The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and must not be construed as legal advice. Visitors to this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in this site without seeking legal or other professional advice from an attorney licensed in the visitor’s state and the state where the visitor’s matter is pending or may be pending now or in the future. The content of this website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or updates. The Sklar Law Firm LLC and Adam B. Sklar, Esq. expressly disclaim all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this site. The Sklar Law Firm LLC and Adam B. Sklar, Esq. are not liable for any confidential or sensitive information that is sent through this website and visitors to this site are advised that their communications through this website may not be confidential. The transmission of the contents of this website, in part or in whole, and/or communication with The Sklar Law Firm LLC and Adam B. Sklar, Esq. via Internet, email, or through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with The Sklar Law Firm LLC and Adam B. Sklar, Esq. The Sklar Law Firm LLC and Adam B. Sklar, Esq. do not endorse, and are not responsible for, any third-party content that may be assessed through this website.
According to this article, newly installed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Pavan v. Smith demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision establishing the same marriage equality for same-sex couples as for opposite sex couples may be subject to future attacks.
Pavan v. Smith involved an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Courts in the State of Arkansas refused to issue birth certificates of both same-sex married parents. The U.S. Supreme Court, citing its Obergefell decision, issued an opinion that same-sex married couples must receive the same treatment as opposite sex married couples (ie., the spouse of the parent giving birth via an anonymous sperm donor can be added to the child’s birth certificate) in accordance with Obergefell. In essence, had the couples been opposite sex, the State of Arkansas would have issued the birth certificates and now must do so for same-sex couples pursuant to Obergefell.
Justice Gorsuch dissented insisting that the State had a biological reason entitling the State to the benefit of at least presenting its argument before the US Supreme Court. This dissent is troubling because opposite sex married couples who are artificially inseminated with gametes from an anonymous sperm donor (ie., wives) are permitted to have their non-biological husband added to their child’s birth certificate, but Justice Gorsuch was arguing that non-biological men should be treated differently based on the gender of the person whom they married.
This dissent signals Justice Gorsuch’s intention to (a) lead the conservative judicial movement; and (b) weaken Obergefell.
According to this article, the State of California has also banned state travel to Alabama over Alabama’s law allowing adoption agencies to exclude LGBTQ families by citing faith-based policies.
According to this article, the State of California has banned state travel to the State of Texas after Texas enacted a law permitting adoption agencies to turn away adoptive families based on religious beliefs against sexual orientation.
Report that the House in Massachusetts rejected a proposed $1000 state tax credit for adoption.
According to this article, a legislator in Kansas is seeking to survey attorneys on observations of any bias observed against same-sex foster/adoptive parents.
According to this article, the last time the adoption tax credit was refundable was in 2010-11. While the American Tax Pay Relief Act in January 2013 made the adoption tax credit permanent, it did not include the ability to make it refundable. This harmed low-income families unable to fully take advantage of the credit. Legislation has just been introduced to make the adoption tax credit refundable thereby helping low-income families take full advantage of the adoption tax credit which will hopefully support and encourage more adoptions.
“Yeah, because you chose me”
According to this blog post, Sharon Stone (mother of three adopted sons) asked her son if he knew how much she loves him. His response appears quoted above.
According to this article, the count is up to five. Five states now provide or are moving forward to providing for faith-based religious protections for adoption agencies which place a child’s needs and best interest below the religiously held beliefs of the adoption agency. Essentially allowing an adoption agency to ignore a child’s best interests over religiously held beliefs.
The five states are: Alabama (passed on May 3, 2017), South Dakota (passed in March 2017), Virginia (passed in 2012), Texas (pending legislation), and Oklahoma (pending legislation).
Georgia was moving in this direction, but the bill died when the legislature adjourned without acting on it in March 2017.
THE SKLAR LAW FIRM LLC CONTACT INFORMATION
40 MULBERRY DRIVE
MANALAPAN, NEW JERSEY 07726 USA
(732) 289-6253 FAX