Changing a Child's Life with Adoption - "One Starfish at a Time"

Adoption makes a world of difference for a child who needs a family.  The new book by Dana Wynn Steele, a frequent guest lecturer at Family Law at Regent University School of Law, evidences this truth loud and clear in "One Starfish at a Time."
 
Join the Steeles on the never ending roller coaster ride of their family life as they share the ups, twists and turns of an ever changing family which now numbers seventeen, with more anticipated. Dana Wynn Steele shares the stories of their special needs children and their adoptions, including one during her battle with breast cancer. As a speaker on domestic, trans-racial, and open adoption, Dana leads us through the challenging maze that sometimes seems insurmountable when adopting through foster care. You'll see the difficulties and share the joys of parenting children who have never experienced "normal" home life. From the adopted rescue animals to the adopted children, life is always surprising at Homestead Ranch, the Steele home. Parents, pastors, teachers, social workers, and anyone who has a heart for vulnerable children will glean from the spiritual truths, blessings, and lessons Dana imparts as she shares their journey with the family God has uniquely given them.
 
Family restoration for a child who needs a loving family begins with adoption.  "One Starfish at a Time" reveals this so clearly, and is available on Amazon.com.
 
If you are interested in the legal basis for adoption and why it is important to children, you can read more about its history and rich tradition in the protection of the best interests of children by downloading the free article entitled "Tracing the Foundations of the Best Interests of the Child Standard in American Jurisprudence," published by the Journal of Law and Family Studies, 10 J. L. FAM. STUD. 337(2008).  Adoption is family restoration that finds a family for a child who needs one.

Regent Alumnus Works Nationally on Adoption and Family Restoration

The JURIST posted a piece interviewing Megan Lindsey (Regent Law 2007) which highlighted her work on an amicus brief for the Supreme Court of the United States case regarding adoption and the Indian Child Welfare Act.  The piece posted on July 17, 2013 was entitled  “Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl — What's Next?”  Read  an introduction to Megan’s insight below, and catch the full interview at the JURIST:

JURIST Guest Columnist Megan Lindsey, counsel for the National Council for Adoption, discusses the legal and practical impact of the US Supreme Court's decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl...

---

I think the US Supreme Court got it right. We'll just start there. When I wrote on this case before, I expressed my discomfort with the many questions regarding which side of this case we came down on due to the fact that the tricky details of a real child's life come into play. Still, the National Council for Adoption became involved in this case in order to help the lives of many children to come. Since the question everyone is asking now is something along the lines of "Do you think the Court got it right?", I'll go ahead proclaim my agreement with Justice Alito's opinion from the start.

What's next for Veronica?

Veronica should never have been removed from Adoptive Couple — it wasn't in her best interest to face the trauma of being removed from the only family she'd known, it wasn't appropriate under state law's definition of a father, and now, according to the Supreme Court, it wasn't necessary under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). I'm glad I'm not the South Carolina judge who this case has been remanded to. I can only imagine that it will feel nearly impossible to get a decision like this just right when so much has already gone wrong. The best interests standard seems much more difficult to apply now. The trauma of removing a child from the only family she's ever known to the custody of a biological father who had been a complete stranger up to that point cannot be undone. However, we're about eighteen months past that point and Dusten Brown is no longer a stranger. Brown has now served as Veronica's primary caretaker and unquestionably, some parental attachment has been formed. Eighteen months in the life of a child is an extremely significant amount of time — particularly a child in the young developmental years. Although Brown could have provided a far gentler transition for Veronica by allowing continued contact with the adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, I have heard no evidence that indicate that Brown has provided any sort of problematic environment during the last eighteen months. Still, Veronica is young and should be able to thrive in either environment at this point. A thorough, but expedient examination of Veronica's unique needs at this point in her life needs to occur in order to make that decision. And while I am in no position to make that decision and without having made that careful review, I think it is worth considering that we may need to think outside our too often adversarial notions for a moment and consider some variations in her future care options.

Veronica may best thrive with the influence of any and all the characters at play in this story. One reasonable option might be to allow some degree of continued communication and connection between Veronica and all parties. The grown-ups need to act like adults here. Although there are perhaps some hard feelings, reasonable adults share the care and custody of children to varying degrees all the time because it is best for the children. In cases of divorce, open adoptions and terms while children are in kinship or foster care settings more than one adult influence touch their lives. Legal mechanisms are neatly in place for compromises that prioritize kids. In my opinion, we need to be very careful about saying anybody has the right to parent until we've looked first at Veronica's needs and right to be parented in a way that meets those needs. This is not a property dispute, this is a life — dynamic, unique, and living through the developmental years that will frame her whole future. A judge who has that in mind will have a great framework to move forward from.

What's Next for Children and the Indian Child Welfare Act….

Read the rest of Megan’s interview at the JURIST.

I have discussed the importance of adoption to the best interests of the child in a piece entitled Tracing the Foundations of the Best Interests of the Child Standard in American Jurisprudence, 10 J. L. Fam. Stud. 337(2008) which can be downloaded at SSRN. As National Adoption Month November is a great time to remember that adoption provides a family for a child in need of one, and is a pivotal part of family restoration.

Transforming Child Welfare for Restoration of Families

The welfare of children has been a concern of Americans for centuries.  That concern manifested itself in the 20th century as a large bureaucracy of administrative agencies who knew better than parents and families what was best for children.  But child welfare reform is taking place now in the 21st century.

While traditional child welfare work involved mostly agency action, Crystal Foster has worked with the Annie E. Casey Foundation on her research for the Child Advocacy Practicum last spring, developing an understanding of how children can be best protected.  See her presentation here.

The 21st century ideas about child welfare maintain child safety as the primary concern.  A major federal law in favor of that trend was the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), promoting the adoption of children into forever families from foster care.  Child Welfare Agencies now use a family-centered, rather than an agency-centered, focus for children.  The focus ensures the safety and protection of children while preserving and supporting families. 
  

This focus brings a team of players together to help determine the least traumatic situation to promote a child's best interests.  That means that caseworkers, family members, the child, friends, relatives, neighbors, teachers, clergy and counselors all work together toward the solution.  It also means that families are a resource, and anytime a child can be cared for by kin and relatives, that is preferred.

Transforming child welfare for the restoration of families for children will take time, but it is well on its way.  Children deserve our best efforts in the 21st century.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and Native American Families

            The third family law case which the Supreme Court ruled on at the end of June 2013 was also another 5-4 decision.  The Court was quite varied in the several opinions that make up the case.  Writing for the majority was Justice Alito, joined by Justices Kennedy and Roberts. Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas filed separate but concurring opinions. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Scalia joined in part.  Apparently the final reading is that a non-custodial parent may not block his child’s adoption, even if he is a Native American.

             Baby Girl is a case in which a mother from Oklahoma agreed to allow a South Carolina couple to adopt her newborn daughter after the baby’s biological father disclaimed any interest in raising the child, though his parental rights were never severed.  When he learned of the planned adoption, he objected.  And because he is a registered member of an Indian tribe, the lower courts ruled that a federal law protecting Native American families, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), barred the adoption.  As a result, the South Carolina Supreme Court halted the adoption and gave custody of the girl to the biological father.  

             The Supreme Court of the United States, therefore, had before it two competing interpretations of the ICWA: the more expansive version, advocated by the biological father, argued essentially that ICWA applies whenever a court is considering whether to terminate parental rights of a Native American parent; the competing interpretation, advanced by the adoptive parents, argues that ICWA’s coverage is limited to the kinds of cases that Congress most likely had in mind when it passed ICWA — namely, those in which social workers and other government officials are seeking to remove Indian children from an existing Indian family.  Megan Lindsey, Regent Law 2008, now working with the National Council for Adoption, drafted an excellent and persuasive amicus brief in support of adoption. 

            The Court took an approach based upon the latter interpretation, holding that the relevant sections of ICWA were designed to prevent the dismantling of Indian families by the removal of Indian children.  Justice Alito interpreted Congress’s design of Section 1912(f), which addresses the involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child, as excluding cases in which an Indian parent never had legal or physical custody of the child in question.  “In sum … [where] the adoption of an Indian child is voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent with sole custodial rights, the ICWA’s primary goal of preventing the unwarranted removal of Indian children and the dissolution of Indian families is not implicated.”  And Section 1912(d), like 1912(f), applies “only in cases where an Indian family’s ‘breakup’ would be precipitated by the termination of the parent’s rights.”  That section, the Court explained, is “sensible” when it is applied “to state social workers who might otherwise be too quick to remove Indian children from their Indian families.  It would, however, be unusual to apply [Section] 1912(d) in the context of an Indian parent who abandoned a child prior to birth and who never had custody of the child.”

             Consequently, the Court held that ICWA’s provisions were not designed to apply to the circumstances presented by this case.  The Court reversed the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remanded for further proceedings.  Justice Thomas concurred to emphasize that the Court’s result was compelled by constitutional avoidance.  Justice Breyer also concurred separately.  Justice Sotomayor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justice Scalia (in part) and Justices Ginsburg and Kagan in full, noting the potential for other sections of the ICWA to allow for the child’s Cherokee grandparents to object to the adoption.  The full text of the case can be found here. 

            This case can be seen as good for adoption, troubling for parental rights, and troubling for racial disparity all at once.  It is helpful for adoption in that it recognizes how adoption provides a stable, secure home for a child who needs one.  It is troubling for parental rights in that a non-custodial parent appears now to have no assertable parental rights, and it is troubling for racial disparity because the opinion seems to disregard the great harm that has been done to Native Americans by United States law in the face of a federal rule that was designed to protect those racial families from separation.  (A forum on racial profiling in the law was held at Regent University this past spring; Daryl Hayott (Regent Law 2013) presented the key substance, and for readers with a Regent ID, his presentation can be viewed here).

  

            The majority opinion in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (U.S. S.Ct. June 25, 2013) displays a troubling attitude towards unwed fathers, and even to all non-custodial parents, and toward the purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act, as set out by the Family Law News Blog. More details on the case can be read in the New York Times.  While this case was being argued, Russia decided to ban adoptions of Russian children by foreign couples. 

             While an adoptive family had a child restored to them, natural parents, even those who objected to the adoption and were thought to be protected by a federal code, experienced greater family breakdown.  As for the child, she was four months when the father objected to her adoption, two years old when she was removed from their care by South Carolina to her Cherokee family, and is now almost three and a half years old being moved back to her adoptive family.  The instability for Baby Veronica is a bit alarming.  

             For a Supreme Court that has virtually no family law jurisdiction (as domestic relations law is reserved for the States), there certainly were some significant aspects of family law that were decided by the High Court in 2013, making family strengthening through restoration more challenging in the future. 

Recent Supreme Court Rulings and Family Restoration

       Summer for law professors and law students always brings so many events away from classes, from summer internships and clerkships, to conferences and presentations, to overseas opportunities, to special family time, to bar exam preparation, to invitations and plans for the upcoming academic year.  On top of all that, the Supreme Court generally hands down a few critical decisions at the end of June, and this year was no exception.  My excellent graduate assistant Elizabeth Oklevitch has been working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York and doing an excellent job of regularly handling our previously arranged posts to FamilyRestoration while I have been away from the office.  Indeed, when the three major family law cases were handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States last week I was on the other side of the world.  

            In general, while the mainstream media has reported on some aspects of these cases, they often fail to note the deeper substance of the matters involved.  More particularly, as the decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry, (California's Proposition 8 Case on the voters' referendum defining marriage;), U.S. v. Windsor (the federal Defense of Marriage Act case challenging the definition of marriage), and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (regarding the adoption of a Native American child under the Indian Child Welfare Act) were all highly charged socially, publicly, and emotionally and very rigorously litigated, it is critical to understand how each case relates to families and family law, and more particularly to family restoration. As I am finally having an opportunity to read each of these cases, our posts at FamilyRestoration over the next several days will attempt to clarify these cases, and help discern how they each relate to family restoration. 

            The results rendered in each case were partly expected, and partly unexpected, and each deserves deeper analysis in the family law and restoration context. In these posts we will summarize what happened, and lay out considerations for the short and long term effects of each case.  God has not abandoned marriage, children, or the family to whims of the High Court, or to the political leanings of just one member of the court (as each ruling was a 5-4 decision), but is already at work in the midst, as C.S. Lewis speaks through a dejected but ultimately royal Shasta in The Horse and His Boy that somehow "He is at the back of everything."  These posts will attempt to analyze these cases more substantively as they relate to you and your family.

            Today's post begins that analysis with some basic generalities that come out of these three cases as a whole.  Here is a brief Top 10 Overview: 

1.      The Supreme Court of the United States redefined marriage for federal purposes by changing one aspect of an important federal law, DOMA, to include marriage expansion for same-sex couples (more on this is the next post). 

2.      The marriage laws of all 50 states were not changed by any of the three cases.  The High Court did not strike down any state's marriage laws, and did not strike down DOMA's provision protecting State's laws on marriage.  Your State's laws on marriage remain intact.  Nothing will be different in your local family court. 38 States hold one view of marriage and 12 States hold another.

3.      California continues to face a conundrum within its own family laws as the state still has its domestic partnership laws, Proposition 8, and the holding of J. Vaughn Walker's District Court all sitting side by side on the books.  The Supreme Court of the United States settled nothing in regard to any of these laws either.  What has changed is that California's Governor has issued an order that marriage licenses be issued to same-sex couples.  See more.  It is not unlikely that a town clerk may refuse to obey that order in light of the legal conundrum that remains in the state, beginning litigation all over again (more on that in a future post).

4.      The Supreme Court of the United States did not find a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Although oral arguments and briefs laid out the best point of view for redefining marriage before the Court, those claims did not persuade justices to strike down state marriage laws or create a new federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The Court did not declare same-sex marriage to be a federal civil right, and it did not rule to protect same-sex marriage as the Constitution protects race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity.

5.      Children and their best interests were not a factor in the recent decisions.  They can still be intentionally denied a father or a mother, or be removed from an otherwise stable environment.  The focus of each case was on the rights of adults.  

6.      The critical role of man-woman marriage is not diminished by these rulings. The essential need for children to have both a married mother and father is not lessened by the opinions.

7.      Religious freedom is still entangled and endangered in the battle to expand marriage and deconstruct the family.  Adoption agencies, churches, florists, bakers, photographers, and parents remain subject to state laws on marriage.

8.      American culture remains confused about marriage and family.  God's design for marriage, sexuality, the family, and parenting remains the moral compass for law and culture.  Your marriage and your family remain the most important component of a strong society.

9.      Adoption was protected as the legal formation of a family, particularly when that family was never formed, even though the federal code contains protections against the deconstruction of Native American families (more on this in a future post).

10.  The debate will continue over marriage expansion and family deconstruction.

            Family restoration remains a daunting task in light of each of these rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States.  That is why it is all the more true that you and I have a new opportunity to shine light on a confused culture.  Recommit your efforts to your own marriage, your own children, and your own family.  Damage may not be able to be undone, but you can begin anew by placing the interests of those you love above you own interests.  

            Our next posts will discuss the federal case, U.S. v. Windsor, more in detail; then the California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry; then Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.  It is important to understand the rulings in each case, and how they affect your family, and family restoration.

Children Need the IRS to End the Targeting of Adoptive Famlies

In the wake of the IRS scandal over targeting conservative and Christian organizations for audit (see the most recent USA Today story here), information is being exposed now to reveal that the federal government through the IRS was also working to actively challenge those who were making the herculean effort to provide a home and a family for a child who needed one.

 

Parents who chose to provide for needy children by building their families through adoption were targeted by the IRS for audit at a rate of 69-90%.  Audits of adoptive families occurred nearly 70% of the time, and 90% of returns claiming the adoption tax credit were targeted for requests for additional information to determine if an audit was in order.  Read the entire story by Rod Dreher of the American Conservative here.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service offers details about these facts and investigations at their website.   Of the audited adoptions, after an average of 126 days of investigation more than 55% ended with no evidence of flawed claims.  Those that merited changes were minor, as most claims on average were due a refund of less than $15,000, the amount of the federal tax credit for adoption.  (To learn more about this tax credit see our previous post on the law surrounding the Adoption Tax Credit).

The stress, cost, and emotional trauma that an IRS audit or inquiry carries was an added unnecessary burden on families that had already been experiencing those pressures in working to provide a home for a child.   This massive audit campaign yielded little income for the IRS while creating a severely damaging environment for future adoptive families. The result will only harm children who are in desperate need of homes.

Personal stories of adoptive families are chilling.  David French and his wife were one of the couples audited by the IRS because they adopted a child. Read their story published by the National Review here.  French explains, "As an adoptive family, it's sometimes difficult to describe the immense challenges in gathering paperwork, opening your lives to social workers for home studies, then expensive travel to sometimes-corrupt foreign locales to then launch a new life with a child you love immensely but who is also experiencing his or her own culture shock and adjustment. All of this places a great strain on family finances and emotions. To then face an audit on the other side? All so the IRS can collect a whopping 1 percent additional revenue? It's beyond the pale."

Family restoration of a broken world is reliant on adoption as a significant piece to the puzzle of providing for needy children.   The stamina, personal sacrifice, and love that the adoption process requires are enormous.  Harassment of these heroic adoptive families by government tax authorities for those good deeds is abhorrent, and extraordinarily destructive of the hope for a family that so many waiting children so urgently need.

Foster Care and Adoption Lead to Family Restoration

May is National Foster Care Awareness Month, and many organizations are taking the opportunity to make a difference for a child with foster care and adoption toward family restoration.

“Virginia Adopts: Campaign for 1,000,” is an initiative to match more than 1,000 children in foster care in Virginia with 1,000 adoptive families in an event that will be held at the Executive Mansion in Richmond, Virginia.  Registration for the kick-off event at noon this Friday, May 17 can be found here.  You can find out more about the Virginia Adopts Campaign on Facebook  and on Twitter, or on YouTube.  Learn more about the children in foster care in Virginia who are looking for a loving family and the adoption process at the Virginia Adopts website. One person can change the life of a child in foster care.

Families make such a tremendous difference in the lives of children who find themselves in foster care due to abuse or neglect.  One family in Virginia is making a difference in the lives of eleven children by adopting them from state foster care and raising them in a Christian family.  See about Team Steele from their 700 Club appearance here.

 

Currently more than 380,000 children wait in foster care for a family.  See more about foster care at http://www.fostercaremonth.org/.  Every child deserves the security and love that a family provides. Children need family restoration.  

Should Christians stop adoption/foster care if required to work with same sex couples?

Click here to read the full version of this article from Christianity Today regarding same-sex couples and adoption, featuring Professor Kohm as she urges foster care agencies to fight unconstitutional mandates and uphold what is in the best interest of the child.

Adoption is a Key to Family Restoration

Regent Students for Life recently hosted an event focused on International Adoption. The purpose of the event was to highlight the Christian mission underlying adoption, as well as to underscore some of the legal difficulties that have developed in this field. The speakers emphasized the importance of the fact that we have all been adopted into Christ. As such, God calls us to the orphan to provide a family in a similar fashion. Staggeringly enough, if every church focused on just one orphan, the worldwide orphan crisis would cease. Unfortunately, some real-world difficulties arise in fulfilling this mission.

In the past few years, the number of international adoptions has dropped dramatically. The speakers suggested that this drop is due in part to difficulties associated with a treaty referred to as the Hague Convention for Adoption. The purpose of the agreement is to create greater transparency in international adoptions to safeguard against hazards like child trafficking or improper family placements. Countries who sign the Convention must have a central authority that acts as a point of contact for all international adoptions and must meet specific legal standards. Every aspect of the agreement was drafted to serve the best interest of the child. The United States signed the Convention in 1994 and gave it full effect in 2008.

Unfortunately, some countries that have signed the Hague Convention with the intention of protecting their children have had difficulty meeting the stringent standards. For example, since the United States has given full effect to the Convention in 2008, it has had to cut off all adoptions with Guatemala. Guatemala has signed the Convention but has had difficulty establishing a central authority of contact, as well as problems implementing some of the other requirements for a Hague country. Residents of the United States can still adopt from non-Hague countries, but once a country has signed on to the treaty, it must meet the full standards or else adoptions will not be possible. In some ways, it is contradictory that countries that are trying to protect the best interests of their children but are unable to meet all of the rigorous standards are given lower adoption preference to countries who have not adopted this Convention at all. Although the Hague Convention is a wonderful step toward ending the horrors like child trafficking that can arise from international adoptions, it seems like there are still some improvements that need to be made to accomplish authentic family restoration for all adopted children.

This excellent informative blog post was authored by Amy Pyecha, Regent Law 2012 J.D. Candidate.

Family Restoration for Children of Failed Online Matches

Online dating has become a cultural phenomenon. With online dating websites quoting responsibility for nearly 5% of marriages in the U.S.[1] or claiming that hundreds of thousands of couples find love every year on their site[2], it is no wonder that people seeking true love with the hope of marriage turn to these services. Sometimes, however, the heartache is the only match they are left with. What is more saddening is when this negatively impacts children.

Kristy Gaffney is one such woman who searched such dating sights and is now fighting a custody battle she never imagined. Kristy is a single mother that began dating a man she met online. He wooed her with his claims of being a business man from a wealthy background, working for the C.I.A. She says he promised her marriage and all that she had ever hoped for. As their romantic relationship progressed, Kristy became pregnant, forever linking them together with the birth of their daughter. The baby’s father sought to sever that link by tricking her into singing away her parental rights. He did so by telling her that the paperwork she was signing was to preserve his rights as the baby’s father. Though Kristy read the documents, she was confused and relied on her love and trust in this man. Soon after she signed the documents, the man never returned her baby, telling her that he and his wife were in the final stages of adopting the baby.

Kristy took the man and his wife to court to invalidate the adoption. The judge found in favor of Kristy believing she did not know she was signing away her parental rights. The judge dismissed the adoption, invalidating it because the mother’s consent to permanently terminate parental rights was induced by fraud and duress. The baby’s father contests these allegations and has appealed the decision. The problem now is that the custody judge will not hear the case until the appeal has been heard, so custody remains with the deceptive father. This appeal could take 6 months. If the father’s appeal is denied, he may then appeal to the Supreme Court and that could take another year, leaving Kristy to see her 14 month old daughter only every other weekend as the custody order stands now. More of her story can be viewed here and read at MSNBC.

Kristy’s plea is one for family restoration; to place a daughter with her rightful, biological and intended mother. Kristy fears that in this limited custody her daughter “is missing out on her [real] mother.” She is afraid of the damage that will be done during the drawn out judicial process as her daughter becomes acquainted and accustomed to a home built on schemes and deception. Her greatest concern is how this will negatively impact her daughter even if she does regain full custody.

The attorney for the father makes a plea to Kristy that “it is not in the best interest of her daughter to make a media sensation about this baby.” This raises the question of what exactly is the best interest of the child? Many states have statutes that have a list of factors that a court will look to in determining custody of a child. In the state of Pennsylvania, where Kristy is from, a few factors include: the need for stability and continuity in the child’s education, family life and community life,[3] the attempts of a parent to turn the child against the other parent,[4] and which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for the child’s emotional needs.[5] These standards set forth by the court are essential to family restoration. Here, Kristy’s ability to provide and maintain a loving, stable community for her daughter weighs in her favor. The court will need to weigh the possibility, given the circumstances surrounding this custody battle, that the father will turn Kristy’s baby against her, alienating her from her child, as he has already tried to take her away from her mother completely.

In looking at just a few of these standards, the best interest for Kristy’s daughter is to be reunified with her birth mother so that family restoration can begin. Child custody may not be immediately identified as or associated with family restoration, but it certainly can be.

The judicial system may seem an unlikely place to find family restoration amidst divorce hearings and custody battles. However, it is the court that has the power to insure restoration of a broken family when a child has been unjustly taken from his or her rightful parent. The court can work justice, and return a child to a loving, stable, and nurturing home where she can best develop into who she was created to be. Matches made with fraudulent intent not only harm individuals, but the children who may result, who more than anything need a strong, loving, authentic family to guard their best interests.

This excellent post is the courtesy of guest blogger Alana Martinez, Regent University Juris Doctor Candidate 2012, also currently in Regent Law’s Child Advocacy Practicum.

________________________________________

[1] www.eharmony.com
[2] www.match.com
[3] Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code §5328(a)(4)
[4] Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code §5328(a)(8)
[5] Pennsylvania Domestic Relations Code §5328(a)(9)

Faith, Family Planning, and Adoption

At a time when faith is seriously under fire in the context of mandated contraception required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (read the Wall Street Journal’s article on this here), and in the context of abortion with charitable funding from the research based Susan G. Komen Foundation designed to end breast cancer going to Planned Parenthood of America, the most pro-abortion organization globally (read about these circumstances from Reuters here), and with new links every day revealing abortion as a major cause of breast cancer - persons of faith realize the culture wars are not just occurring in the media, but in our very lives.

The good news is that faith based adoption agencies were not only recognized, but protected in a recent act of the Virginia Legislature. On February 10 the Virginia Senate approved a bill allowing adoption agencies to refuse placement to families if the agency, or anyone affiliated with it, disagrees with the proposed placement based on religious beliefs. Read the Jurist article here. The Virginia Board of Social Services had already adopted similar regulations in December of 2011, but this bill now codifies that policy.

Faith is so integral in family strength. And family strength is fostered by good decisions regarding contraceptive use, abortion avoidance, and parenting choices. Children and families are at the center of more than the culture wars – they are a target for spiritual warfare. Faith, though, is a restorer of people, and fosters family restoration.

Steve Jobs and Family Restoration - A panoramic view of life

When a college coed discovered she was pregnant in 1955 she chose adoption. She was selflessly willing to complete the pregnancy. Her boyfriend also selflessly agreed to the adoption.

A new set of parents were provided for a child who needed them. They were selflessly willing to do the job.
They must have done it well, because fifty years later the world is changed because of the decisions of these adults for the benefit of one child.

That child was Steve Jobs. He was one person who changed the world forever. (How many more "Steve Jobs" have not had the same opportunity? Waste not...) Read the National Review perspective on the life of Steve Jobs, his accomplishments, his influence, and view the video launch of the first MacIntosh computer at
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279315/steve-jobs-rip-kathryn-jean-lopez.

Without family restoration for this one child, and the selfless acts of several adults for the sake of one person, what would the world have missed? In the life of Steve Jobs can be perceived a panoramic perspective on the significance of the opportunity for life, and restoration of a family to a child who needs one.

[Thanks to Roger Chance, Regent Law 3L, for the research contributing to this post.]

Good News for Adoption from Virginia and Bethany Christian Services

A new Pew Research survey of attitudes toward fatherhood finds a strong majority of the public saying children need a father in the home. Fully 69% say having a father in the home is essential to a child's happiness. Only a slightly higher share (74%) says the same about having a mother in the home. These facts hold true for adoption too.  Children thrive when they have both a father and a mother.  Last week's decision in New York for same sex unions, despite that legislation's religious exemption, may not protect adoption.  The exemption protects churches, religious orders like the Knights of Columbus, any non-profit entity under a religious group and any employee of these organizations – including clergy – from being forced to participate in a same-sex ceremony and from being penalized for not doing so. But it may not protect the rights of faith-based adoption agencies to not place children in same-sex households, or parents whose children will be taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent of one-man, one-woman marriage.  CitizenLink Report has produced a video discussing the New York religious exemption – and who might not be protected by it. Click here to watch Adoption is a state statutory framework which outlines the parameters of any adoption, and is designed to protect the best interests of a child who needs a family.  This year Virginia legislators took on some amendments to adoption law regarding proposed regulations which would prohibit private child-placing agencies, like Bethany Christian Services, from working with applicants on the basis of their faith.  By passing this legislation the state would be effectively insuring that no private agency can ever assist in adoption or foster children in any way.  This would have been a dangerous precedent for children when Virginia has such a great need for fostering and adoption.  Children would have been harmed and excluded from care because of it.  Christian agencies would have been particularly prohibited from any work in adoption or foster care.  For example, Bethany Christian Services approves families to adopt children independently regardless of their race, color, gender, national origin, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, or family status.  However, Bethany Christian Services is a private child-placing agency which receives no state or federal funding and is within its rights to exercise its religious freedom by establishing Christian faith criteria for families who desire to participate in Bethany Christian Services' private domestic infant adoption program.  Bethany Christian Services, through its representatives, requested that the regulation be modified to address a private agency's right to establish private program criteria as an exercise of its religious freedom. Valerie Crisp, Regent alumni ('05), is counsel for Bethany Christian Services in Richmond, Virginia, and she took on the challenging task of answering the proposals.  Here's what she writes: " I am delighted to report that a number of Christian agencies, including Bethany Christian Services, and individuals commented on the proposed regulations and our objections were fruitful!  Here is the response I received from the Department of Social Services: One thousand twenty-six (1026) public comments received (in opposition to the non-discrimination language as proposed) including those from four licensed child-placing agencies; 18 groups and organizations; four providers associations; Helen Donovan; adoption attorney; Delegate Robert Marshall.  The result of the comments was as follows: Language referencing gender, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability and family status was removed. The words ‗to apply' in 22 VAC 40-131-170 B 2 were removed. Change made to be consistent with federal law, 42 USC 671.'" This was "good news for Christians who are serving in private child-placing agencies!" Most importantly, this was good news for children in Virginia. The Virginia "Family Foundation compiles a General Assembly report – essentially a storybook retelling of the past session along with Family Foundation commentary and insider information.  Our 2011 report entitled "Strong Families, Strong Virginia" was recently released and is now posted on our website for your viewing pleasure.  Click here to view our GA 2011 report online now. Similar to last year's report, when you click on some of the pictures in the report, you will be redirected to specific videos on our YouTube site where you will be able to view related footage of committee hearings, Family Foundation TV interviews, candidate campaign promises, and more.  This report in combination with related videos will give you an insider's look at what happened this past session so that you can better understand what effect it will have on you, a pro-family citizen of Virginia." Adoption in the best interests of children is placed in jeopardy when marriage is expanded.  Family restoration happens when children are not intentionally deprived of having a mother and a father married to each other.

Adoption in Florida and the Argument for a Child's Restoration to a Family With Both a Mother and a Father

Jonathan Growick, Regent Law Juris Doctor Candidate for this May, 2011, has drafted an excellent article that considers the recent decisions in Florida on homosexual adoption, and the impact on the best interests of the child.  Entitled The Sunshine State's FLip FLop: The Best Interest of...Homosexuals? his work examines How to make the decision in Fla. Dep't of Children & Families v. X.X.G work in the best interests of Florida's children rather than Florida's adults. In contrast to Tuesday's post, Growick favors adoptive parenting by a mother and a father, rather than by two same sexed individuals.  He writes:

"Florida is known for its beautiful beaches, sunny weather, and delicious oranges.  What many people may not know is that until recently, Florida was the only state to directly ban homosexuals from adopting, without exception.  However, on September 22, 2010, that all changed. 

Florida did a so called flip flop. The Florida Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed a Miami-Dade Circuit Court's ruling that a thirty-three year old ban on homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. The Florida Department of Children and Families, as well as Florida's Attorney General Bill McCollum, refused to appeal the decision to the Florida Supreme Court. As a result, homosexuals can now adopt children in Florida. Florida's Governor Charlie Crist praised the court's decision as 'a very good day for children. Children deserve a loving home.'

Just six years ago, however, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida's homosexual adoption ban.  The Florida Legislature has not changed the statute since then. So why the recent flip flop in Florida? 

This article presents an overview of the situation in Florida, looking at the main case[1] and statute in question.  It will further examine what has changed in the six short years since Florida's homosexual adoption ban was held constitutional.  It will then present several options Florida can take in light of the recent Florida Court of Appeal's decision. 

Looking at the legislature's intent, Florida's best interest of the child standards, and the Florida Court of Appeal's decision in Florida Department of Children and Families v. X.X.G., this article will conclude that Florida should act within the court's decision but create a preference system favoring the traditional family over homosexuals.  It will then challenge Florida's traditional families to support the preference system by adopting."

Read the entire article here.

---

[1] Fla. Dep't of Children & Families v. X.X.G., 45 So. 3d 79 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2010).

Framing Adoption Policy Toward Family Restoration for Orphans

Bethany Kreitinger, Regent Law Juris Doctor Candidate for this May, 2011, has drafted an argument for Virginia’s expansion of adoption provisions to include same sex parents in a manner that focuses not on the adult, as most case law that favors homosexual parents does, but on the child, and his or her best interests in being provided a forever parent rather than state operated foster care.

 Though her view is unique at Regent, it is not unrepresentative of a segment of popular culture. Her work also showcases the diversity at Regent University School of Law in fairness and openness to progressive ideas in a context of Christian faith. Entitled, MOMMIES DEAREST: WHETHER VIRGINIA’S ADOPTION POLICY WOULD BETTER REFLECT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, IF PETITIONERS’ SEXUAL ORIENTATION WAS IRRELEVANT, Kreitinger offers a new perspective, as she writes:

“Whether it be a boy or girl, raise up some friends for it in this troubled world; and take pity upon a lonely and desolate child, abandoned to its mercy.” At one time or another, most Americans were probably forced to read these famous words by Charles Dickens, in Oliver Twist.[1]   Yet, in American society today, what does it actually mean to “take pity” upon an orphaned child? Does it mean preventing the adoption of such a child by individuals whose sexual behavior has been deemed immoral, or does it mean overlooking such behavior in order to place the child in a home with individuals willing and able to care for him? That is the crux of the debate raging today regarding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. This article seeks to resolve that dilemma for Virginia.

Section I examines the history of adoption in America, in order to shed light on the ways in which the early views and treatment of American adoption have shaped the current best interest of the child legislation as it relates to adoption by same-sex couples. Section II then examines the best interest of the child standard as it applies to adoption and its application in today’s court discretion. Section III examines the case law in states in which adoption by same-sex couples is allowed, revealing that in such states courts seem to adopt a broader perspective of the best interest of the child standard, rather than focusing on the specific factor of the petitioners’ sexual orientation. Section IV, on the other hand, examines the case law in states in which adoption by same-sex couples is prohibited and demonstrates that in such states, adoption by same-sex couples is viewed as an endorsement by the state of conduct which it deemed as lewd or unnatural.

Section V then focuses on Virginia’s statute and case law pertaining to homosexual adoption illustrating that, though Virginia’s statute does not expressly prohibit homosexual adoption, it deems certain homosexual behavior as a crime against nature, prohibits homosexual marriage, and only permits married couples or single individuals to adopt. Thus, under Virginia statute, homosexual couples are effectively banned from adopting. On the other hand, Virginia case law reveals that the Court seems conflicted as to the significance an individual’s sexual preference should play in the overall best interest of the child analysis. Section VI focuses on the statistical data and research pertaining to the effects of adoption by same-sex couples on the child with specific regards to gender roles and sexual orientation, abuse, and harassment, and, finally, based on this data and research, Section VII examines how, by taking a moderate approach which neither endorses homosexual behavior nor impedes the placement of more children into stable permanent homes, Virginia could amend its code to better reflect the best interest of the child standard.”

Read her entire article here.

Kreitinger’s position will be contrasted with an opposing position in Thursday’s post.

---

[1] Dickens, Charles, Oliver Twist (1838)

United Kingdom Ruling Keeps Children from Christian Foster Parents

This week a court in the United Kingdom determined that, based on Human Rights documents and UK law, that a Chrisitan foster care family was unsuitable for providing care to children.  Because the couple, based on their personal faith in Jesus Christ, held that homosexuality was not God's design for relationships, the court removed the parents from the roles of service for children in need of care. 

The dispute focused on married couple Eunice and Owen Johns and the Derby City Council. Having applied to the Council in 2007 to foster a child, the Johns' application was blocked, based on the Council's objection that "the Johns were not willing to promote the practise of homosexuality to a young child." In November 2010 both parties jointly asked the Court to rule on whether the Johns were able to foster children, or whether they could be excluded from doing so under equality law because of their Christian beliefs, and that judgment was released eariler this week.

The judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience or free exercise and leaves the Johns currently unable to provide foster care to any child in need, despite their proven track record as foster parents. It appears that in light of this decision Christians who wish to adopt or foster children must compromise their faith and promote the practice of homosexuality to small children.

In fact, the summary contained in the judgment sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents. Distinguishing that their decision was based on "sexual ethics" rather than on faith, the court has firmly concreted harm to children by denying them the potential of any Christian couple to care for them.

Read the entire text of the decision here (attached), and the UK article here http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/14234.

CBN News discussed this concern eariler this week, and an article at Charisma Magazine details that the Court ruled that parents who adhere to faith in Christ, and Christianity generally are harmful to children.   http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/30325-uk-court-rules-christianity-harmful-to-children. 
 

Decisions like this deconstuct marriage and the family in ways many people never imagined possible, and work to the destruction of families, rather than their restoration.  This is particularly aggregious for those hundreds of thousands of kids waning in state custody for foster care and adoption.

The judgment states a clear preference for human rights, but for homosexuals, and not for Christians.  "The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence" for a child's welfare."  This precedent declares that a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality, and that "Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a 'qualified' right to manifest religious belief and ... this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children."

Charisma writes: "The judgment was greeted with disbelief and sadness today by Eunice and Owen Johns. In a statement, the couple said:
 'We wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need. But because of this ruling we are unsure how we can continue the application process. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and a vulnerable child has now probably missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home. We do not believe that our ordinary Christian moral views are infectious, contrary to what the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes. Being a Christian is not a crime and should not stop us from raising children. Today, it looks as though a child has missed out on a home.'"

Read more: http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news/30325-uk-court-rules-christianity-harmful-to-children#ixzz1FSy8F98B.