Court OKs Christian mother to apply to adopt

An appeals court in Oregon last week ruled that a single mother does not have to violate her religious beliefs to be eligible to adopt or foster children. On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals filed a preliminary injunction affirming Jessica Bates’ rights and allowing her to reapply to adopt, free of discrimination.

Bates said the news was a “delightful surprise.” She can now resume the adoption process that she began three years ago. “I kind of had to do a double-take, like—what, we won?” she said.

The single mother of five has wanted to adopt children from foster care since she heard a podcast in 2020 about another single adoptive parent. Her husband died in a car collision in 2017, and she said she felt that God spoke to her through that podcast—she believed God called her to love children in need. But when she started the application process for adoption, Oregon rejected her because of her Biblical views on sexuality.

When Bates applied to adopt in spring 2022, she learned that the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) requires foster parents to “respect, accept, and support … the sexual orientation, gender identity, [and] gender expression” of any child the department could place in an applicant’s home.

According to her appeal, Bates told ODHS staff that she was not willing to take a child to “medical appointments for gender transitions,” but she would love and accept any child placed with her. Several months later, officials informed Bates that she did not “meet the adoption home standards” and barred her from adopting any child through the state—even infants or children who shared her religious beliefs.

Bates sued state officials in April 2023, stating that their denial violated her religious rights and free speech rights. The lower court rejected Bates’ request for a temporary ruling to allow her to continue to apply to adopt while the case proceeded. U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson said that, while Oregon’s adoption policy compels some of Bates’ speech, it is justified because it provides a “supportive environment” for children who identify as LGBTQ.

Bates appealed to the 9th Circuit in December 2023. Thursday’s ruling, though temporary, is the first win in the case.

In the 9th Circuit ruling, Judge Daniel Bress wrote that Oregon’s policy doesn’t cancel out Bates’ First Amendment rights. “The ‘best interest of the child’ standard does not cloak the state with limitless authority to deny adoption certifications,” he wrote. “Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone. And a state’s general conception of the child’s best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights.”

Bress said Oregon’s policy unduly “burdens” Bates’ speech and “forces” her to express views against her religious beliefs.

Oregon’s policy is not narrowly tailored to be minimally invasive on speech, Bress noted. For instance, the state could allow her to adopt children who agree with her views. Or, if state officials wanted to regulate the way parents interact with children who say they are LGBTQ, officials could impose a “system of more regular monitoring or check-ins,” he suggested.

Instead, the state imposed on Bates “an extreme and blanket rule that she may adopt no child at all based on her religious faith, for fear of hypothetical harms to a hypothetical child.”

Dissenting from the majority, Judge Richard Clifton argued that Oregon’s policy regulates the conduct of parents and does not affect their speech “beyond offering recommendations about communicating with foster children.”

“The only limitation imposed by the state in declining to approve her application to foster a child concerns her treatment of the child,” Clifton said. “Not what she personally believes, how she speaks to the world, or how she practices her faith.”

A spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice told local media that the state was “disappointed” by the 9th Circuit’s ruling and officials are considering their next steps.

The logic of the majority opinion is key for the next steps of the case, said Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Bates. He said that the court’s ruling emphasizes that officials can’t bar a parent from adopting any child just because the state thinks that parent isn’t a good fit for one child.

“No one would think that you could exclude all atheists because they don’t want to affirm a child’s religious beliefs,” Widmalm-Delphonse said. “Foster care is built on the diversity of thought and diversity of families coming into the system to care for the diversity of children who are there.”

Oregon should instead focus on finding loving parents for children in need, Widmalm-Delphonse said. The state had more than 5,600 children in foster care in 2021, according to ODHS.

“I don’t think you have to agree with Jessica’s views to recognize that a child that’s under 9 years old … they don’t even know what gender identity is, they just need a loving home,” Widmalm-Delphonse said. ​​“There are many children that could thrive in Jessica’s home, even if you don’t agree with her beliefs.”

Oregon isn’t the only state barring capable parents like Bates from adoptions, Widmalm-Delphonse said.

Last summer, two couples in Vermont sued the state after it revoked their foster care licenses because of their religious views that “girls cannot become boys or vice versa,” according to their legal complaint. After a district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction in February, the families appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May. Couples in Massachusetts and Washington have filed similar lawsuits.

Bates said knowing that God “knows the whole process” has given her strength. While her household has changed since she first filed the lawsuit—her oldest will soon be married—she is excited to prayerfully see what God wants and how she can help children.

“He’s got it, it’s in His plan,” Bates said. “We sometimes have in our mind how we think something is going to go, or what we are going to do, but … He ordains our steps.”