Supreme Court strikes down adoption law | Arkansas Blog

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Supreme Court strikes down adoption law

Posted By on Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:11 AM

click to enlarge actone.jpg

The Arkansas Supreme Court today ruled the initiated act barring unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children is unconstitutional. There were no dissents on the seven-member court. Justice Robert Brown wrote the opinion.

It held the law is a violation of fundamental privacy rights under the Arkansas Constitution and declined to consider other issues raised in the appeal and cross-appeals. Significantly, this leaves no guidance on whether a U.S. constitutional challenge could be mounted to the state constitutional prohbition against same-sex marriage.

Here's the opinion.

The initiated act was approved by 57 percent of voters in 2008. It was nakedly aimed at keeping children out of the homes of same-sex couples, but it was written to keep children out of the homes of any "cohabiting" couples. The ACLU brought the suit for a number of differently situated plaintiffs arguing that it served no purpose except to deprive children who needed them of suitable homes and that it was motivated by prejudice toward gay people. Circuit Judge Chris Piazza struck down the law on state privacy ground and the Supreme Court's decision today affirmed that ruling.

As Piazza said, "due process and equal protection are not hollow words without substance." The court held in its landmark Jegley ruling striking down the criminal sodomy law that the fundamental right to privacy encompasses the right of people to engage in private, consensual, non-commercial sexual conduct. The court said the adoption amendment falls because the privacy right of private sexual relationshp is conditioned on foregoing the privilege of adoption or foster parenting. In short, it penalizes someone for a protected activity, private sexual relations.

The court drew a distinction in considering cohabitation in custody and other domestic cases. There, the best interests of a child are paramount, the court said. Each is decided on a case-by-case basis. Act 1, though, is a blanket ban. The court noted a great deal of difference between a custodial parent's sexual relationship with a third party, perhaps unknown to a child, and the rigorous review process for potential adoptive and foster parents.

The court said because the law restricted fundamental rights, it came under heightened scrutiny on whether the least restrictive means were used to achieve a compelling state interest.

The state defended the law. The Family Council, the conservative religious group that put the initiative on the ballot, intervened also to defend it.

The court said the law was neither narrowly tailored nor used the least restrictive means to achieve the goal of advancing the best interests of children. Witness after witness testified that no interest of a child was advanced by a blanket ban on unmarried couples. Even the Family Council's own attorney conceded some unmarried couples would be suitable parents. The court said concerns about the stability of unmarried couples could be dealt with by a rigorous screening process.

The Family Council will denounce the ruling at a news conference at 11:30 a.m. at the Capitol. The instant e-mail reaction from the ACLU's Rita Sklar? "We won!!!!"

UPDATE: Jerry Cox, who leads the Family Council effort to demonize gay people, said at this news conference his group might consider a state constitutional amendment to place his religion-oriented restrictions on adoption and foster parenting. Judicial tyranny and the worst decision ever by the Arkansas Supreme Court, he said. (See video of Cox on the jump). There is no bottom to his willingness to enforce punitive religious views on others, no matter how many children it harms. However: Lessons were learned in the last campaign, which confused many voters. Times also continue to change. I'd prefer not to fight the fight, but this time I think it will be won. And U.S. constitutional grounds remain to challenge all of Cox's attempts to constitutionalize bigotry.

Gov. Mike Beebe on the other hand said:

The Department of Human Services will continue to carefully consider each foster-care and adoption application, with the best interest of the child the foremost concern. By expanding the pool of potential applicants, today's Supreme Court decision will create more opportunities to match children with loving and supportive homes.

Let's stick with today. It's a big deal. A great day for human rights. A great day for children who need homes.

Good background on the case here. Also, two of the plaintiffs:

The couple commented in an ACLU news release on the decision:

“We are excited about today's ruling,” said Wendy Rickman, who, along with her partner of 11 years, Stephanie Huffman, was represented in the case by the ACLU. Rickman and Huffman adopted a special-needs foster child in Arkansas and would like to open their home to another special-needs child. “We feel that the court thoroughly reviewed the facts of the case and ruled accordingly. We look forward to the opportunity to go through the adoption process once more and to welcome another child into our family.”

“This ruling is a relief for the over 1,600 children in the state of Arkansas who need a permanent family. The state admitted good families would be banned by this law, and that we have a critical shortage of homes,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “This ban wouldn’t even allow a relative — gay or straight — to foster or adopt a child with whom they had a close relationship, so long as that relative was unmarried and living with a partner. The court clearly saw that this ban violated the constitutional rights of our clients and thousands of other Arkansans.”

In addition to Rickman and Huffman, plaintiffs participating in the case include three teenagers in state care who are awaiting placement with a foster or adoptive family, a grandmother who was barred by Act 1 from adopting her own grandchild and several married heterosexual couples who are prohibited by Act 1 from arranging for certain friends or relatives to adopt their children if they die or become incapacitated.

UPDATE: As promised, video from today's Family Council press conference. Cox said they had run out of legal options in the state and said his group's attorneys were leaning against taking the case to federal court. "One way to bring this back, not as an initiated act, would be a constitutional amendment," Cox said. He also mentioned trying to approach the issue through the legislature.

ALSO: A comment from the group headed by a native Arkansan working to restore same-sex marriage rights in California and elsewhere.

Los Angeles, CA — In response to today’s unanimous decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court to strike down Act 1, a 2008 voter-approved initiative that would have banned gay and lesbian couples from adopting or serving as foster parents, Chad Griffin, Board President for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, issued the following statement:

“As a native Arkansan, I am proud that a unanimous Arkansas Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have prevented gay and lesbian couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. This decision is another milestone in the growing judicial and public consensus supporting the full equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

"Nationwide polling shows that a majority of the public now supports the freedom to marry, Congress has lifted the ban on gay and lesbian service in the military, and the federal court has ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

"This is a great day for families in Arkansas and for the entire country.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

From the ArkTimes store

Favorite

Comments (50)

Showing 1-50 of 50

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-50 of 50

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • Turkeys rescued in Yellville enjoy their Thanksgiving

    Farm Sanctuary, an animal protection organization, sends word that four turkeys rescued from the Yellville Turkey Trot after the annual drops from buildings and an airplane will enjoy Thanksgiving in friendlier places
    • Nov 23, 2017
  • The New Orleans charter school 'miracle'? It's a ruse

    The New Orleans Tribune has a devastating piece of editorial commentary, based on local reporting and test scores, that lays bare the depiction of the charterization of New Orleans public schools 12 years ago as a miracle of the "reform" movement.
    • Nov 23, 2017
  • More criticism of UA proposal to change tenure policy

    Reason is among the latest to offer critical commentary of a proposal from University of Arkansas System lawyers to change the tenure policy so that a lack of collegiality could be used as a justification for firing a tenured professor.
    • Nov 23, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Judge anticipates punishment of lawyers in Fort Smith class action case

    Federal Judge P.K. Holmes of Fort Smith issued a 32-page ruling yesterday indicating he contemplates punishment of 16 lawyers who moved a class action lawsuit against an insurance company out of his court to a state court in Polk County after a settlement had been worked out.
    • Apr 15, 2016
  • Arkansas Supreme Court refuses to rehear invalidation of marijuana act

    The Arkansas Supreme Court today denied a request to rehear its decision invalidating Issue 7, the medical marijuana initiated act.
    • Nov 3, 2016
  • IHOP coming down, but .....

    I always scan the Little Rock City Board for items of interest this week and this one caught my eye: A zoning measure required by a proposal to tear down the IHOP at Markham and University.
    • Apr 30, 2016

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation