Adoption of Tammy
619 N.E.2d 315, 416 Mass. 205, 1993 Mass. LEXIS 528 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Massachusetts General Laws c. 210 permits two unmarried cohabitants to jointly adopt a child when it is in the child's best interests, and a natural parent's legal relationship to the child does not terminate when that parent is a party to the joint adoption petition.
Facts:
- Helen and Susan have lived together in a committed, permanent relationship for over ten years and jointly purchased a house in 1983.
- Both women are physicians specializing in surgery and held faculty positions at Harvard Medical School.
- Helen and Susan planned to have a child, biologically related to both of them, whom they would jointly parent.
- Susan successfully conceived Tammy through artificial insemination by Helen’s biological cousin, Francis, and Tammy was born on April 30, 1988, with a hyphenated surname using Susan and Helen’s last names.
- Since her birth, Tammy has lived with, been raised, and supported by Helen and Susan, viewing both women as her parents and forming strong emotional and psychological bonds with them.
- Francis, Tammy's biological father, does not participate in parenting or support Tammy and signed an adoption surrender, supporting the joint adoption by both women.
- Tammy stands to inherit significantly from three irrevocable family trusts if adopted by Helen, as Helen and her living issue are beneficiaries.
- Extensive testimony from mental health professionals, teachers, colleagues, neighbors, relatives, a priest, and a nun, along with reports from the Department of Social Services and a court-appointed guardian ad litem, overwhelmingly supported the joint adoption as being in Tammy's best interests.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan and Helen filed a joint petition in the Probate and Family Court Department under G. L. c. 210, § 1, to adopt Tammy, Susan’s biological daughter.
- A judge of the Probate and Family Court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently entered a memorandum of decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The judge entered a decree allowing the adoption, finding it to be in Tammy's best interest, and simultaneously reserved and reported the evidence and all questions of law to the Appeals Court under G. L. c. 215, § 13.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself on its own motion from the Appeals Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does G. L. c. 210 permit two unmarried cohabitants to jointly adopt a child when it is in the child's best interests, and if so, does the natural parent's legal relationship to the child terminate upon entry of the adoption decree?
Opinions:
Majority - Greaney, J.
Yes, G. L. c. 210 permits two unmarried cohabitants to jointly adopt a child when it is in the child's best interests, and when a natural parent is a party to a joint adoption petition, that parent's legal relationship to the child does not terminate. The court reasoned that adoption law is statutory and its primary purpose is the advancement of the child's best interests. There is nothing in G. L. c. 210 that explicitly precludes joint adoption by unmarried cohabitants. The singular term "a person" in the statute can be construed as "persons" under G. L. c. 4, § 6, especially when such an interpretation enhances the statute's purpose of promoting the child's best interests. The Legislature, while perhaps not envisioning same-sex partners, did not limit all possible categories of persons entitled to adopt and used general language for who may adopt. All specific statutory requirements for adoption (e.g., consent, preconditions, and best interests directives) were met in this case. The adoption would provide crucial legal benefits to Tammy, including inheritance rights, support obligations, and social security eligibility, and would preserve her filial ties to Helen in unforeseen future events such as separation or Susan's death. Regarding the termination of the natural parent's relationship under G. L. c. 210, § 6, the court concluded that this provision is directed at situations where a child is adopted by individuals who are not their natural parents. The Legislature did not intend for a natural parent's legal relationship to terminate when that parent is a party to the adoption petition, as such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the statute's overall purpose and prior judicial constructions in similar contexts (e.g., stepparent adoptions).
Dissenting - Nolan, J.
No, the adoption was not properly allowed under G. L. c. 210 for the reasons articulated by Justice Lynch in his dissenting opinion. Justice Nolan explicitly stated that his dissent solely agreed with Justice Lynch's analysis of existing jurisprudence.
Dissenting - Lynch, J.
No, G. L. c. 210 does not permit two unmarried persons to jointly petition for adoption. Justice Lynch clarified that his disagreement was not based on disapproval of the petitioners' lifestyle or sexual orientation, and acknowledged that the child's best interests were being met. However, he argued that the court's decision was inconsistent with the statutory language. He asserted that the child's best interests could be accommodated without "doing violence to the statute" by allowing Helen to adopt Tammy while Susan retained all her parental rights, which he noted the majority effectively achieved in part of its opinion. As adoption is a creature of the Legislature and in derogation of common law, the statute must be strictly construed. G. L. c. 210, § 1, enumerates who may petition for adoption and explicitly permits joint petitions only by married persons. The plain meaning of "a person" cannot be expanded to include two unmarried persons when the Legislature has established specific criteria, and the singular is consistently used throughout the relevant section, with the only exception being for spouses. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a joint petition from two unmarried persons.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the interpretation of Massachusetts adoption statutes, setting a precedent that prioritizes the 'best interests of the child' over traditional marital status in adoption proceedings. By construing 'a person' to include 'persons' and recognizing joint adoption by unmarried cohabitants, the court acknowledged and legitimized non-traditional family structures. Furthermore, the ruling clarified that a natural parent's rights are not terminated if they are a party to a joint adoption petition, offering crucial legal stability for children with a biological and a functional parent. This decision laid groundwork for legal recognition of diverse family forms, impacting future cases involving same-sex partners, single-parent adoptions, and other non-traditional family structures seeking legal recognition for parental relationships.
