Quick Update: Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Unmarried Adoption Ban

I’m on the fly, but wanted to post this newsA few days ago I wrote about a pending Arkansas case.   The case challenged a statute, enacted by popular vote, that prohibited unmarried couples from adopting.  The judge (a state court trial judge) ruled earlier today and struck down the statute.   I’ll have more to say soon, but the bottom line would seem to be that unmarried couples, including lesbian and gay couples, can adopt in Arkansas.


5 responses to “Quick Update: Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Unmarried Adoption Ban

  1. An unemotional look at the situation should tell law makers that they can’t possibly require marriage as a prerequisite to adopted parenthood if they do not cannot require it as a prerequisite to genetic parenthood.

    All things being equal, a rule for one has to be applied to all.

  2. I do think that law makers have a case against adoption by an individual vs a couple. In california both male and female progenator are equally responsible for raising their offspring to adulthood. Custody is automatically 50/50 – adjusted only if circumstances require and women who earn more than their male counterparts are finding themselves writing support checks even though they have the child half the time themselves (this was my situation). From an economic standpoint I can see where the state would not want to give up two sources of support for a child in exchange for one. If that one person looses a job there is nobody to turn to for child support and the state won’t have an opportunity to recover its costs by garnishing the wages of one of the parents.
    Also I think adoption was originally conceived as a 1 for 1 replacement of the child’s male and female progenitors. The idea was to prepare paperwork that would make it appear as if the adopters had conceived the child rather than adopted the child. All records regarding the child’s true origins would be sealed by the court so that the only way the child or community would ever know the child was adopted was if the adopters chose to disclose the information themselves. The only way to create the illusion that a child was conceived by another couple is to have the child adopted by a couple that includes a male and a female. I understand that law is moving away from this model because adoption seeks less and less to imitate conception. The difference between guardianship and adoption has always been the attempt to imitate conception. The right to be referred to by genetic titles like parent, mother and father is not something one gets with guardianship because in guardianship there is no attempt to conceal the child’s origin, the identity of the child’s parents and no attempt to imitate conception.

  3. Adoption in Arkansas now also seems to fall into the same category as it does in many other ‘progressive’ states. It’s all about servicing the needs of adults to raise a child, rather than servicing the needs of children to have a stable normal family with a mom and a dad. Despite gays and lesbian couples demanding and in some states obtaining all the rights of committed married heterosexuals, it cannot transform them into the same desirable unit for a child who craves a mom and dad and NORMALITY. Hence for hard to place children from the system, maybe a homosexual couple might be a reasonable substitute option rather than the child staying in a children’s home or being shunted around foster homes, but I just cannot accept that it should be allowed as a first choice option if a willing heterosexual couple want to adopt the child. Why disadvantage the child unnecessarily! Of course in terms of co-adoptions by lesbians, if one of the couple is the biological mother, unlike Julie I would not snatch the child away just because a heterosexual couple would most likely make better parents, because I strongly believe in the desirability of biological ties trumping everything else, so I would have the child remain with the mother and if she wants it (but only if she is willing) I would allow co-adoption.

    • It’s apparent that you and I do not agree on what is normal nor how valuable normality is. But I resist your suggestion that this case reflects a concern only with the rights of the adults. Isn’t it at least quite possible that it is in the interests of the child to be raised by her (genetically related) grandmother, with whom she has been living, rather than by someone she does not know?

  4. Sandy May I believe the available data disproves you on this one. Most children would be much better off adopted than as foster children.

    If persons who are allowed to be foster parents are then not allowed to adopt, it is certainly something other than concern over the children’s welfare going on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s