Opinion ID: 1473555
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicable Statutory Provisions and the Trial Judge's Ruling

Text: Three provisions of the adoption statute are relevant to determining whether more than one person may lawfully adopt a child and, if so, whether an unmarried couple [2] is eligible. D.C.Code § 16-302 (1989 Repl.) (captioned Persons who may adopt) provides: [1] Any person may petition the court for a decree of adoption. [2] A petition may not be considered by the court unless petitioner's spouse, if he [or she] has one, joins in the petition, except that [3] if either the husband or wife is a natural parent of the prospective adoptee, the natural parent need not join in the petition with the adopting parent, but need only give his or her consent to the adoption. [4] If the marital status of the petitioner changes after the time of filing the petition and before the time the decree of adoption is final, the petition must be amended accordingly. [Emphasis added.] D.C.Code § 16-305 (captioned Petition for adoption) lists the categories of information a petitioner must supply and then concludes: If more than one petitioner joins in a petition, the requirements of this section apply to each. [Emphasis added.] Finally, D.C.Code § 16-312 (captioned Legal effects of adoption) provides in paragraph (a): A final decree of adoption establishes the relationship of natural parent and natural child between adopter and adoptee for all purposes, including mutual rights of inheritance and succession as if adoptee were born to adopter. The adoptee takes from, through, and as a representative of his [or her] adoptive parent or parents in the same manner as a child by birth, and upon the death of an adoptee intestate, his [or her] property shall pass and be distributed in the same manner as if the adoptee had been born to the adopting parent or parents in lawful wedlock. [2A] All rights and duties including those of inheritance and succession between the adoptee, his [or her] natural parents, their issue, collateral relatives, and so forth, are cut off, [2B] except that when one of the natural parents is the spouse of the adopter, the rights and relations as between adoptee, that natural parent, and his [or her] parents and collateral relatives, including mutual rights of inheritance and succession, are in no wise altered. [Emphasis added.] The first questionwhether it is legally possible for an unmarried couple, see supra note 2, to adopt a childfocuses our attention, initially, on § 16-302, which governs who may adopt. The trial judge interpreted this provision to exclude the possibility of adoption by an unmarried couple because (in the judge's words) the institution of adoption as a creation of statute, not of common law, must be strictly construed, and there is no discernable legislative intent to extend the right and privilege of adoption to more than one unmarried person at a time. [3] In other words, reasoned the judge, because there is no basis for inferring that Congress affirmatively intended to permit a child's adoption by more than one unmarried adult i.e., because, according to the judge, there is an absence of specific legislative intentthe court must conclude that Congress rejected the possibility and thus has not authorized it. There is an unconvincing leap of reasoning here. An absence of specific legislative intent does not always mean the legislature thought about something and rejected it; the omission also can mean the legislature did not think about the idea at all, and thus took no position on it. It is unclear whether the trial judge considered this latter possibility, but it appears from her analysis that she believed it is irrelevant whether Congress thought about adoptions by unmarried couples. She seemed to be saying, rather, that the controlling fact is what the statute says; it does not expressly provide for such adoptions; end of case. The trial judge reached her result by making a decision to employ strict construction, meaning, to apply the law as it is written, without undue extension by interpretation. Brown v. United States, 66 A.2d 491, 493 (D.C.1949). According to strict construction doctrine, [t]he courts have consistently held legislation derogative of the common law accountable to an exactness of expression and have not allowed the effects of such legislation to be extended beyond the necessary and unavoidable meaning of its terms. Scharfeld v. Richardson, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 378, 379, 133 F.2d 340, 341 (1942). The judge, however, just as easily could have opted for a liberal interpretation, meaning [t]he statutory provisions, where ambiguous, are to be construed liberally to effectuate the beneficial purposes that Congress had in mind. United States v. Zazove, 334 U.S. 602, 610, 68 S.Ct. 1284, 1288, 92 L.Ed. 1601 (1948). This court itself has emphasized that the rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed does not require such adherence to the letter as would defeat an obvious legislative purpose or lessen the scope plainly intended to be given to the meaning. District of Columbia v. Thompson, 593 A.2d 621, 632 (D.C.1991) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court, moreover, has made the point even more emphatically: The canon in favor of strict construction is not an inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose.... [T]he canon does not require distortion or nullification of the evident meaning and purpose of the legislation. United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 25-26, 68 S.Ct. 376, 380, 92 L.Ed. 442 (1948) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). With particular reference to adoption statutes, many courts have shown a preference for liberal over strict construction, as the cases collected below in the margin reveal. [4] The point here is not to say, summarily, that the trial judge's approach is wrong; rather, we merely point out that another, respectable approach is available and that a more in-depth look at the statute is required than mere election between conflicting general rules of construction.