In an era marked by intense cultural divisions, it's increasingly apparent that children should not be caught in the crossfire. Yet, foster care and adoption placement have emerged as battlegrounds where courts, lawmakers, and policymakers issue decisions and adopt laws that often favor one side, with little regard for the opposing viewpoint. This predicament calls for a more balanced approach to ensure that both loving couples and agencies dedicated to fostering and adopting children can thrive.
Many States Still Finding Ways to Turn Away Loving Couples The legalization of same-sex marriage, as determined by the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, has sparked conflicts regarding adoption subsidies and the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children. Many adoptions are facilitated through faith-based organizations that receive state subsidies, but some of these groups have historically limited adoptions to heterosexual couples, and in some cases, even discriminated against unmarried heterosexual couples.
The question arises as to whether providing subsidies to such religious groups, which may continue to discriminate against same-sex couples, constitutes a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, now that same-sex marriages are legally recognized. In response to this issue, some states have introduced legislation, often invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), to exempt these adoption agencies from equal protection requirements, allowing them to continue discriminating against LGBTQ couples. This has raised concerns about reducing the pool of potential adoptive parents, particularly for children with special needs, and the potential closure of well-established religious-based adoption agencies that refuse to comply with equal protection requirements.
In Fulton VS City of Philadelphia the Supreme Court upheld the rights of a religious foster care agency to refuse services to same-sex couples based on religious exemption.
After the Philadelphia ruling, in the State of Michigan, a settlement in Federal court also allowed Faith-basd adoption agencies that contract with the state to "refuse to place children with same-sex couples".
Fairness for All tracks states that have adopted laws seeking to avoid discrimination in adoption and states where work still needs to be done to make sure that no couple is turned away and that no agency is forced to close.
UTAH Approach Is An Innovative and Empathetic Model The state of Utah has taken a pioneering step towards reconciling these conflicting interests by passing a comprehensive adoption statute that serves as a model for bridging the culture war divide. This innovative approach, which emphasizes transparency, choice, and inclusivity, has garnered support from various quarters, heralding a promising path forward for foster care and adoption nationwide. Utah's adoption statute, which recently passed unanimously, addresses three key aspects of the adoption process:
1. Transparency and Consistency: One of the primary goals of the new statute is to expand support for adoption by providing transparency about costs and ensuring consistent reporting of fees. This move aims to alleviate some of the financial burdens associated with adoption, making the process more accessible to a broader range of prospective parents.
2. Birth Mother Empowerment: The statute also strives to facilitate the challenging decision faced by birth mothers by allowing them to direct, to the extent possible, the placement of their child in a family that aligns with their preferences. Adoption agencies are encouraged to follow the "good faith wishes of the birth mother as to optimal placement," granting greater agency to those who are making the challenging decision to place their child for adoption.
3. Expanding the Adoption Marketplace: Utah's approach consciously seeks to grow the adoption marketplace by increasing the diversity of adoption service providers. It recognizes the importance of respect to all qualified couples seeking to adopt, ensuring that they are not subjected to humiliation by agencies chosen and funded by the state. This approach enables faith-based agencies to remain in the marketplace and continue their crucial work of recruiting families to adopt and foster children.
The essence of this innovative model is to empower qualified prospective families to select the agency that best aligns with their values and goals, just as families seeking childcare services currently do. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution, the state's approach places the choice directly in the hands of the prospective parents, fostering a more inclusive and equitable system.
Utah's adoption statute is a testament to the power of collaboration and compromise. It has garnered support from organizations across the ideological spectrum, from the Cato Institute to the Brookings Institution, and has received endorsement from both conservative and liberal groups within Utah, such as The Eagle Forum and Equality Utah. This broad consensus underscores the statute's potential to transcend the culture war and focus on the welfare of children in need of loving homes.
The core principle of this statute is the formation of a consortium that includes all adoption agencies serving Utah residents, encompassing both birth mothers and prospective adoptive parents. This consortium ensures that every qualified prospective family has access to an agency that can serve their needs. Rather than agencies choosing prospective parents, this model places the power of choice firmly in the hands of the parents themselves.
By adopting this approach, Utah has paved the way for a more harmonious coexistence of diverse perspectives within the foster care and adoption system. The emphasis on choice and inclusivity promotes a system that can accommodate the values and beliefs of all those involved while prioritizing the well-being of the children waiting to find their forever families.
In an age where cultural conflicts seem to infiltrate every aspect of society, Utah's innovative adoption statute serves as a beacon of hope. It offers a compelling alternative to the divisive battles that have raged for far too long, demonstrating that it is possible to find common ground and ensure that the best interests of children are upheld.
As this approach gains attention and support from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, it may serve as a template for other states looking to navigate the contentious terrain of foster care and adoption. By fostering an environment of transparency, choice, and inclusivity, Utah's statute provides a path forward that can ultimately bridge the culture war gap, ensuring that every loving couple that can care for children has the opportunity to do so, and that every agency, religious or secular, remains in the marketplace, continuing this vital work for the benefit of children in need.
The Fairness for All Initiative worked in Utah to support this work. Fairness for All engages diverse stakeholder groups in common ground dialogue and supports community and policy leaders find outcomes that are rooted in fairness and empathy.