Mother No More?

North Carolina's Supreme Court voids "second-parent" adoptions by homogamous couples.

Related Topics, by Judy Shapiro, calls my attention to a very aggressive anti-gay-parent ruling by the N.C. Supreme Court, which retroactively voided the adoptions of same-gender spouses. The decision, in the case Boseman v. Jarrell, went beyond the couple at hand to undo existing adoptions in which an adoptive parent joined a biological parent and shared parental rights, much like step-parents may do.

The public profile of the case is elevated by the fact that Boseman is Julia Boseman, the state's "only openly-gay state senator," the only one to vote against honoring Jesse Helms when he died, and a key supporter of anti-bullying and comprehensive sex education programs.

Shapiro writes:

The case begins with a familiar if sad scenario. Julie Boseman and Melissa Jarrell, a lesbian couple, decided to raise a child together. Jarrell became pregnant via insemination with sperm from an anonymous provider. Their son, Jacob, was born in October, 2002.

Jarrell and Boseman lived together with Jacob until 2006, at which point they separated. There's no doubt that each of the women acted as Jacob's mother before their separation, sharing the responsibilities and obligations of parenting. ... In order to secure Boseman's rights, the two women [had gone] to court in 2005 and requested that Boseman be recognized as an adoptive parent of Jacob [without terminating Jarrell's parental rights]. The court complied with this request.  ... With the adoption in place, when the women split up, you end up with an ordinary custody fight between parents.

But to get a leg up in that custody fight, Jarrell sued to have Boseman's rights revoked, and that's what the Supreme Court did -- as if the adoption never happened, which is very rare in adoption cases so long after the fact. Not only that, Shapiro explains:

The North Carolina court's opinion doesn't just apply to Jacob. It applies to all the other second-parent adoptions that have been conducted there-or so it would appear. All the second-parent adoption completed in NC, even those where the two parents are perfectly happy raising their kids in a unitary family, are void. With the stroke of the pen, the NC court deprived all those families of the legal security that the adoptions provided.

It was just this scenario that those in favor of second-parent adoption rights were afraid of. In its explanation of why it filed an amicus brief on behalf of Boseman, the American Psychological Association said that "about 250 lesbian and gay couples have used the second parent procedure in adoptions in North Carolina. These adoptions, as well as future adoptions, would be at risk if the challenge is successful."

Revoking the parental rights from stable families could be devastating, as Shapiro explains:

Well, suppose the adoptive mom is injured or killed. If she was a parent, her child might well be eligible to receive various benefits via Social Security. But as of a couple weeks ago, she's not a parent any more and the child won't be eligible. Or perhaps the child is eligible for health insurance because of the adoptive mother's employment? Not any more. Not a legal parent, no more health insurance. ...[T]here are probably a number of people in North Carolina who don't realize that they aren't legal parents anymore. ... They may only find out they aren't legal parents when it really matters most-when they try to make a claim on insurance and the insurer challenges the child's eligibility, say.

According to media reports, the only recourse now is a change in state law enabling second-parent adoptions -- or, of course, legalize homogamous marriage. That didn't happen before 2010's election, and it seems less than likely now that Republicans control both houses of the legislature.

Cross posted from the Family Inequality blog.

 

Comments

[Saboruto]

10:35 PM on 01/07/2011

I hate my state. North Carolina should be ashamed of itself. We have a Supreme Court that tells parents they aren't allowed to be parents anymore, we have lawmakers who got elected to create jobs and instead they're drafting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. It's very clear to me that the "great state" of North Carolina does not value me or want me here.

[mama1974]

11:05 AM on 01/05/2011

It's terrible to think that one parent would hurt their child by keeping a loving parent away.

[Bill J4321]

01:37 PM on 01/05/2011

Heterosexual parents do this all the time. Using their children as tools in their messy divorces.

What is terrible here is that those we have charged with protecting our citizens via the Constitution have used their power to harm the children whose parents they disapprove of.

Morality indeed, folks. Morality indeed.

[Chardon Louisa Murray]

03:21 PM on 01/07/2011

Not just their child, EVERY SINGLE CHILD of the 250 same sex families in NC who used to have TWO parents, but now only have one thanks to this horrible ruling. I know Julia, I know Jacob, and they love each other very much. I don't know Melissa, so I won't judge her based on anything other than her willingness to ruin the lives of 250 families in the state just because she didn't like Julia. It's disgraceful, it's disgusting, and it's selfish. Especially because Jacob is happy, healthy, and safe with BOTH of his mothers. Absolutely disgusting.

[caphillprof]

08:45 AM on 01/05/2011

In the absence of actual abuse, wouldn't joint custody usually be in the best interest of the child? Particularly where the birth parent may not be the one most invested in the parent child relationship?

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:27 PM on 01/05/2011

They don't, sadly, care about anything except that at least one of the couple is punished for being GLBT. Of course joint custody is generally in the best interest of the child--but homohaters don't care about that.

[Jdaddy1951]

08:06 AM on 01/05/2011

With a stroke of a pen, gay parents are reduced to second class citizenship, having to jump through legal hoops to ensure that their relationships with their children are protected and legitimate. When will this cycle of bias end?

This makes argumentals stronger for comprehensive federal antidiscrimination laws, that include adoption rights that preclude discrimination because of gender or sexual orientation, even stronger and more urgent.

[Ioan Lightoller]

03:29 PM on 01/05/2011

God, I wish I knew the answer to your question Jdaddy. Second-class status has gotten so old for me it isn't funny. Yet haters come on HuffPost and call us out as selfish and stubborn for insisting that we have rights and that they should be enforced just as the rights of straight marrieds are enforced in law. Their arrogance is breathtaking.

[Jdaddy1951]

05:54 PM on 01/05/2011

All I know to do is just keep being a "selfish, stubborn whiner" (you forgot about them calling us whiner just because we want the same rights as everyone else) until we wear down enough people that they'll give us what we want just to shut us up.

When we get equal rights, then we can go back to redecorating their homes, fixing their hair and catering their meals with fabulous quiches and creme brulees ...

[neighborhoodmole]

12:29 AM on 01/06/2011

Good luck getting federal protection now with the Republicans in control of the House! The real problem is DOMA, perhaps the courts will repeal it. In the meantime, it is terrible that these kids may be losing their health insurance and other benefits if their non-biological parent was the one working. This is so immoral to legally tear apart families that are still together and do so retroactively! What if every step-parent was similarly denied any parental recognition?

[Jdaddy1951]

08:20 AM on 01/06/2011

Every time I read one of these stories, I shudder. Four of my (adult) children are fostered and I had to go to the courts to establish legal custody of two of my biological kids. We're safe now, but in the back of my mind, never spoken, was always an unspoken fear that some insensitive judge could undo the family we created.