Legislators take aim at gay adoption

Indiana State Attorney General Steve Carter appealed an appellate court ruling Monday that allows unmarried couples to adopt children. He asked the Indiana Supreme Court to consider hearing the case and if it chooses to hear the case, to vacate, or ignore, previous court rulings.\nThe case, known as Infant Girl W. v. Morgan County Office of Family and Children, involves a 20-month-old girl who was brought into the foster care of Kim Brennan and Becki Hamilton of Martinsville two days after she was born in September 2004. When Brennan and Hamilton, who have been a couple for 12 years, jointly petitioned for adoption last year, a probate court granted them the adoption, while a juvenile court contested the probate court's authority to grant the petitioners' request since the child was still the charge of the county. \nThe couple appealed the juvenile court's decision and in April the appellate court ruled in their favor 2-1, upholding the probate court's ruling and reversing the juvenile court's ruling in favor of the adoption.\nCarter said in a prepared statement that he thinks the Supreme Court could "resolve confusion" surrounding conflicting opinions trial court judges have handed down regarding whether unmarried couples can adopt children through a joint petition, like Brennan and Hamilton tried to do.\n"There has been conflict among trial and appellate judges about whether two people can jointly adopt a child when they are not married," Carter said in his statement. "Given such a division thus far among five judges at two different levels of our courts ... I find it proper to invite the High Court to be heard in this matter."\nBrennan, Hamilton and their lawyer, Barbara Baird, expressed disappointment that Carter appealed the case, but Baird said she wasn't surprised because the Attorney General has intervened in previous cases involving adoption by same-sex couples.\nBrennan said the little girl has stayed with them throughout all of the court proceedings and assured that no matter what, the couple would fight to keep its child. Baird said she and the couple have 20 days to file a brief in opposition, which is basically a statement of why the appellate court's decision should stand and why the Supreme Court shouldn't have to be involved. The Supreme Court will then decide whether to hear the case.\n"We're going to fight this, no matter how far it goes," Brennan said. "We're the only parents she knows."\nIf the Supreme Court overturns the appellate court's ruling, Brennan and Hamilton could lose their child. Brennan, who runs her own daycare in their home, said she got into foster parenting because the daycare provided a nice environment for children. She said people stop her all the time in public and tell her how happy the little girl seems to be. \nBrennan said that she feels like there wouldn't have been a case if she and Hamilton were a heterosexual couple, and Baird emphasized the toll the trials have taken on her clients.\n"This further appeal seems to be totally unnecessary," Baird said. "I think it's a waste of the state's resources when (the state) has more important battles to fight rather than trying to break up a loving family when all professionals involved have said it's in the child's best interest to stay with that family."\nAside from a potential Supreme Court ruling, Brennan and Hamilton, as well as many other same-sex couples, may have more difficult obstacles to face in the future.\nState Sen. Jeff Drozda (R-Westfield) said that during the first or second week of January he plans to introduce legislation that will strip same-sex couples of adoption rights, but won't prevent them from being foster parents. Similar legislation he created in 2004 failed to gain a committee hearing. Drozda said a judge has told him that the General Assembly -- rather than the court -- should make a decision on the issue since it deals with public policy. Drozda agrees, which is why he doesn't want to wait for a Supreme Court ruling on the Infant Girl W. case. His legislation will be based off of a Florida law that was passed in 1977.\n"Drozda is trying to fashion our state after a law made in 1977," Brennan said. "It's like we're going backwards."\nWhile such a law might seem unfair, Drozda said that the General Assembly has "historically" found that a household with a mother and a father is what's best "under normal circumstances for the majority of individuals." He also said that the "tremendous ambiguity" that exists in the Indiana court system is unfair to same-sex couples because they have to take a "gamble" on what a court will rule when they try to adopt. \n"Judges need more guidance on this issue because we have some judges saying these adoptions are permitted and others saying they're not," he said. "The issue needs to be settled once and for all either way."\nHelen Harrell, IU adviser for OUT and co-host of BloomingOUT radio show on WFHB Community Radio, said Drozda's legislation would be "outright discrimination" because it would deny gay people the right to have a family and be a family. \n"I think it's outrageous," she said. "There's no reason why gay people can't adopt children ... If you have people who are willing to provide a good home, what does it matter? Plenty of straight parents raise gay children so why can't gay parents raise straight children, or gay children?"\nHarrell also said that in addition to being discriminatory, the legislation could further offend those who have grown up with homosexual family members since their families wouldn't be recognized as "credible or 'normal.'" Like Brennan and Hamilton, Harrell said those discriminated against wouldn't give up the fight.\n"There are always going to be people discriminating against gay people and their families," Harrell said. "And we're going to keep pushing back till our rights are considered just as important as those of a heterosexual family"