LOGIN

Lawsuit Alleging Adoption Bias Based on Religion Revived by Appellate Judges

by Chloe Baker
0 comments
Adoption Bias

A lawsuit concerning alleged adoption bias has been reignited by appellate judges, shedding light on a state-sponsored Christian adoption agency’s refusal to assist a Jewish couple and challenging the constitutionality of a Tennessee law safeguarding such denials.

In a recent verdict, a trio of judges presiding over the state Court of Appeals concluded that Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, the plaintiffs, maintain the right to pursue legal action as taxpayers in the case. This judgment extends to six additional plaintiffs who are also taxpayers. This overturns the previous decision in June 2022 by a lower court, which dismissed their legal standing. As a result of this decision, the case is poised to continue in the trial court.

Central to this legal battle is a 2020 law, which introduced legal safeguards permitting private adoption agencies to reject state-funded child placements based on religious convictions.

The spotlight often fell on the law’s ramifications concerning adoption agencies refusing services to LGBTQ parents. However, the Rutan-Rams contended that their plight was a result of discrimination due to their Jewish faith, thereby infringing on their state constitutional rights.

Within their legal petition, the Rutan-Rams, a married couple, detailed how the Holston United Methodist Home for Children in Greeneville obstructed their pursuit of Tennessee state-mandated foster-parent training and withheld home-study certification when they endeavored to adopt a child from Florida in 2021.

Subsequently, the state Department of Children’s Services intervened by providing the necessary training and home study, leading to their approval as foster parents in June 2021. Presently, the Rutan-Rams are fostering a teenage girl with the intention of adoption. Their aspirations extend to fostering at least one more child, followed by a similar pursuit of adoption, as outlined in the court’s decision.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, acting on behalf of the couple, lauded this week’s ruling as a significant triumph.

Rachel Laser, President and CEO of Americans United, remarked, “This compassionate couple aimed to provide assistance to a vulnerable child, only to be informed that a taxpayer-funded agency could not accommodate them due to their religious background. Liz and Gabe deserve their day in court, and Americans United is committed to ensuring that justice prevails.”

The Tennessee attorney general’s spokesperson, Amy Wilhite, stated that their office is in the process of reviewing the court’s decision.

As for the Holston United Methodist Home for Children, there was no immediate response to emailed inquiries regarding the verdict. Notably, the home is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

In a 2-1 ruling by the trial court in 2022, the majority judges ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the lawsuit forward. Importantly, this decision did not delve into the constitutional aspects of the lawsuit.

While the judges didn’t specifically address the plaintiffs’ claims against the law, they did emphasize that the law “does not target individuals of the Jewish faith as a marginalized or inherently inferior group.” They also noted that the services the couple sought wouldn’t have been state-funded, highlighting the scope of Holston’s contract with the state, which caters to services for children “in the custody of the State of Tennessee.”

The legislative change surrounding adoption laws had previously prompted certain faith-based agencies to bar gay couples from adopting. However, the 2020 law extended legal protections to agencies that opt for such practices.

Crucially, the Holston Conference of the United Methodist Church clarified that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children operates independently from the conference itself. This distinction emerged from an agreement in 2002, in which both entities resolved not to “assume any legal or financial responsibility for the other.”

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Adoption Bias

What is the central issue of this lawsuit?

The lawsuit revolves around a state-sponsored Christian adoption agency’s refusal to assist a Jewish couple due to their faith, prompting a challenge to Tennessee’s law protecting such denials.

What prompted the revival of the lawsuit by appellate judges?

A panel of three state Court of Appeals judges reinstated the lawsuit, asserting that the Jewish couple, along with other taxpayer plaintiffs, have the legal right to pursue the case, overturning a prior decision that had dismissed their legal standing.

What law is being challenged in this case?

The lawsuit contests a 2020 Tennessee law that grants legal protection to private adoption agencies, allowing them to reject state-funded placements of children to parents based on their religious beliefs.

How were the Rutan-Rams discriminated against?

The Rutan-Rams allege they were discriminated against by the adoption agency because of their Jewish faith, which they argue violates their state constitutional rights.

What obstacles did the couple face during their adoption journey?

The couple was barred by an adoption agency from obtaining required foster-parent training and home-study certification, which hindered their adoption efforts. However, the state Department of Children’s Services later intervened to provide the necessary training and certification.

What did the appellate judges rule regarding the couple’s legal standing?

The appellate judges ruled that the Jewish couple, along with other taxpayer plaintiffs, have the right to sue as taxpayers, contrary to the lower court’s decision that they lacked legal standing.

What organization represented the couple in this case?

Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the lawsuit on behalf of the couple and hailed the recent appellate ruling as a significant victory for their cause.

How did the judges address the arguments against the law?

While the judges didn’t specifically address all the claims against the law, they emphasized that the law doesn’t target individuals of the Jewish faith as a marginalized group and discussed the scope of services covered by Holston’s contract with the state.

What implications does this lawsuit have for adoption agencies?

This lawsuit challenges the extent to which adoption agencies can discriminate based on religious beliefs and raises questions about the constitutional protections of such laws.

What’s the future course of action for this lawsuit?

Following the appellate judges’ decision, the case will now proceed in the trial court, where the lawsuit against the state’s adoption law will be further deliberated.

More about Adoption Bias

You may also like

Leave a Comment

BNB – Big Big News is a news portal that offers the latest news from around the world. BNB – Big Big News focuses on providing readers with the most up-to-date information from the U.S. and abroad, covering a wide range of topics, including politics, sports, entertainment, business, health, and more.

Editors' Picks

Latest News