Jane Doe and Judy Roe, a same-sex couple in Michigan, each adopted children individually and now want to jointly adopt the children so they can be a legal family. However, Michigan law restricts adoption to married or single individuals, excluding unmarried couples like Jane and Judy. They have asked lawyers to determine if they can challenge this law. The lawyers analyze whether the law violates equal protection rights and which court could hear the case. They find the law will likely be upheld under a rational basis test since the state only needs a rational reason for the classification. Precedent from other states offers some guidance on these issues.
This case concerns the constitutionality of Florida's ban on adoption by homosexual persons. Under Florida law at the time, homosexual persons were allowed to serve as foster parents but were barred from being considered for adoption. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no rational basis for this distinction and that the statute banning adoption by homosexual persons was therefore unconstitutional. The court found no evidence to support distinguishing between homosexual persons serving as foster parents or guardians versus adoptive parents, where the adoption would be in the best interests of the children. The Department of Children and Families appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.
This document summarizes legal issues facing LGBTQ individuals and families. It discusses barriers LGBTQ families face such as lack of legal ties between parents and children. It outlines states that allow same-sex marriage and civil unions versus states that ban them. It also summarizes the federal Defense of Marriage Act and legal challenges to it. Additionally, it discusses how LGBTQ families are formed through adoption, surrogacy or artificial insemination and legal documents that can help protect LGBTQ families.
This document summarizes key information about same-sex unions and domestic partnership agreements. It discusses the status of same-sex unions internationally and in various U.S. states and jurisdictions. It also outlines important components and considerations for drafting cohabitation and domestic partnership agreements, including taxation issues, estate and trust matters, and potential pitfalls. Unsettled legal areas are also examined, such as the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognition of foreign marriages and divorces.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reunite an asylum-seeking mother and her 7-year-old daughter fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, only to be forcibly torn from each other in the U.S. and detained separately 2,000 miles apart.
On June 26, 2018, the court issued 2 orders (1) granting preliminary injunction and (2) certifying class action status.
This order was uploaded by me, Josh Goldstein. I'm an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, California. You can reach me at:
http://www.immigrationlawyerslosangeles.com/
Law Offices of Joshua L Goldstein, PC
811 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
I am licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, New York. I practice immigration and nationality law in all 50 states and around the world. Not licensed to practice law in California.
The memorandum analyzes whether a North Carolina statute banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. For issue I, the statute likely violates the state constitution based on a Massachusetts precedent establishing marriage as an inalienable right. For issue II, the statute likely violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment based on a Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage. The plaintiffs, a married same-sex couple, were denied a marriage license under the statute and are suing the state.
Np v state_of_georgia_usa_statement_of_interestscreaminc
This document is a statement of interest filed by the United States in a lawsuit regarding the right to counsel for juveniles in delinquency proceedings in Georgia. The United States argues that juveniles have a constitutional right to meaningful legal representation, including an attorney with adequate resources and training to advocate for the juvenile's interests. The United States also asserts that courts must ensure any waiver of counsel by a juvenile is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, which requires consultation with an attorney.
This document summarizes and provides arguments in support of Illinois House Bill 0110, known as the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. The bill would legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois while protecting religious organizations' right not to perform or recognize such marriages. The document argues that denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights violates principles of equal protection and cannot withstand strict scrutiny review. It also argues that allowing same-sex marriage does not harm traditional marriage or children, and respects the separation of church and state mandated by the US and Illinois constitutions.
This case concerns the constitutionality of Florida's ban on adoption by homosexual persons. Under Florida law at the time, homosexual persons were allowed to serve as foster parents but were barred from being considered for adoption. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no rational basis for this distinction and that the statute banning adoption by homosexual persons was therefore unconstitutional. The court found no evidence to support distinguishing between homosexual persons serving as foster parents or guardians versus adoptive parents, where the adoption would be in the best interests of the children. The Department of Children and Families appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.
This document summarizes legal issues facing LGBTQ individuals and families. It discusses barriers LGBTQ families face such as lack of legal ties between parents and children. It outlines states that allow same-sex marriage and civil unions versus states that ban them. It also summarizes the federal Defense of Marriage Act and legal challenges to it. Additionally, it discusses how LGBTQ families are formed through adoption, surrogacy or artificial insemination and legal documents that can help protect LGBTQ families.
This document summarizes key information about same-sex unions and domestic partnership agreements. It discusses the status of same-sex unions internationally and in various U.S. states and jurisdictions. It also outlines important components and considerations for drafting cohabitation and domestic partnership agreements, including taxation issues, estate and trust matters, and potential pitfalls. Unsettled legal areas are also examined, such as the impact of the Defense of Marriage Act and recognition of foreign marriages and divorces.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reunite an asylum-seeking mother and her 7-year-old daughter fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, only to be forcibly torn from each other in the U.S. and detained separately 2,000 miles apart.
On June 26, 2018, the court issued 2 orders (1) granting preliminary injunction and (2) certifying class action status.
This order was uploaded by me, Josh Goldstein. I'm an immigration lawyer in Los Angeles, California. You can reach me at:
http://www.immigrationlawyerslosangeles.com/
Law Offices of Joshua L Goldstein, PC
811 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
I am licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, New York. I practice immigration and nationality law in all 50 states and around the world. Not licensed to practice law in California.
The memorandum analyzes whether a North Carolina statute banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. For issue I, the statute likely violates the state constitution based on a Massachusetts precedent establishing marriage as an inalienable right. For issue II, the statute likely violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment based on a Supreme Court case striking down bans on interracial marriage. The plaintiffs, a married same-sex couple, were denied a marriage license under the statute and are suing the state.
Np v state_of_georgia_usa_statement_of_interestscreaminc
This document is a statement of interest filed by the United States in a lawsuit regarding the right to counsel for juveniles in delinquency proceedings in Georgia. The United States argues that juveniles have a constitutional right to meaningful legal representation, including an attorney with adequate resources and training to advocate for the juvenile's interests. The United States also asserts that courts must ensure any waiver of counsel by a juvenile is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, which requires consultation with an attorney.
This document summarizes and provides arguments in support of Illinois House Bill 0110, known as the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. The bill would legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois while protecting religious organizations' right not to perform or recognize such marriages. The document argues that denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights violates principles of equal protection and cannot withstand strict scrutiny review. It also argues that allowing same-sex marriage does not harm traditional marriage or children, and respects the separation of church and state mandated by the US and Illinois constitutions.
Off-Bench Commentaries of Federal Judges A Case StudyPhilip Stevens
This document provides an overview and analysis of off-bench commentaries by federal judges. It begins with background on the evolving role of federal judges and the development of extrajudicial speech. It then discusses the scope of the paper's focus on "commentaries" and exclusions. The document outlines the relevant Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and analyzes five examples of judges' public commentaries, discussing which crossed ethical lines and which contributed to public knowledge within the guidelines. It concludes by considering how digital communication may impact judicial speech going forward.
This case involves seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses and sued, arguing that New Jersey's marriage laws violated their equal protection and due process rights under the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples but left it to the legislature to determine whether to amend marriage laws or create a separate statutory structure like civil unions. The court found no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution but that denying benefits to same-sex couples violated equal protection. The legislature was given 180 days to comply. Chief Justice Poritz concurred in part and dissented in part.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the termination of a mother's parental rights. The juvenile court had found the children dependent and neglected due to the mother's inability to care for them and physical abuse by the father. The children were placed in foster care. The state filed to terminate the mother's parental rights for noncompliance with the permanency plan and persistence of conditions. The trial court agreed and terminated the mother's rights. The mother appealed. The appellate court summarized the issues as whether there was clear and convincing evidence of (1) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) best interests of the children. The appellate court ultimately reversed the termination due to failure to enter
Structure of The Birth Certificate - Are You Chattel?Chuck Thompson
We can neither confirm nor deny the information in this article but it is very interesting. We did not write it and use it under fair use laws as it will eventually be posted on our main website. http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com Visit us for real solutions.
1. This document is a ruling from the Supreme Court of California regarding challenges to California statutes that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
2. The court must determine whether limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples while granting same-sex couples virtually all the same legal rights and obligations through domestic partnerships violates the state constitution.
3. The court concludes that the right to marry under the California constitution must be understood to apply to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. However, reserving the designation of "marriage" only for opposite-sex couples risks denying same-sex couples equal dignity and respect.
Here is a sample Living Will form that you can use as a starting point if you choose to draft your own Living Will without an attorney:
Living Will Declaration
I, [name], being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make known my desire that my dying not be artificially prolonged under the circumstances set forth below.
If at any time I should have an incurable and irreversible condition that, without the administration of life-sustaining procedures, will, in the opinion of my attending physician, cause my death within a relatively short time and I am no longer able to make decisions regarding my medical treatment, I direct that treatment be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die naturally with only the administration
The document provides an outline and discussion of the legal history and status of same-sex marriage in the United States and Florida. It discusses key court cases that have framed the issue and the evolution of recognizing marriage equality across states from 2010 to 2015. It also outlines potential impacts if an upcoming Supreme Court case upholds bans on same-sex marriage, such as same-sex couples in affected states losing marital rights and benefits.
A reference manual for department of family and children services case managersscreaminc
This document provides a summary of Georgia law and juvenile court procedures related to child deprivation cases handled by the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS). It discusses the process from the initial allegation through adjudication and dispositional hearings. The manual aims to give DFCS case managers an understanding of their role and the types of evidence admissible at different stages of the legal process. While not an official policy document, it provides context for case managers navigating the legal aspects of protecting children from abuse and neglect.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. The Court found that (1) the statutory scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) sexual orientation should be considered a quasi-suspect classification under the state constitution, and (3) the state failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the state and directed the trial court to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
Confidentiality, Transparency, and Accountability: A Delicate Balance in Chil...bartoncenter
Howard Davidson, Director, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, presents changes in law and policy regarding the issues of managing privacy and confidentiality of child abuse cases and the need for greater transparency and accountability from those who manage the cases.
Open Juvenile Courts in Georgia - SB 207bartoncenter
This Georgia Child Welfare Legal Academy outlines the changes in the law regarding open v. closed juvenile courts after the passage of Senate Bill 207.
Article 1-26
Disclaimer:
All of the pictures and pieces of information on this site are the property of their respective owners. I do not hold any copyright in regards to these pictures and information. These pictures have been collected from different public sources including various websites, considered to be in the public domain. If anyone has any objection to display of any picture, image or information, it may be brought to my notice by sending an email (contact me) & the disputed media will be removed immediately, after verification of the claim.
Estate Planning for the Non Traditional FamilyBarry Siegal
Historically, most estate plans revolved around the nuclear family structure of husband and wife who were married for the first time and children that were born of that marriage.
Over the course of the last 20 plus years, divorce rates have increased, more opposite-sex couples are opting to live together without getting married, and there is a greater awareness of same sex couples who are committed to each other. In these situations the traditional approach of estate planning is not always appropriate.
For purposes of this presentation, the “non-traditional family” consists of either a same sex couple, whether or not recognized as “married” for state law purposes, as well as the opposite sex couple who are committed to each other, but for one reason or another have decided not to get married.
1 Although opposite sex couples who have previously been married and have children by a prior marriage are also considered a “non-traditional family” and have unique issues, this relationship will not be addressed in this presentation.
Illinois grandparent law right see grandchildJoe Pioletti
This document discusses grandparents' rights to visitation with grandchildren in Illinois. It explains that Illinois law does not automatically grant visitation rights to grandparents, but they can petition the court for visitation. The court will consider factors like the child's wishes, the grandparent's relationship with the child, the reasons for denied visitation, and whether denial would harm the child. Grandparents must prove an unreasonable denial of visitation and meet eligibility criteria like the death or absence of one parent to have a chance at court-ordered access. Hiring an experienced family law attorney familiar with grandparents' rights case law can help grandparents navigate this complex legal issue.
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
This document is an entry from a United States District Court regarding three cases (Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Pence, and Lee v. Pence) challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's same-sex marriage ban. The court provides background on Indiana's marriage laws and the plaintiffs in each case. It also lays out the standard for summary judgment. The court will consider the parties' cross motions for summary judgment to determine whether Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
As attorneys who represent hundreds of unaccompanied children and asylum seekers from Central America, we write this letter to respectfully demand that you rescind the Section M, “Accountability Measures to Protect Alien Children from Exploitation and Prevent Abuses of Our Immigration Laws” of the February 20, 2017 memorandum entitled “Implementing the Presidnet’s Enforcement Improvement Policies” given that it is in direct violation of the Flores v. Meese Settlement (“Flores”) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (PUBLIC LAW 110–457—DEC. 23, 2008) (“TVPRA”)
Pence Administration Agency compliance instructions on same-sex marriageAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
The document summarizes the status of same-sex marriages in Indiana according to recent court rulings and provides instructions to executive branch agencies. It outlines that a district court struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage but that ruling was stayed by an appeals court. However, the appeals court did recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple. The general counsel then instructs agencies to comply with the appeals court's stay of the district court ruling, and thus consider Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage as still in effect, except for recognizing the one couple's marriage as ordered. Agencies are told to contact the general counsel if they have any legal issues in applying this policy.
The document summarizes key provisions around parental authority from the Family Code of the Philippines. It discusses that parental authority includes caring for and developing children's character. It also notes that both parents jointly exercise this authority, though the father's decision prevails in cases of disagreement. The document outlines situations where parental authority may be suspended, such as if a parent treats a child with cruelty or subjects them to inappropriate acts. It provides high-level information about parental rights and responsibilities according to Filipino law.
This document provides an overview of LGBT relationships and divorce procedures in New Jersey. It discusses the history of relationships including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage. It also addresses common questions about these relationships. The document then reviews the procedural requirements for ending legal relationships in New Jersey, including filing for divorce or dissolution. Finally, it discusses some common legal issues that may arise in LGBT divorces under New Jersey family law, such as alimony, property distribution, and child custody.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage violates the state constitution. The court found that denying the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples who wish to marry deprives them of equal dignity and creates second-class citizens. However, the court stayed its ruling for 180 days to allow the legislature to take any action it deems appropriate. Three justices dissented, arguing that the definition of marriage is a policy decision for the legislature.
Rodriguez 1
Diego Rodriguez
Winston Padgett
Government 2305, Sect. 049
Monday, April 14, 2014
Same Sex Marriage: Constitutional and Cultural Considerations Outline
Same sex marriage - is a highly controversial topic in the United States. It impacts our culture and, in many regards to religious beliefs
I. Why and how the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important rulings that opened up room in constitutional jurisprudence for consideration of gay rights.
A. Yet the vast majority of other states have adopted statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Do they right to revolt against government tyranny and fight for their rights
B. What states approve of same sex marriage? Which states deny same sex marriage? How has this happen?
II. In this Article, I argue that an individual who marries in her state of domicile and then migrates to a mini-defense of marriage act state has a significant liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the ongoing existence of her marriage.
A. Section 1 ARTICLE IV “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
B. Courts generally agreed right applies to individuals
C. Government permitted to limit some rights of marriage by same sex.
D. Questions today center around: What bans our enforced presently on same sex marriage? Should it be mandatory for gays that want marriage neutral principle grounded in core Due Process Clause values: protection of reasonable expectations and of marital and family privacy, respect for established legal and social practices, and rejection of the idea that a state can sever a legal family relationship merely by operation of law?
III. Court cases outcome for gay marriages
A. The article cites a survey on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the U.S. which found that 50% of the American people are in favor of the amendment banning same-sex marriages while 47% strongly opposed.
B. This survey was conducted by Gallup Poll Ltd. conducted on May 8-11, 2006. Findings also revealed that 66% of the Republicans favor the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution while 55% of the Democrats opposed the amendment.
C. United States v. Windsor, a narrow majority ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which comprehensively defined "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law to exclude same-sex partners, was unconstitutional.
D. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a trial-court ruling invalidating California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage. Will Fourteenth Amendment still not incorporated to protect gay marriage
IV. There have been and there will continue to be disagreements about the merits of same-sex marriage. But disagree ...
Off-Bench Commentaries of Federal Judges A Case StudyPhilip Stevens
This document provides an overview and analysis of off-bench commentaries by federal judges. It begins with background on the evolving role of federal judges and the development of extrajudicial speech. It then discusses the scope of the paper's focus on "commentaries" and exclusions. The document outlines the relevant Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and analyzes five examples of judges' public commentaries, discussing which crossed ethical lines and which contributed to public knowledge within the guidelines. It concludes by considering how digital communication may impact judicial speech going forward.
This case involves seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses and sued, arguing that New Jersey's marriage laws violated their equal protection and due process rights under the state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples but left it to the legislature to determine whether to amend marriage laws or create a separate statutory structure like civil unions. The court found no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution but that denying benefits to same-sex couples violated equal protection. The legislature was given 180 days to comply. Chief Justice Poritz concurred in part and dissented in part.
This document summarizes a court case regarding the termination of a mother's parental rights. The juvenile court had found the children dependent and neglected due to the mother's inability to care for them and physical abuse by the father. The children were placed in foster care. The state filed to terminate the mother's parental rights for noncompliance with the permanency plan and persistence of conditions. The trial court agreed and terminated the mother's rights. The mother appealed. The appellate court summarized the issues as whether there was clear and convincing evidence of (1) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (2) persistence of conditions; and (3) best interests of the children. The appellate court ultimately reversed the termination due to failure to enter
Structure of The Birth Certificate - Are You Chattel?Chuck Thompson
We can neither confirm nor deny the information in this article but it is very interesting. We did not write it and use it under fair use laws as it will eventually be posted on our main website. http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com Visit us for real solutions.
1. This document is a ruling from the Supreme Court of California regarding challenges to California statutes that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
2. The court must determine whether limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples while granting same-sex couples virtually all the same legal rights and obligations through domestic partnerships violates the state constitution.
3. The court concludes that the right to marry under the California constitution must be understood to apply to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples. However, reserving the designation of "marriage" only for opposite-sex couples risks denying same-sex couples equal dignity and respect.
Here is a sample Living Will form that you can use as a starting point if you choose to draft your own Living Will without an attorney:
Living Will Declaration
I, [name], being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make known my desire that my dying not be artificially prolonged under the circumstances set forth below.
If at any time I should have an incurable and irreversible condition that, without the administration of life-sustaining procedures, will, in the opinion of my attending physician, cause my death within a relatively short time and I am no longer able to make decisions regarding my medical treatment, I direct that treatment be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die naturally with only the administration
The document provides an outline and discussion of the legal history and status of same-sex marriage in the United States and Florida. It discusses key court cases that have framed the issue and the evolution of recognizing marriage equality across states from 2010 to 2015. It also outlines potential impacts if an upcoming Supreme Court case upholds bans on same-sex marriage, such as same-sex couples in affected states losing marital rights and benefits.
A reference manual for department of family and children services case managersscreaminc
This document provides a summary of Georgia law and juvenile court procedures related to child deprivation cases handled by the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS). It discusses the process from the initial allegation through adjudication and dispositional hearings. The manual aims to give DFCS case managers an understanding of their role and the types of evidence admissible at different stages of the legal process. While not an official policy document, it provides context for case managers navigating the legal aspects of protecting children from abuse and neglect.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the state constitution. The Court found that (1) the statutory scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) sexual orientation should be considered a quasi-suspect classification under the state constitution, and (3) the state failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The Court reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the state and directed the trial court to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
Confidentiality, Transparency, and Accountability: A Delicate Balance in Chil...bartoncenter
Howard Davidson, Director, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, presents changes in law and policy regarding the issues of managing privacy and confidentiality of child abuse cases and the need for greater transparency and accountability from those who manage the cases.
Open Juvenile Courts in Georgia - SB 207bartoncenter
This Georgia Child Welfare Legal Academy outlines the changes in the law regarding open v. closed juvenile courts after the passage of Senate Bill 207.
Article 1-26
Disclaimer:
All of the pictures and pieces of information on this site are the property of their respective owners. I do not hold any copyright in regards to these pictures and information. These pictures have been collected from different public sources including various websites, considered to be in the public domain. If anyone has any objection to display of any picture, image or information, it may be brought to my notice by sending an email (contact me) & the disputed media will be removed immediately, after verification of the claim.
Estate Planning for the Non Traditional FamilyBarry Siegal
Historically, most estate plans revolved around the nuclear family structure of husband and wife who were married for the first time and children that were born of that marriage.
Over the course of the last 20 plus years, divorce rates have increased, more opposite-sex couples are opting to live together without getting married, and there is a greater awareness of same sex couples who are committed to each other. In these situations the traditional approach of estate planning is not always appropriate.
For purposes of this presentation, the “non-traditional family” consists of either a same sex couple, whether or not recognized as “married” for state law purposes, as well as the opposite sex couple who are committed to each other, but for one reason or another have decided not to get married.
1 Although opposite sex couples who have previously been married and have children by a prior marriage are also considered a “non-traditional family” and have unique issues, this relationship will not be addressed in this presentation.
Illinois grandparent law right see grandchildJoe Pioletti
This document discusses grandparents' rights to visitation with grandchildren in Illinois. It explains that Illinois law does not automatically grant visitation rights to grandparents, but they can petition the court for visitation. The court will consider factors like the child's wishes, the grandparent's relationship with the child, the reasons for denied visitation, and whether denial would harm the child. Grandparents must prove an unreasonable denial of visitation and meet eligibility criteria like the death or absence of one parent to have a chance at court-ordered access. Hiring an experienced family law attorney familiar with grandparents' rights case law can help grandparents navigate this complex legal issue.
Judge Richard Young's Ruling Throwing Out Indiana's Ban on Same-Sex MarriageingAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
This document is an entry from a United States District Court regarding three cases (Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Pence, and Lee v. Pence) challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's same-sex marriage ban. The court provides background on Indiana's marriage laws and the plaintiffs in each case. It also lays out the standard for summary judgment. The court will consider the parties' cross motions for summary judgment to determine whether Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
As attorneys who represent hundreds of unaccompanied children and asylum seekers from Central America, we write this letter to respectfully demand that you rescind the Section M, “Accountability Measures to Protect Alien Children from Exploitation and Prevent Abuses of Our Immigration Laws” of the February 20, 2017 memorandum entitled “Implementing the Presidnet’s Enforcement Improvement Policies” given that it is in direct violation of the Flores v. Meese Settlement (“Flores”) and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (PUBLIC LAW 110–457—DEC. 23, 2008) (“TVPRA”)
Pence Administration Agency compliance instructions on same-sex marriageAbdul-Hakim Shabazz
The document summarizes the status of same-sex marriages in Indiana according to recent court rulings and provides instructions to executive branch agencies. It outlines that a district court struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage but that ruling was stayed by an appeals court. However, the appeals court did recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple. The general counsel then instructs agencies to comply with the appeals court's stay of the district court ruling, and thus consider Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage as still in effect, except for recognizing the one couple's marriage as ordered. Agencies are told to contact the general counsel if they have any legal issues in applying this policy.
The document summarizes key provisions around parental authority from the Family Code of the Philippines. It discusses that parental authority includes caring for and developing children's character. It also notes that both parents jointly exercise this authority, though the father's decision prevails in cases of disagreement. The document outlines situations where parental authority may be suspended, such as if a parent treats a child with cruelty or subjects them to inappropriate acts. It provides high-level information about parental rights and responsibilities according to Filipino law.
This document provides an overview of LGBT relationships and divorce procedures in New Jersey. It discusses the history of relationships including domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage. It also addresses common questions about these relationships. The document then reviews the procedural requirements for ending legal relationships in New Jersey, including filing for divorce or dissolution. Finally, it discusses some common legal issues that may arise in LGBT divorces under New Jersey family law, such as alimony, property distribution, and child custody.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage violates the state constitution. The court found that denying the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples who wish to marry deprives them of equal dignity and creates second-class citizens. However, the court stayed its ruling for 180 days to allow the legislature to take any action it deems appropriate. Three justices dissented, arguing that the definition of marriage is a policy decision for the legislature.
Rodriguez 1
Diego Rodriguez
Winston Padgett
Government 2305, Sect. 049
Monday, April 14, 2014
Same Sex Marriage: Constitutional and Cultural Considerations Outline
Same sex marriage - is a highly controversial topic in the United States. It impacts our culture and, in many regards to religious beliefs
I. Why and how the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important rulings that opened up room in constitutional jurisprudence for consideration of gay rights.
A. Yet the vast majority of other states have adopted statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Do they right to revolt against government tyranny and fight for their rights
B. What states approve of same sex marriage? Which states deny same sex marriage? How has this happen?
II. In this Article, I argue that an individual who marries in her state of domicile and then migrates to a mini-defense of marriage act state has a significant liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the ongoing existence of her marriage.
A. Section 1 ARTICLE IV “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
B. Courts generally agreed right applies to individuals
C. Government permitted to limit some rights of marriage by same sex.
D. Questions today center around: What bans our enforced presently on same sex marriage? Should it be mandatory for gays that want marriage neutral principle grounded in core Due Process Clause values: protection of reasonable expectations and of marital and family privacy, respect for established legal and social practices, and rejection of the idea that a state can sever a legal family relationship merely by operation of law?
III. Court cases outcome for gay marriages
A. The article cites a survey on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the U.S. which found that 50% of the American people are in favor of the amendment banning same-sex marriages while 47% strongly opposed.
B. This survey was conducted by Gallup Poll Ltd. conducted on May 8-11, 2006. Findings also revealed that 66% of the Republicans favor the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution while 55% of the Democrats opposed the amendment.
C. United States v. Windsor, a narrow majority ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which comprehensively defined "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law to exclude same-sex partners, was unconstitutional.
D. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a trial-court ruling invalidating California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage. Will Fourteenth Amendment still not incorporated to protect gay marriage
IV. There have been and there will continue to be disagreements about the merits of same-sex marriage. But disagree ...
The National Federation of Democratic Women supports ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to guarantee equal rights regardless of sex. While some laws aim to prevent discrimination, they are inconsistent and can be repealed. The last three states ratified the ERA in 2017-2020, but the Archivist has not certified it due to a Trump administration opinion claiming issues with the ratification timeline. Supporters argue the 38 state threshold has been met and are appealing the lower court's dismissal. The NFDW calls on Congress and the Archivist to recognize the ERA as the 28th Amendment to solidify equal rights protections for all.
Defining the Child – Parent RelationshipEstablishing PatLinaCovington707
Defining the Child – Parent Relationship
Establishing Paternity and Maternity
The Importance of Marriage – Historical Background on Children Born to Unmarried Parents
Historically, children born to unmarried parents were labeled “bastards” or “illegitimate,” and had fewer rights and opportunities than children born to married people.
Illegitimate children are, “persons who are begotten and born out of wedlock”.
Civil and Canon law legitimized the child by the subsequent marriage of the parents.
Protecting children from ‘illegitimacy,” remains a strong justification for the legal presumption that any child born to a married couple is the child of the husband and a legitimate product of the marriage.
Defining the Child – Parent Relationship, cont.
Surnames
Traditionally, children born to married couples are given the father’s surname.
At common law, a child born to unmarried parents was considered the child of no one and had no surname at birth.
The law began to give nonmarital children a right to inherit from their mothers and gave their mothers custody, these children began to receive their mothers surnames, which gradually moved from custom to law (text p. 129)
Gubernat v. Deremer – the court held that the surname selected by the custodial parent, that is the parent that makes the decisions in the best interest of the child’s life, is able to give the child their surname. Note: This rule applies for children under the age of 6 years
Defining the Child – Parent Relationship, cont.
Huffman v. Fisher – the court held that for children between the ages of 6-14, the court should make a determination concerning the child’s ability to state a preference which would keep in line with the best interest of the child
Factors to consider
The length of time that the child has used his or her current name
The name by which the child has customarily been called
Whether a name change will cause insecurity or identity confusion
The motivation of the parents in changing the child’s name
Any embarrassment, discomfort, or inconvenience that may result if the child’s surname differs from that of a custodial parent
Defining the Child – Parent Relationship, cont.
Unmarried Parents: The Contemporary Context
Constitutional and Statutory Reform
Levy v. Louisiana – The Supreme Court held for the first time that children born to unmarried parents are “persons” within the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) Section 202 states, “a child born to parents who are not married to each other has the same rights under the law as a child born to parents who are married to each other.”
Establishing Paternity
The PRWORA [Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1966] resulted in three developments for the establishment of paternity
A change in social perspective
During the 1980’s, there was a growing focus on poverty and other societal problems often associated with single parenth ...
HHP 4600 Law and Public HealthModule 3 Power Point questions on SusanaFurman449
HHP 4600 Law and Public Health
Module 3 Power Point questions on Privacy
1. Where in the U.S. Constitution is the explicit provision recognizing the right to privacy?
2. How has the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy?
3. Roe v Wade recognizes the privacy of women’s right to choose to reproduce or not. How does the decision to abort a fetus legally avoid clashing with the right to life of a child? Does Roe v Wade require every state to permit abortions? Why is it more difficult to have an abortion in some states than others?
4. What fundamental right is common in cases involving abortion, guardianship, right to refuse treatment, and sex between consenting adults?
5. What did the courts decide in Bowers v Hardwick? Was a fundamental right actually involved? Did the opinion of Justice White recognize that fundamental right? How was this different from Roe?
6. Karen Quinlan
1. What was decided in the case of Karen Quinlan?
2. What fundamental right do Quinlan and Cruzan have in common with abortion and contraceptive cases?
3. What prevalent practice became almost standard procedure by the public after the Quinlan and Cruzan decisions?
7. What did the court rule in
1. Bouvia?
2. Cruzan?
8. Has the Supreme Court decided we have a right to refuse treatment even if it leads to one’s death?
9. Has the Supreme Court decided we have a right to determine the timing and manner of our death, i.e. commit suicide?
Teitelbaum and Wilensky Chapter 6 Individual Rights in Health Care
1. Does having a license to practice medicine legally obligate you to provide healthcare to those who need it?
2. What is meant by the no duty principle?
3. Does the Constitution confer to Americans the right to education and health?
4. Did the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 alter Americans right to health care?
5. How might the idea of having a free market health care system and a negative view of government be a barrier to single payer universal healthcare?
6. To what does EMTALA entitle a person?
7. What does the Canterbury case demonstrate?
8. How might Jacobson v Massachusetts be a legal precedent today in resolving cases where some people contest states or cities require wearing protective masks or social distancing or closing some businesses during a pandemic?
9. Why is it important to recognize the courts’ interpretation of the Tenth Amendment or police powers as empowering, but not obligating government to act?
10. If one believes the federal government has not done enough to protect citizens during a Pandemic, could one successfully sue to make the government take better care of its citizens?
11. What is meant by a negative constitution?
12. What do the cases of DeShaney and Town of Castle Rock cases demonstrate?
Updated 7/9/20
Government Power and Privacy
Module 3
PrivacyMaking individual decisions without government interferenceTorts or violations of civil liberties, but privacy not explicit in U.S. Cons ...
Sabrina Winston - Same-Sex Marriage Thesis PresentationChavez Schools
Sabrina Winston is a senior graduating from Chavez Capitol Hill High School. She is a member of the Chavez “We the People” debate team that took 1st place in the school-wide competition and 2nd place in the district competition. Sabrina’s has gained work experience with organizations such as Metro Teen aids and the D.C. Department of Public Works. Miss Winston is interested in pursuing an undergraduate degree in political science and will be attending Potomac State College in the fall.
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights Those .docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 3 Due Process, Equal Protection, and Civil Rights
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter you should better understand:
· • The standards applied for determining whether a procedure satisfies the constitutional due process requirements
· • The manner in which the restrictions on federal government action in the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the due process guaranty that applies to state actions
· • The U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to determining whether classifications violate the constitutional equal protection requirements
· • The classifications to which “strict scrutiny” is applied in the equal protection analysis
· • The basic remedies available for civil rights violations
At the heart of the rule of law lie the ideals that everyone should be treated fairly and equally before the law. Toward this end the U.S. Constitution protects individual rights by constraining government. But fairness and equality cannot be reduced to prohibitions. To reach more broadly the Constitution also includes fundamental guaranties. Many important court decisions and legislative acts addressing individual rights have been based on the two most fundamental general guaranties: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
A Due Process Clause was part of the Fifth Amendment in the original Bill of Rights and it was aimed at the federal government. It provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.” The original Bill of Rights did not mention equal protection of the laws in a general sense. The Fourteenth Amendment, added after the Civil War and aimed at former slave states, included the same due process provisions as the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also included the Equal Protection Clause. It provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although nothing in the text said that equal protection applied to the federal government as well as to the states, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually held that it did. In 1954 in Bolling v. Sharpe the Court said that “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law,’ and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”1 Consequently due process and equal protection apply to both federal and state laws.
The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses address government action. They require that laws and legal procedures be fair. As discussed in the final section of this chapter, other constitutional provisions or laws may directly address unfair or discriminato ...
The document discusses the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was enacted in 1996 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It argues DOMA is discriminatory and takes away over 1,000 federal benefits from same-sex couples. While supporters claim DOMA protects traditional marriage, the document argues there is no evidence legalizing same-sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriages. It concludes that DOMA marginalizes the LGBT community and advocates for its repeal.
The document provides an overview of key concepts in education law, including the following:
1) It outlines the four main sources of law: constitutional law, legislative law, judicial law, and administrative law. It also discusses common law. 2) It summarizes several important clauses and amendments of the U.S. Constitution related to education, such as the General Welfare Clause, Contracts Clause, and various amendments regarding rights. 3) It describes the federal and state court systems for handling education cases and the administrative appeals process.
Chapter 1 Notes - School Law - Dr. William Allan KritsonisWilliam Kritsonis
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, School Law Power Point Presentation, Educational Laws & Policies, Due Process, Employment Law, Personnel Law, Equal Rights, Discrimination, Diversity, Teacher Rights, Termination of Employment
1. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Section 3 defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman and denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their states.
2. The plaintiff, Edith Windsor, was legally married to her same-sex partner in Canada but was barred from claiming an estate tax exemption for surviving spouses under DOMA after her partner passed away. She paid estate taxes and sued for a refund.
3. While the plaintiff's case was pending, the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House
- There is no clear legal right to choose where and with whom to give birth established in the US constitution or by appellate courts, though some rights to privacy and bodily integrity exist.
- The AMA resolution signaling opposition to home birth could impact legislation, insurance coverage, and influence medical boards and hospitals without any laws being passed.
- To secure rights to choose birth settings and care providers, advocates need to develop legal theories through test cases, work with allies like reproductive rights groups, and be vigilant against subtle threats from legislation, regulations, or professional guidelines.
This document provides an overview of the criminal justice system in the United States. It discusses that criminal law is divided into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law defines crimes and penalties while procedural law regulates enforcement. It also outlines key concepts like federalism, separation of powers, criminal intent, and the differences between civil and criminal law.
1. 1
Memorandum
TO: Professor Siegel
FROM: Kevin Firth
DATE: July 25, 2013
RE: Jane Doe & Judy Roe Case
Questions Presented
I. The Michigan Adoption Statute § 710.24(1) restricts adoption to single individuals or legally
married couples. Michigan Constitution Article I, § 25 defines marriage as one man and one
woman. Jane and Judy are same-sex partners. They each have children they have adopted
individually. They now wish to jointly adopt their children. Does the statute violate the equal
protection clause Article I, § 2 of the Michigan State Constitution? If so, would a Michigan court
award Jane and Judy a declaration of relief?
II. Should the courts in Michigan interpret the language of the adoption statute to allow Jane and
Judy to adopt each other's children?
III. Which court in Michigan has jurisdiction to hear their case?
Brief Answers
I. No. Based on the three tests used to evaluate an Equal Protection violation, the Court would
most likely use a rational basis test. Under Rational Basis, the State only has to provide a
rationale basis for the classification.
II. Yes. Based on the Michigan statute and persuasive precedent the court should interpret the
statute to allow our clients to adopt their children.
III.The Circuit Court of Michigan has jurisdiction to hear this case.
2. 2
Statement of Facts
Jane Doe and Judy Roe are same-sex partners living in Michigan. They have three
adopted children between them: a daughter, adopted by Jane; and twin boys, adopted by Judy.
Jane and Judy would like to be a family; they each want to adopt all the children so that all three
children have two legal parents. They have filed a case in federal court. They have asked us to
prepare a case for state court.
Applicable Codified Law
Mich. Const. Art. I, § 2
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied
the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise
thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall
implement this section by appropriate legislation
Mich. Const. Art. I, § 25
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations
of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only
agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose
Mich. Const. Art. 6, § 13.
The circuit court shall have jurisdiction over all matters not prohibited by law. . .
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24 (1) (West 2013)
. . . if a person desires to adopt a child . . . with the intent to make the adoptee his or her
heir, that person, together with his wife or her husband, if married . . .
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.23 (3) (West 2013)
. . . “best interests of the child” means the sum total of the following factors to be
considered, evaluated, and determined by the court:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties
involved and the child.
(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love,
affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in
his or her religion or creed, if any.
3. 3
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with
food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted
under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
. . .
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 551.1 (West 2013)
Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of
public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting
that unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare
of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is
invalid in this state.
Discussion
I. The Michigan Adoption Statute § 710.24(1) restricts adoption to single or legally married
adults; excluding unmarried co-habitants and same-sex partners. Michigan Constitution Article I,
§ 25 defines marriage as one man and one woman. Jane and Judy are same-sex partners. They
each have children they have adopted individually. They now wish to jointly adopt their
children.Does the statute violate the equal protection clause Article I, § 2 of the Michigan State
Constitution entitling Jane and Judy a declaration of relief?
Jane Doe and Judy Roe, our new clients, have asked us to determine what causes of
action they can bring and in which court. Both clients have children they have adopted and now
wish to adopt jointly, so they can be a family. The general presumption is that the Michigan
Adoption Code prohibits same-sex couples from adopting. If so, they would like to determine if
the Michigan Adoption Code violates the Equal Protection clause of the Michigan Constitution
which states that no person shall be denied equal protection or rights under the law. Michigan
law is unsettled about what fundamental rights children have and has not addressed at all if
adoption is a fundamental right for parents. The three standards of review that a court will use to
evaluate an equal protection challenge are rational basis, heightened scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.
Jane and Judy are a same-sex couple who are not allowed to legally marry in the state.
The outcome of an equal-protection challenge to the Adoption Code will depend on which
4. 4
standard of review the court uses. The court will most likely apply rational basis and the claim of
equal protection will most likely fail. Because, under this standard, the state will need only show
a rational reason for the rule.
In Doe v. Department of Social Services, the Michigan Supreme Court explains how to
evaluate an equal-protection claim. 439 Mich. 650, 487 N.W.2d 166. The Court identifies three
standards for evaluating legislation to test for an equal protection violation: (1) rational basis, (2)
heightened scrutiny, and (3) strict scrutiny. The tests used by the Michigan Supreme Court are
similar to the ones used by the United States Supreme Court.
The Court explains that all legislation is presumed constitutional and is reviewed using a
rational basis standard. Under the rational basis standard, a state law will not be struck down if
the purpose of the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Strict scrutiny
will be applied if the classification is based on race or deprives a person of a fundamental right.
Under the strict scrutiny test, the Court will uphold the law only if the state can demonstrate that
the classification or discrimination of the law is tailored specifically to further a compelling
governmental interest. Under heightened scrutiny, the Court requires the law to further a
substantial government interest. The heightened scrutiny test is usually applied to classifications
based on gender or mental capacity.
Recently, the Court of Appeals of Michigan offered a substantive explanation of
heightened scrutiny or middle-tier review. In Rose v Stokely, the Court of Appeals of Michigan
explained that under the heightened scrutiny review there must be two determinations made to a
challenged law alleging an equal protection violation. 258 Mich App 283, 673 N.W.2d 413
(2003). The suspect classification must (1) serve an important government interest and (2) is
substantially related to or necessary to achieve that interest.
5. 5
In Bettelon v Metalock Repair Serv, the Court of Appeals of Michigan held that it was a
violation of an illegitimate child's equal protection rights to deny him or her death benefits while
allowing a legitimate child to collect. 137 Mich. App 448, 358 N.W.2d 608 (1984). The Court
reasoned that a child should not be denied a benefit just because his parents were not married
when he was born. Public policy would also not favor such a classification leading to such an
unequal treatment of children based on circumstances out of their control. Besides this case, very
few court cases in Michigan address the issue of fundamental rights of children. None address
whether there is a fundamental right to adoption. Persuasive precedent from other states offers
some guidance.
In Fla. Dep't of Children & Families v. X.X.G., the Court of Appeal in Florida held that a
state statute that expressly banned all gay adoptions violated the equal protection provision of the
state’s constitution. 45 S. 3d 79 (Fla. App. 2010). The Court used the rational basis test in
reviewing the challenge to the statute. It stated the statute must show a real difference between
the suspect class that is reasonably related to the purpose of the law. The statute calls for an
individual evaluation of all adoption cases except those by homosexuals. The statute allowed all
others to be considered—singles and straight couples. The court reasoned that because of this
categorical exclusion, the statute violated the equal protections of the homosexual parents. In its
holding, the Court ruled only on the claims of equal protections of the parents, not the children.
A year after this case was decided; the Supreme Court of Arkansas addressed a similar
statute. In Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cole, the Supreme Court of Arkansas heard a challenge
to a recent ballot initiative (Act 1) limiting who could adopt in the state. Act 1 prohibited
adoption by individuals who were living as sexual partners outside of a marriage recognized by
the state. 380 S.W.3d 429 (Ark. 2011). The state only recognizes marriage between a man and a
6. 6
woman. The effect of Act 1 prohibited both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex cohabitants
from adopting or fostering a child. The defendants in the case alleged that the amendment
violated the equal protection and due-process rights of the children of unmarried cohabitating
partners. The violations included a child's right of access to a suitable home, failure to serve the
best interests of the children of co-habitants and children in state custody, and a burdening of
family integrity.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas invalidated the amendment and held that the amendment
was a significant burden on the fundamental right of sexual privacy to unmarried cohabitating
partners. Because the court determined the right of sexual privacy was fundamental, the court
used heightened scrutiny to review the challenge. The court explained that the compelling state
interest was to protect the children and their interests. The court reasoned that the ban on all
cohabitating partners from adopting was not narrowly tailored to achieve the state’s interest
because there were other ways--individualized assessments of cases--the state could have
achieved its goal.
In summary, Michigan law will apply one of three standards of review for an equal
protection challenge to a law: rational basis, heightened scrutiny, or strict scrutiny. When the
suspect class is a child, they cannot be treated differently than other children based solely on
their parent's marital status. As applied by other jurisdictions, a law that discriminates on its face
by categorically excluding one class cannot survive rational basis review when there are other
ways of achieving its intended goal. And a law that interferes with the private sexual lives of
individuals will be evaluated under strict scrutiny and will not survive.
7. 7
Jane and Judy wish to adopt their children jointly but they cannot because the law
presumably will not allow an unmarried couple to adopt. Such a law would deny the children the
financial benefits of having married parents.
In this challenge, the state of Michigan must articulate a legitimate government interest
that is reasonably related to the law excluding unmarried couples from adopting. The state would
most likely cite financial, moral, and the best interests of the children as reasons for such a law
that has a discriminatory effect. As explained in Doe, when the court applies rational basis, the
law will survive if the state can articulate a legitimate state interest for the classification. If the
Court applies strict scrutiny the suspect classification must further the state’s articulated interest;
most laws will not survive a review under strict scrutiny. The court in Rose explained that when
heightened scrutiny is applied the law would survive if the state can articulate no legitimate state
interest and the suspect classification is rationally related to achieve that interest.
Even though the court explained in Bettelon that a child could not be deprived of the
same rights that another child would be entitled to because of his parent's marital status, the state
can most likely articulate a reason for the classification that would satisfy the rational basis
review. The two leading cases on the issue from Arkansas and Florida are distinguishable from
our case. In Fla. Dep't of Children, the court held using (rational basis review) that the law
violated the equal protection of the parents because it was discriminatory on its face. The law
expressly banned all homosexuals from adopting. The Adoption Code in Michigan does not go
this far in its limits on adoption; instead, its prohibitions are made by inference. In Ark. Dep't of
Human Servs, there were multiple claims of equal protection violations for the parents and the
children. But the Court ultimately struck down the law based on the fundamental right of sexual
privacy. The law prohibited cohabitating sexual partners (gay or straight) from adopting. There is
8. 8
nothing in the Michigan Adoption Code that would lead to a claim or ruling that it violates our
client's sexual privacy.
Therefore, the most likely outcome would be the Court using the Rational Basis review
for an alleged equal protection violation brought on behalf of our clients. Under this review and
the language in the statute, the state of Michigan will be able to articulate a reasonable
government interest for the suspect classification.
II. Should the courts in Michigan interpret the language of the adoption statute to allow Jane and
Judy to adopt each other's children?
Jane and Judy would like to jointly adopt their kids to become a family. Under Michigan
law, the Adoption Code must be strictly construed. The statute must be evaluated as a whole to
determine the legislative intent. Other states have interpreted statutes using both liberal and strict
construction. The Michigan Statute should be interpreted to allow our clients to adopt.
There is pending legislation, House Bill 4060 Mich. H.4060, 97th Legis. Reg. Sess. (Jan.
22, 2013), in the Michigan House of Representatives that seeks to change the Michigan Adoption
Code to expressly allow same-sex partners to adopt. To find out the bill’s current status I emailed
Representative Jeff Irwin, who introduced the bill in January of 2013. Representative Irwin said
the bill is currently in the House Families, Children, and Seniors committee but has not been
scheduled for a vote.
Rep. Irwin further stated that:
The committee chair, in consultation with the Speaker of the House, ultimately
determines whether a bill gets a hearing or not. While the committee chair indicated
earlier this year that he wants to focus on adoption and foster care issues, however he has
not made any indication that my bill will have a hearing . . . this issue continues to be
a terrible injustice for thousands of children in our state". Rep. Jeff Irwin. Email from
9. 9
Rep. Jeff Irwin, Mich. House Rep District 053, House Bill 4060 (Jul. 29, 2013, 1:26 p.m.
EDT) (copy on file with Cooley.edu server).
Until this legislation or any other legislation is passed to clarify the intent of the legislature on
this issue—statutory interpretation is needed by the courts.
In In re MKK, the Court of Appeals of Michigan listed four steps of statutory
interpretation to determine the legislative intent. To determine the intent, the Court must (1) look
to the statute itself, (2) read the statute as a whole, (3) consider the statute in tandem with other
relevant statutes, and (4) ensure the statute works in accord with the law or scheme as a whole.
286 Mich App 546; 781 NW2d 132 (2009).
The leading case interpreting Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24 (1) is In re Adams, 189
Mich. App. 540, 473 N.W.2d 712 (1991). In Adams, the Court of Appeals of Michigan held that
the language of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24(1) prohibited the petition of the divorced
parents to adopt their adult daughter. In its decision, the Court applied the rule that the provisions
in adoption code must be strictly construed. Using this rule they reasoned that it is inconsistent
with the statute to allow the two unmarried parents to adopt their adult daughter.
Michigan case law pertaining to same-sex adoption is very limited. In Usitalo v. Landon,
the Court did not rule on the merits of the argument that the Michigan Adoption Code prohibits
same-sex adoption. But the court stated that the trial courts in the family division have subject
matter jurisdiction to grant a same-sex adoption. 299 Mich. App. 222, 829 N.W.2d 359 (2012).
See Hansen v McClellan, Unpublished, 2006 WL 3524059 (Mich. Ct App. December 7, 2006)
(same); see also Giancaspro v. Congleton, Unpublished, 2009 WL 416301 (Mich. Ct App
February 19, 2009) (noting Michigan's legal framework for protecting and promoting the best
interests of children within its jurisdiction does not exclude children with parents who could not
10. 10
have adopted them under Michigan law). Other than these few cases, Michigan courts have not
directly addressed whether a same-sex or unmarried couple could adopt under the state's
adoption code. Persuasive precedent from other states with similar statutes offers some guidance
on the issue.
In Adoption of Tammy, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts interpreted the state
adoption statute to allow a same-sex couple to petition for adoption. 619 N.E.2d 315 (Mass.
1993). The court justified its holding by stating that Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 210, § 1 did not
prohibit the action. The MA statute states, "No petition by a person having a lawful wife shall be
allowed unless such wife shall join therein, and no woman having a lawful husband shall be
competent to present and prosecute such petition." Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 210, § 1.
In the case In re Adoption of B.L.V.B., , the Supreme Court of Vermont interpreted the
state adoption statute to allow a same-sex couple to petition for adoption. 628 A.2d 1271 (Vt.
1993). The court justified its holding by stating that the statute did not prohibit the action. The
statute reads: “A person or husband and wife together, of age and sound mind, may adopt any
other person as his or their heir. . .” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 431.
Another provision states, “The natural parents of a minor shall be deprived, by the
adoption, of all legal right to control of such minor, and such minor shall be freed from all
obligations of obedience and maintenance to them.... Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions
of this section, when the adoption is made by a spouse of a natural parent, obligations of
obedience to, and rights of inheritance by and through the natural parent who has intermarried
with the adopting parent shall not be affected.” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 488.
11. 11
The court explained that if the statute’s language were applied as it reads, then the only
way a same-sex couple could adopt would be for the birth parent to lose all her rights to the
child. Such a decision, the court states, were not in the best interest of the child.
In the case In re K.M., the Appellant Court of Illinois explained that a strict reading of the
state adoption statute, 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/2, prohibited same-sex couples to petition for
adoption. 653 N.E.2d 888 (Ill. App. 1995). The statute reads: “A reputable person of legal age
and of either sex, provided that if such person is married, his or her spouse shall be a party to the
adoption proceeding, including a husband or wife desiring to adopt a child of the other spouse, in
all of which cases the adoption shall be by both spouses jointly.” 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/2.
The statute also states, “This act shall be liberally construed, and the rule that statutes in
derogation of the common law must be strictly construed shall not apply to this act.” 750 Ill.
Comp. Stat. Ann. 50/2.
The Court applied a liberal interpretation to the statute’s language to allow the couple to
petition for adoption. The court reasoned that, since the 1867 statute, there have been numerous
amendments that have never expressed or inferred that same-sex couples were prohibited to
adopt under the statute. The court also reasoned that a construction of the statute that excluded
all unmarried persons from adopting does not fall within the best interests of the child standards
of the adoption statute.
Another state with a similar provision in its adoption statute—to be liberally construed—
is New Jersey. The adoption statute in New Jersey, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:3-43, permits any person
to petition for adoption provided that they are married and the action is brought jointly with their
spouse. In the case In re Adoption of Two Children by H.N.R, the Superior Court of New Jersey
allowed a woman to adopt the biological children of her same-sex partner under the state's
12. 12
stepparent provision. 666 A.2d 535 (N.J. Super. 1995). The court reasoned that the statute did
not expressly prohibit same-sex adoptions, and permitting the adoption would serve the best
interests of the child.
Like the Code in Michigan, New York's adoption code, N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 110,
requires strict construction. The New York adoption code limits adoption to "an adult unmarried
person or an adult husband and his wife together may adopt." N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 110. In the
case In re Jacob, the Court of Appeals of New York evaluated the state’s adoption code and
determined that a same-sex or unmarried couple were not prohibited to petition for adoption. 660
N.E.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995).
In its reasoning, the court analyzed the word together that opponents of same-sex or
unmarried adoption use as the justification for the restriction. This statute almost mirrors the
language and joint use of the word together of the Michigan Adoption Code. The Court
explained—under strict construction—that the use of the word together only described the
actions of a married couple and did not preclude unmarried or same-sex couples from adopting.
The statutory together was to ensure that a married person who petitions for adoption must do so
with their spouse.
Courts in other states have interpreted their adoption statutes—that require marriage—to
prohibit unmarried or same-sex partners to adopt. Kentucky's Adoption code, Ky. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 199.470, states, "If the petitioner is married, the husband or wife shall join in a petition
for leave to adopt a child unless the petitioner is married to a biological parent of the child to be
adopted, except that if the court finds the requirement of a joint petition would serve to deny the
child a suitable home, the requirement may be waived". Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 199.470. In
S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S., the Court of Appeals of Kentucky held—under strict construction
13. 13
requirement—that the statute’s waiver exception did not allow same-sex or unmarried couples
the right to petition for adoption. 265 S.W.3d 804 (Ky. App. 2008).
Oklahoma's Adoption Statute, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7503-1.1, prohibits same-sex
couples from adopting, but does not expressly prohibit unmarried couples. The statute’s text
reads "The following persons are eligible to adopt a child: A husband and wife jointly . . . An
unmarried person . . . ; or . . . A married person . . . who is legally separated from the other
spouse" Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7503-1.1. In the case In re Adoption of M.C.D., the Court of
Civil Appeals of Oklahoma held that it would not interpret the adoption statute to allow a
recently divorced couple to jointly petition for an adoption. The court reasoned—under strict
construction—that the legislative intent and the best interest of the child would not be met by
allowing the unmarried couple to adopt the child. 42 P.3d 873 (Okla. App. Div. 3 2001).
In summary, the Michigan adoption statute must be interpreted by looking to the intent of
the legislation, and reading the statue as a whole. Two unmarried people cannot adopt an adult
child. Other states have interpreted their statute’s so that there should be weight given to statutes
that do not expressly prohibit individuals from adopting. There is a significant difference
between states that use a liberal constriction and those that use a strict construction.
The leading case on this issue, In re Adams, is distinguishable from our client's situation
and should not govern its application. That case involved two divorced parents who wanted to
jointly adopt their adult daughter. Our case involves a situation that is more in line with what the
best interest of the child would be and how they should be applied. As shown by the string of
procedural cases, Usitalo, Hansen, and Giancaspro, Michigan courts have already shown they
are not going to categorically deny a same-sex couple from having a legal adoption in the state.
The Massachusetts Court looked beyond the direct language of its Adoption Statute in Adoption
14. 14
of Tammy and determined that the since the law did not expressly prohibit the same-sex adoption
it should be allowed.
The Vermont court in In Re Adoption of B.L.V.B., interpreted its adoption statute to allow
a same-sex adoption by looking at the statute as a whole and how it functioned with the section
pertaining to the best interests of the child. When looking at the who-may-adopt section, Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24, the court must also cross reference the section with the best interest
of the child section, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.23. A Michigan Court would most likely
make the same determination. Not allowing Jane and Judy to adopt their children jointly would
be in direct conflict with the best interest of the child section of the Adoption Code. Both the
Illinois case, In re K.M. and the New Jersey case, In re Adoption of Two Children by H.N.R. and
their governing statutes are distinguishable from our clients because both states adoption codes
require that they should be liberally construed.
The Kentucky and Oklahoma statutes and their fellow cases are also distinguishable from
Michigan's Adoption Code. The Kentucky case S.J.L.S. v. T.L.S, was decided based on a
challenge to the Adoption Code's waiver clause. The Michigan Adoption Code contains no such
waiver clause. The Oklahoma case, In re Adoption of M.C.D., is governed by an adoption statute
that is directly discriminatory on its face against homosexual adoptions; which is now
questionable after the ruling in Fla. Dep't of Children & Families. The Michigan statute does not
expressly prohibit same-sex couples from adopting.
The state statute most analogous to Michigan’s is New York's Adoption Code. The
language in the code almost mirrors the Michigan Adoption Code with its use of the term
together as the base’s for same-sex adoption challenges. Further, it requires that the statute be
strictly construed during interpretation. In In Re Jacob, the New York Court held that the term
15. 15
together was not a limitation on who could adopt but a description that pertained only to a
married couple. That same distinction and explanation of the term together should be adopted by
the Court in Michigan.
Therefore, based on the statute being evaluated as a whole and with the correct
interpretation of the term together, the Michigan Court should interpret the Michigan Adoption
Code to allow Jane and Judy to adopt their children.
III. Which court in Michigan has jurisdiction to hear their case?
According to Mich. Const. Art. 6, § 13: The circuit court shall have jurisdiction over all
matters not prohibited by law. Therefore, this action should be brought in the Circuit Court in
Lansing against the State of Michigan.
Conclusion
Under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 710.24 (1), a person who is not married presumably
cannot adopt a child. This applies to all unmarried couples. Michigan has some binding
precedent on the issue but has very limited interpretation of the issue as it pertains to same-sex
couples. Michigan also has very little precedent on the issue of whether the right to adopt is
fundamental or what a child's rights are in an adoption and if they are fundamental. Jane and
Judy are a same-sex couple who would like to jointly adopt their children, so they can be a
family.
I would not recommend bringing an Equal Protection action against the state challenging
the Michigan Adoption code. Of the three tests used to evaluate the law, the rational basis test
would be the one most likely used. Rational Basis is favored for the state and allows a
presumption of constitutionality for a law as long as the state can show a rational relationship
between the suspect classification and the interest the government seeks to protect. Very rarely
16. 16
will a state lose a Rational Basis challenge. The Florida adoption statute was struck down on
Rational Basis review because it was discriminatory on its face; the Michigan Statute is not. The
Arkansas Adoption Statute was struck down under Heightened Scrutiny because of a violation of
the right to sexual privacy; the Michigan Statute does not violate this right.
I would recommend we bring a cause of action to the Circuit Court asking for an
interpretation of the statute to allow same-sex couples to adopt. There is no binding precedent for
the interpretation. There is, however, very persuasive precedent from other states, New York
being the most favorable and most analogous. This presents an opportunity for our firm to not
only help our clients but the thousands of families across the state who would benefit from this
interpretation.