NOTE: This is probably obvious, but this post isn't about Nicaragua. I just haven't set up a non-travel blog yet.
--------------------

--------------------

So I may have jumped the gun on declaring myself a one-mom child. Here's what I've figured out so far:
[DISCLAIMER: I'm not a law expert by any means, so I could be totally off here.]
Sounds like my family will be fine as Alice and I were both second-parent-adopted in New York, where state adoption laws explicitly allow second-parent adoption. "Full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution means NC can't invalidate an NY adoption just because we live here now. But then again, exceptions have been carved out in the past for other controversial "contracts," like interracial marriages and gay marriages (i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act which allows states to ignore gay marriages if they want). However, there's a recent federal appeals court decision that affirmed the fact that out-of-state gay adoptions are binding in any state: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-6213.pdf
Looks like bad news for all the gay couples in durham who did their adoptions here though. The whole issue hinges on the ability of a non-related person to directly adopt the child of another person without the latter relinquishing their parental rights, which the court decided is not possible under current NC law. The Court found that crazy liberal Durham judges had no right to waive that state requirement, and thus the adoption is void. Unclear whether this immediately applies to all second parent adoptions completed in Durham, but that would certainly seem to be implied.
Article in the N&O: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/21/873846/same-sex-couple-adoption-voided.html
Full text of the decision is here: http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=2010%2F416PA08-2.pdf
To me, a mere liberal arts undergrad with no experience parsing Legalese, the court seems to go out of its way to show that their decision invalidating the adoption is solely based on a technical jurisdiction issue, not any sort of ill-will towards gay adoption as an idea. In fact, it includes lots of lovely language about the healthy relationship between the child and his two moms, and reinstates joint custody. It also has a helpful comparison of the three types of adoption in NC: direct, agency-assisted, and stepparent. Second parent adoption is a modification of the direct adoption procedure, where a birth mother allows a new parent (or set of two legally married parents) to adopt her child. In order for second parent adoptions to be granted again, state legislature would have to explicitly change direct adoption laws. Until then, sounds like a trip to New York is your best bet to re-adopt your own children.
Some key quotes from the case [essentially, one mom attempting to invalidate the adoption as a way of preserving sole custody]:
Happy Lesbians: "Plaintiff’s parenting skills were found to be 'very attentive, very loving, hands on and fun.' ... The child refers to plaintiff as “Mom” and to defendant as “Mommy.” [Aww...] ... As the trial court stated, the minor child 'shows lots of love and respect for both parties..."
The Jurisdiction Issue: "Because the General Assembly did not vest our courts with subject matter jurisdiction to create the type of adoption attempted here, we hold that the adoption decree at issue is void ab initio."
2nd Parent Adoption vs. State Regulations: "In her petition for adoption, plaintiff explained to the adoption court that she sought an adoption decree that would establish the legal relationship of parent and child with the minor child, but not sever that same relationship between defendant and the minor child. As we have established, such relief does not exist under Chapter 48."
The Uniformity Issue: "The record shows that this new form of judicially-created adoption may have been available only in Durham County and not available in the other counties of North Carolina. If our uniform court system is to be preserved, a new form of adoption cannot be made available in some counties but not all. This Court has the responsibility to ensure that the law is applied uniformly in all our counties." [But it would be fine if it was available across the state?]
Joint Custody Maintained: "Defendant explained to the adoption court that she 'intends and desires to co-parent with another adult who has agreed to adopt a child and share parental responsibilities.' Thus, defendant shared parental responsibilities with plaintiff and, when occurring in the family unit defendant created without any expectation of termination, acted inconsistently with her paramount parental status." [Essentially, even if plaintiff was legally the only parent, she sure didn't act like one.]
What's sad about the case for me is that a gay woman is willing to invalidate adoptions for the entire state just to try and take back sole custody of her son from her ex-partner.
Blargh.















































