judgments must be given full faith and credit by other states, a marriage is not a judgment. Further, what gay marriage faces that gay adoption doesn’t face is DOMA, a federal allow that says specifically that states don’t have to recognize gay marriages from other states. Unless DOMA is repealed or is ruled to be unconstitutional, marriages from gay marriage states probably won’t get recognized elsewhere.

Be sure to read the press release from Lambda Legal, which represented the two men.

in Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Another Florida judge delivers ruling against gay adoption ban

Submitted by Jeff on Wed, 01/27/2010 – 2:41pm on ProudParenting.com
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia has delivered the third ruling against Florida’s infamous adoption ban – allowing a lesbian couple to adopt an infant relative, the Miami Herald reports:

“While the 1977 law remains in limbo, Sampedro-Iglesia’s ruling suggests some state court judges already have made up their minds about gay adoption, a thorny political issue in a state with a significant social conservative streak. ‘There is no rational connection between sexual orientation and what is or is not in the best interest of a child,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote in her order. ‘The child is happy and thriving with [Alenier]. The only way to give this child permanency … is to allow him to be adopted’ by her. In her ruling, Sampedro-Iglesia declared Florida’s adoption law ‘unconstitutional on its face.’ For Alenier, who shares a home near downtown Hollywood with her longtime partner, Melanie Leon, the ruling made formal what she already knew she had – a family.”

Two Florida judges have already declared the ban unconstitutional.

in Adoption / In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

South Florida man at forefront of effort to legalize gay adoption

By Susan Spencer-Wendel Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

November 29, 2009
For Starbucks manager Steven Mayer, 29, it’s a dream: a gay man in Florida one day adopting a child.

He and his partner, together about a year now, are making plans to adopt in 10 years.

“We’re kind of hoping society will catch up by then,” Mayer said.

More than 32 years after its passage, Florida’s blanket ban on gay adoption stands as the last one left in the nation. After a few failed legal challenges, now comes a case that advocates of gay adoption have pinned their hopes and legal prowess on.

And opponents are digging in — including Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, whose current office is required to defend the law.

The case springs from Miami­-Dade County, considered one of the more liberal legal bastions in the state. A gay North Miami man, Martin Gill, asked a judge to adopt two boys, half-brothers whom he’s cared for as a foster parent for nearly five years, since they were 4 years old and 4 months old.

Seeking the ideal case to challenge the ban, lawyers for gay rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union found it in Gill and the children. The boys live with Gill, a flight attendant, his partner of nine years and the partner’s own son. All the social workers monitoring the foster family agreed: The brothers thrived with Gill, and he would be approved for adoption but for the law, according to court records.

For years, gay people have been fostering children in need. In Palm Beach County, child welfare agencies began publicly soliciting for homosexual foster parents in 2001.

Social science debate

ACLU attorney Rob Rosenwald Jr. of Miami, who represents Gill, describes the case as “the most extensive legal challenge to the ban, presenting for the first time the world’s foremost scientific authorities on children’s welfare to demonstrate that gay households are as conducive to raising children as straight ones.”

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman agreed and approved Gill’s adoption of the boys. Concluding that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent, she declared the law unconstitutional.

An appeals court’s review of her decision could come at any time. If the 3rd District Court of Appeal concurs, the case would automatically move to consideration by the Florida Supreme Court — placing the hot-button topic of gay adoption at the forefront again.

“The Florida Supreme Court asked for a complete presentation of the science on parenting by gay people,” Rosenwald said. “We put together the nation’s best legal talent and the world’s most respected scientific experts in order to give the court what it wanted and finally overturn this shameful ban once and for all.”

A recent public opinion poll surveyed 1,370 Floridians on the subject in January. The Quinnipiac University poll found that Floridians oppose the ban on homosexual adoption 55 percent to 39 percent.

But public opinion and the law are two different planets, and judges are bound by the law.

In challenging Lederman’s ruling, McCollum’s attorneys, including Solicitor General Scott Makar and his deputy Timothy Osterhaus, are arguing that it is not in the best interests of children to be raised by homosexuals. In Osterhaus’ brief, he wrote that the social science experts on both sides of the legal battle have acknowledged that homosexuals have higher rates of psychiatric conditions, that their children are more sexually active and endure peer bullying, and their relationships appear less stable than those of heterosexuals.

They are thoughts not lost on Mayer.

“I appreciate the laws being so strict even though I am gay,” he said. “I understand. Most homosexuals that I personally know don’t have relationships longer than six months or a year.”

A fight within a fight

But influential organizations have joined the legal fight to argue that there is no difference in homosexual parenting on the adjustment of children. They include nationally recognized psychiatry, psychology, pediatrics, social work and child welfare groups.

A legal organization also is girded for battle — the 3,582-member Family Law section of the Florida Bar. The Bar’s Board of Governors unanimously voted to allow the voluntary-membership section to file a friend-of-the-court brief — spawning another legal battle. Liberty Counsel, a conservative, nonprofit litigation group, appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, attempting unsuccessfully to block the section’s involvement.

Attorney Scott Rubin of Miami, the Family Law section’s head during the decision-making, said the family lawyers wanted to make a statement: that it is in the best interest of Gill’s boys that they remain with Gill.

And that for other children like them, placed in good homes, the sexual orientation of the parent “should be of no moment.”

Soon after the Bar section’s entry, the vast opinion divide unfolded on the pages of the Florida Bar News — the fiery letters a reminder that before a legal opinion always comes a personal one in the debate over gay adoption.

“Thus, it is clear that God, the giver of law, hates the practice of homosexuality and His law and His will are to keep children and those practicing homosexuality apart,” wrote a longtime Leesburg attorney.

A Broward attorney contravened:

“Florida’s children deserve good parents and if they happen to be gay — so what? It is time for Florida’s gay adoption ban to be taken off the books and become just a reminder of how hateful human beings can be toward each other so that we may strive to be better.”

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay adoption bill introduced

National News Notes, q-notes.com

by David Stout | October 31st, 2009, 12:08 am

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) has introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act (HR 3827) which would codify sexual orientation non-discrimination in foster care placements and adoptions nationwide. According to reports, there are approximately 65,500 adopted children being raised by lesbian or gay parents. LGBT singles and couples are also raising an estimated three percent of children in the foster care system.

While Florida is the only state with an express ban on adoption by LGBT individuals, as of 2008, seven states either expressly restrict adoption by LGBT couples or had laws and policies that may have the effect of restricting LGBT parents from adopting. In addition, four states restrict LGBT individuals from becoming foster parents. These restrictions fly in the face of 30 years of scientific research which shows overwhelmingly that children raised in same-sex headed households do just as well emotionally and psychologically as children raised in heterosexual households.

“All decisions concerning the health and welfare of the country’s most vulnerable children should be made solely with their best interest in mind,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, a national organization devoted to securing equality for LGBT families. “We look forward to working with Congressman Stark to educate members of Congress and the public about why non-discrimination in adoption is a national child welfare issue that needs to be addressed.”

in Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments