Gay adoption case won on legal technicality

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled Alabama must recognize a lesbian woman’s adoption of her former partner’s biological children. The decision overturns an Alabama Supreme Court ruling refusing to recognize the adoptions because they were finalized in Georgia and contradicted Georgia law.

The court released the decision Monday morning without hearing oral argument or dissenting opinions, a relatively unusual move, according to Eric Johnston, president and general counsel for the Southeast Law Institute in Alabama. While LGBT advocates are claiming victory for gay adoption, other observers, including Johnston, say it’s not clear what precedent this very technical case sets for future gay adoption decisions.

The case centers on a dispute between the two women. While they were together and living in Alabama, one of the women gave birth to three children using a sperm donor. Hearing Georgia was friendlier to gay adoption, the couple temporarily rented a house there so the woman’s partner could apply to formally adopt the three children. Georgia granted the adoptions in 2007. After the couple split years later, the biological mother refused to grant visitation to the adoptive mother, who took the matter to Alabama courts.

In September, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled the adoptions invalid because Georgia law requires the biological parent give up all rights before a non-spouse adopts the children. The adoptive mother appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Monday, the justices ruled Alabama must recognize the Georgia adoption under the “full faith and credit” principle in the U.S. Constitution. The opinion stated the Alabama court could deny recognition if there was a question of jurisdiction, but because the Georgia court had appropriate jurisdiction to grant the adoptions, Alabama must recognize the decision regardless of its merits.

Gay rights advocates called the decision a victory for LGBT parents.

“Any attempt to deny legal rights to our families is reprehensible, and this ruling establishes that bias and discrimination cannot be allowed to undermine the bond between LGBT parents and their children,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for Human Rights Campaign.

But the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of gay adoption, instead limiting its decision to whether Alabama is bound to recognize the Georgia adoptions, regardless of whether the Georgia courts correctly applied Georgia law, according to Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council.

“I don’t think the Supreme Court decision is a surprise,” Sprigg said. “But I’m somewhat disappointed that the Georgia court chose to ignore their own statutory law.”

Sprigg called the Georgia decision “judicial activism,” but said it sets little precedent because of the legal technicalities in the case.

“This may be another illustration of a court ignoring state law in order to get to the final decision they want,” he noted.

Despite the uncertainty, Johnston said he doubts it will be long before gay couples attempt to apply for adoption in Alabama. More lawsuits are likely to follow, he predicted.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.