Opinion ID: 1473555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Adoption By Unmarried Couples: Furthering The Statutory Purpose By Achieving The Child's Best Interests

Text: The trial judge ruled in an earlier proceeding that Bruce's adoption of Hillary was in the child's best interest. In this case, the judge found that Hillary's adoption by Mark, even alone, would also be in her best interest. Thus, the judge strongly intimated that Hillary's joint adoption by Bruce and Mark, if legally permissible, would be in Hillary's best interest, since the judge was aware that Hillary has been living with Bruce and Mark together from the time Hillary's mother placed her with them both. Given what the trial judge has said based on a substantial factual record, and further given the importance of determining whether interpretation of § 16-302 to permit adoptions by unmarried couples can promote the best interests of children, we use the facts of this case to evaluate the kinds of benefits that can flow from a liberal, inclusive interpretation of the adoption statute. [42] The proposed adoption by Mark very well may be in Hillary's best interests because it would formalize a parental relationship that she recognizes in fact, and it would assure that both men are equally committed to her. Although both Mark and Bruce currently provide support for Hillary, Mark's joining Bruce in the adoption would guarantee that they both continue to have an ongoing financial responsibility to her. [43] Furthermore, in the event that Mark and Bruce were to separate, Hillary would be assured of legal access to, and support from, both of them. [44] As Hillary's parent, Mark, like Bruce, would be able to obtain health insurance and other employment-related benefits for her. [45] In addition, Mark, like Bruce, would be allowed to act in Hillary's best interest without challenge to his parental authority by third parties such as doctors, hospitals, day care programs, schools, and camps. [46] Hillary would be protected in the event Mark died without a will because she would be entitled to inherit from him under the laws of intestate succession. See D.C.Code §§ 16-312, 19-301 et seq. Hillary also would have the right to inherit from Mark's relatives, see id., and she would be eligible for other benefits, such as worker's compensation payments and Social Security benefits upon Mark's unemployment, disability, or death. See id. §§ 36-301(4), -308(4), -309, 46-101(19). Hillary, moreover, would have standing to bring a wrongful death action if Mark were accidentally killed, id. § 16-2701, and she could benefit from various statutes and regulations that provide certain rights and privileges for next of kin with respect to Mark (in addition to Bruce). [47] Additionally, Mark would have rights relating to Hillary which could inure to her best interests. [48] The adoption also would protect Hillary in the event of Bruce's death, because Mark would be entitled to presumptive guardianship of Hillary and thus the family unit would not be threatened. If Mark were not Hillary's legal parent in the event Bruce were to die, Mark would have to file an action for custody, guardianship, or adoption to preserve his relationship with Hillary. If contested, this process could be lengthy and costly and could culminate not merely in denial of Mark's petition but, more significantly, in Hillary's losing, in effect, not one but two parents. Recitation of the foregoing benefits of adoption have revealed what a child, living with an unmarried couple, could lose if only one of two parents-in-fact is allowed to adopt under the law. This reality cannot be ignored. In this connection it is important to emphasize again that, in making the child's best interests the decisive consideration, In re L.L., 653 A.2d at 880, the statute does not expressly prescribe any limitation on how the family, in the child's best interests, shall be structured. The focus is on how the child shall best thrive, not on what the particular family format shall look like. See supra note 12. We are satisfied that the paramount statutory purposethe best interests of the adopteewill be best served, and that no other affected interests protected by the statute will be ill served, by a liberal, inclusive interpretation of D.C.Code § 16-302 that says: unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, who are living together in a committed personal relationship, are eligible to file petitions for adoption under D.C.Code § 16-305. We so hold. We therefore finally can say that it is not unreasonable to conclude that D.C.Code § 49-202, as applied to unmarried couples, modifies D.C.Code § 16-302 to say [a]ny persons may petition for adoption. Accordingly, adoption petitions by unmarried couples shall be granted or rejected on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of the prospective adoptee (on the assumption that all other statutory requirements are met).