Alabama Gets Same-Sex Parental Rights Very Wrong
The Court's first major case addressing gay and lesbian rights since last summer's
Obergefell decision appears to have been an easy one.
Today, the Supreme Court overturned an Alabama ruling that denied parental
rights to a lesbian woman who had adopted her children with her partner.
It was a
unanimous per curium decision, made without full briefing or
oral arguments. That's a strong sign that the Court believed Alabama's ruling
was almost inarguably wrong. Let's see why.
An Adoption in Georgia
Denied in Alabama
The case involved an interstate
custody dispute between two mothers, known as V.L. and E.L. The two were
together from 1995 to 2011 and, in the early 2000s, gave birth to three
children. E.L. carried the babies and V.L. adopted them as a second parent.
That adoption took place in
Georgia. In 2011, however, the couple had moved west to Alabama and their
relationship had headed south. They separated and soon V.L. went to court,
alleging that E.L. had denied her access to the children. She asked the Alabama
court to register her adoption and grant her visitation or custody.
The case wound its way up the
Alabama courts, until eventually the Alabama Supreme Court
refused to give effect to Georgia adoption, ruling that the Georgia
court did not have subject matter jurisdiction since Georgia did not actually
permit V.L.'s second parent adoption, the adoption decree
notwithstanding.
No Faith, No Credit
The Alabama Supreme Court's
ruling
raised eyebrows, as well as claims that it violated the
Full Faith
and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court easily agreed.
The Court began by noting that
the Full Faith and Credit Clause means that a "state may not disregard the
judgment of a sister state because it disagrees with the reasoning underlying
the judgment or deems it wrong on the merits." While courts can investigate
whether a sister state's court had jurisdiction, that is a limited inquiry, one
in which jurisdiction is resumed unless refuted by extrinsic or record evidence.
"Those principles," the Court
wrote, "resolve this case." Georgia law grants superior courts jurisdiction over
"all matters of adoption." That provision alone was enough to
give the Georgia court subject matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled. The
Court went on to reject Alabama's interpretation of Georgia's adoption statute
as a jurisdictional issue. Alabama had determined that there was no subject
matter jurisdiction for E.L.'s adoption based on the fact that Georgia law was
to be "strictly construed."
A Sign of Things to Come
-- Sort Of
The case does not break any
ground in same-sex parenting law or interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit
Clause.
But it may foreshadow future
court battles as the increase gay marriages gives way to
same-sex adoption and parenting and, in time, increased
same-sex custody disputes. Few of those cases, however, are likely to turn on
the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Related Resources:
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.