4/30/09

From Sara Van Wormer, Project Coordinator

 

Below please find media coverage of the Second Parent Adoption Bill (HB 4131) that passed out of committee last Wednesday. Please stay tuned for media updates regarding the Kalamazoo Anti-Discrimination Ordinance. The debate continues to heat up and MPIPP has been recognized as a leader in providing sound evidence and statistics regarding this important decision.

Michigan House panel OKs bill for second parent adoptions
By Dawson Bell • Free Press Lansing Bureau • April 22, 2009
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990422069

A sharply divided state House committee approved legislation today to authorize “second parent” adoptions in Michigan, a change that would allow unmarried or same-sex partners to jointly adopt a child.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, D-Salem, was approved on a straight party line vote by the House Judiciary Committee, with eight Democrats in support and six Republicans opposed.

Much of the testimony at today’s hearing was based on claims from advocates for the legislation that barriers to adoption harms children by denying them the emotional and financial stability that comes from having two parents.

Michigan law permits adoption by only married couples or single persons, which most of the state’s courts have treated as a ban on joint adoption by same sex or unmarried couples. Smith said 10 states around the country explicitly authorize second parent adoptions.

Opponents, who remained mostly silent at today’s hearing, claim the legislation is part of a gay rights agenda that would serve to undermine traditional, two-parent families. Similar legislation was approved by the committee in 2007, but was never voted upon by the full House.

BILL WOULD ALLOW UNMARRIED COUPLE ADOPTION, OPPONENTS SAY VIOLATES SPIRIT OF GAY MARRIAGE BAN
Gongwer News Service
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Volume: #48 Report: #77
http://www.gongwer.com/programming/new_NewsSearchResults.cfm?submit=false&locid=1

A bill to allow unmarried couples to adopt children would protect children by ensuring them a home if something were to happen to the biological parent and by giving children access to both partners’ insurance, pension and other resources, supporters of the legislation told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

However, HB 4131* faced opposition from some that said it has become an issue on the “homosexual agenda,” a lifestyle they said Michigan voters rejected with a ban on same sex marriage. It also met rejection from Republicans who said little, but voted against the bill.

While there is nothing currently in state law that prohibits second parent adoption, judges overwhelmingly frown upon the practice as controversial or avoid it using interpretation arguments, said Jane Bassett, a spokesperson for The Coalition for Adoption Rights.

The legislation would ensure that people who are currently co-parenting but can’t marry or don’t want to marry are afforded the same parental rights of adoption as others, she said.

While in many states, the issue of co-parent adoption has centered on gay rights, and indeed the law change would affect the estimated one-third of gay or lesbian couples who already have children together, it isn’t just same-sex partners who come before judges to seek these types of adoptions, Ms. Bassett said, adding as an example that she has a terminally ill client who is single and would like to have her child adopted before her death.

Jan Weaver, who works to place adoptive children at Morningstar Adoption Center, said the “primary issue is that historically, the law has been written to hold children as property.

“We now understand their greater needs,” she said. “This isn’t about parents’ needs; it’s about children’s. If something should happen to one parent, they could lose both.”

Ms. Weaver added that it’s imperative as lawmakers to remove moral beliefs about raising children as an unmarried or same-sex couple because those couples are raising children anyway, and all this law would do is ensure that children are afforded all of the protections and resources that both parents have to offer.

Maria Valenti, a Lansing resident, agreed. She is raising foster children with her same-sex partner of nearly a decade, and her partner is pregnant with their child.

She said she wishes she could adopt her foster children with her partner but can’t, even though she said they have given them a better home than their birth parents.

Worse, she said, is the fact that she has more rights to her foster children than she will to the child her partner is carrying, something this bill could help rectify by allowing her to adopt.

Ms. Valenti, a doctoral student in psychology, said research has shown that children raised by same-sex couples develop in much the same way as those raised by heterosexual couples and it’s likely because studies show there isn’t much difference in the way people parent based on their sexual orientation.

But Joe Jurecki, a Ludington resident, and John Tuinstra, a spokesperson for Citizens for Parental Rights, said the bill has become “part of the homosexual agenda,” an agenda that the majority of Michigan residents oppose, as demonstrated by the proposal to ban same sex marriage.

They said lawmakers shouldn’t pass any public policy that upholds homosexuality because it would go against the wishes of those who voted for the proposal.

Maybe in principal, but legally speaking, the bill doesn’t violate the initiative, since it doesn’t recognize the union of a same-sex couple, rather it recognizes the relationship of a child and the parents, lawyers said.

The committee approved the bill 8-6 on a party line vote with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.

The panel also approved two other child-protection bills.

HB 4535* and HB 4820* would narrow the instances in which the court could terminate a parent’s rights and in which the Department of Human Services could petition for termination where the parent voluntarily gave up rights to a previous child.

Only parents who abandoned their first child or committed criminal sexual conduct, torture or manslaughter or similarly egregious acts could have their successive children taken away because they had previously surrendered their rights under the legislation.

MIRS
Gay Adoption Bill Moves

This morning, the House Judiciary Committee reported out HB 4131, legislation that would allow two unmarried persons to adopt a child. This would include gay couples.

It appears that today’s action was a symbolic gesture to appease certain Democratic constituent groups. Although the bill moved out of committee today on a straight party-line vote, sources tell MIRS there are numerous members of the House Democratic caucus who would oppose it — or prefer to not have to take a vote on it.

At the moment it seems unlikely that HB 4131 will be brought up on the floor, which is what happened in regard to the same issue two years ago.

HB 4131 will most assuredly be identified and labeled by the news media solely from the gay rights angle, despite other aspects of the legislation that might spark debate independently.

“Without the gay and lesbian aspect, this probably would be about as controversial as oatmeal,” said Monica LINKNER of the State Bar.

However, the first person to testify against the bill today said the gay adoption issue wasn’t the primary reason for his opposition.

Joe JURECKI, who testified as a private citizen, objected to a provision that would extend “step-parent adoptions” to unmarried partners.

“The idea that this is turned into a gay rights issue is beyond me,” said. “To me the issue is the idea of terminating the rights of biological parents and allowing someone else to adopt. If anything, we should be trying to strengthen the bonds on noncustodial parents. We should be restoring those bonds.”

Jurecki was one of only two persons to testify against the measure today. Prior to his testimony, numerous persons representing social safety net agencies, legal organizations and individuals from relationships that currently are prevented from adopting dominated the hearing.

Much of the testimony in favor of the bill centered on arguments that some children were being denied resources — such as health care coverage and legal rights — because persons already parenting them weren’t allowed to adopt them.

Perhaps the core argument for the bill centered on the danger of “unofficial” parents (under a variety of circumstances) being permanently separated from children they have bonded with due to their lack legal status.

“Numerous scientific studies have determined that same-sex couples provide the same level of parenting that heterosexual couples provide,” said Judith KOVACH of the Michigan Psychological Association. “Children bond with any adult who is consistently fulfilling their needs. To have those bonds broken may damage their ability to form relationships throughout their lives.”

Nearly two years ago, the same measure was brought up in the same committee, only at that time it was HB 4259. Today’s testimony nearly mirrored the testimony last session, except this time around organized groups opposing the legislation opted not to testify and committee members asked no questions of those who testified. This is another indication that the bill is not expected to come up on the House floor (See “Non-Married Couple Adoption Bill Moves,” 5/09/07).

Rep. Tonya SCHUITMAKER (R-Lawton) offered an amendment to exclude faith-based organizations for the proposed measure. This was defeated on a party-line vote.

Rep. Marc CORRIVEAU (D-Northville) was not present at the hearing, due to a speaking engagement. Two years ago he abstained when the measure was brought up for a vote in committee.

But Corriveau told MIRS this afternoon that if he’d attended the hearing he would have voted with his Democratic colleagues to “send the bill out to the floor.”
______________________________
Sara Van Wormer
Project Coordinator
Michigan Project for Informed Public Policy