Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another story that shows that anti-gay bigotry and the policies it spawns destroy families rather than preserving them. A woman with 4 children asked her uncle to take them in because she was unable to care for them because, well, she's a major screwup apparently. The uncle took in the 4 children, in addition to his own two kids, and is willing to care of them. The state of Utah, no the other hand, wants to take the 4 kids, split them up and put them in foster homes with people they don't know.
Why? Because the uncle is gay and in a committed relationship. The state Department of Child and Family Services says it's against the law for foster parents not to be married or single and not cohabitating; so far a judge is disagreeing:
To the state, it's a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge's directive that Valdez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state's Division of Child and Family Services. On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children."The judge said, 'I see absolutely no reason why the kids can't stay where they're at,'" Valdez said.
The two men, both natives of Utah County, said they would love to get married, but voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Uncle and his partner clearly want to do the right thing:
"It was very difficult to get it going. But we've got the kids situated now. They're comfortable. They're happy," Oberg said.The children aren't strangers to DCFS, as the mother has a history of drug problems. But DCFS has worked to keep the kids with their mother when possible, Valdez said, and was even supportive of the men's efforts, until one of the division lawyers said the men had to sign over the children.
"They've been through enough without having been split up," Valdez said. "That's the major thing, the reason I've agreed to do this for her."
So let's take these kids away from their extended family, who are willing and able to care for them, split them up and put them in foster homes. Tell me again how you're for "family values."
Comments
Ed, Ed. Don't you see, by definition they're not a family?
And if Utah had the power to ignore Lawrence they would be sex offenders.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2007 10:18 AM
By any rational definition of "family values" your greatuncle wouldn't have to be a 'foster parent' licensed by the state to take you in any more than your grandparents would. I don't know Utah, but is that the case?
Posted by: The RIdger | October 6, 2007 10:39 AM
I have to admit to being a bit confused about the report of this case. Since when is a private custodial arrangement "foster care"? As far as I can tell, "foster care" refers to an arrangement between the state and state-approved foster parents. There was nothing of the sort in this case.
How did the state even find out about this private custodial arrangement?
Posted by: raj | October 6, 2007 10:48 AM
Ed, you're the legal expert. What are the odds the uncle is going to win this case? (I'm going to guess pretty well if the judge is on their side.)
I just can't wait for Matt Barber to spin this one.
Posted by: Brandon | October 6, 2007 10:57 AM
raj asked:
Presumably the children were already under Court order because of the mother's earlier problems. Thus any substantial change in the children's life need be reported to Social Services.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 6, 2007 11:02 AM
Well obviously banning gay marriage has solved the problem in this case...
Posted by: Dan Cardinale | October 6, 2007 11:55 AM
Personally, I don't see the problem here. As everyone knows, a properly-married, heterosexual family upbringing is the only way to instill decent morals and values and principles and ... and ... ummmm ...
How 'bout I get back to you on that?
Posted by: CC | October 6, 2007 12:46 PM
kehrsam | October 6, 2007 11:02 AM
Read the story. Seems to be the case.
Posted by: raj | October 6, 2007 3:07 PM
I'm a lawyer that prosecutes child abuse and neglect cases in New York, but I'm not familiar with Utah law. As far as I'm aware, though, most states have two basic types of court-ordered custodial arrangements. The first entails a proceeding between two or more private citizens where there is no state involvement. The second type is often termed a "child protective" matter, in which the government intervenes on behalf of children whose life or health (physical or emotional) is at imminent risk of impairment due to the actions or inaction of their custodian(s).
If Utah DCFS is already involved with this mother and has petitioned her into court in a child protective proceeding, as seems to be the case, a private transfer custody may or may not be an option while that matter is pending. If it's not, and the article states the law accurately, then DCFS has no choice but oppose Michael having custody.
The result of following the law is absurd, but the judge here seems to be flouting the law to reach the correct result. I doubt his decision would survive an appeal if one were taken.
Posted by: Scott | October 6, 2007 3:20 PM
Posted by: Alex, FCD | October 6, 2007 5:09 PM
Alex, FCD -
Indeed. But that is the way of it, when laws dictate moral values, as apposed to social utility. To any sane person, this couple is probably the very best possible option for those kids. But the law and lawyers are not always, indeed often aren't, sane.
Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2007 7:04 PM
Scott is right on this. Even the state DCFS didn't sound so hot about breaking up the children, but according to THE LAW, it wasn't an option.Thank Spaghetti the Judge had a coherent brain cell. As a resident in the reddest county in the reddest state, I can say that the people have no problem with this, its just the cult around here that does.
Posted by: Dior | October 6, 2007 7:57 PM
Quoting DuWayne:
"But the law and lawyers are not always, indeed often aren't, sane."
I take offense to that. It's just that 99% of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.
Now that I've got the joke out of the way, I did forget to mention one thing. The way the law is written (or is reported to be written) doesn't seem particularly bigoted against homosexuals. Rather, it's facially prejudiced against those who cohabit outside of marriage. (One wonders if one of two heterosexual roommates would be similarly prohibited.)
I'd be interested to know how long ago the statute was enacted. I'm curious whether the moralistic opposition of the Utah legislature to extramarital fornication was just a front for their moralistic opposition to homosexuality.
Posted by: Scott | October 6, 2007 8:53 PM
Scott -
It's just that 99% of lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name.
You mean 99.9%, dontcha? I actually know a few lawyers that I am very fond of. I even like to think I'm becoming friends with one who used to work for the congress critters, who'd of thunk it?
I'd be interested to know how long ago the statute was enacted. I'm curious whether the moralistic opposition of the Utah legislature to extramarital fornication was just a front for their moralistic opposition to homosexuality.
I highly doubt it. The Mormons are not really keen on either. It would surprise me a lot, if this was an attack on gays specifically. More likely, the gay thing is just a bonus.
It does raise the interesting question though; What happens if a person who is gay (or straight for that matter) adopts a child, then subsequently cohabitates with a partner?
Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2007 10:25 PM
Another horror story:
Family Trauma
When her partner was rushed to the hospital with massive bleeding in the brain from an aneurysm, Janice Langbehn and their three kids weren't allowed to see her until she died.
"You are in an antigay city and state." Those were the words of the social worker at Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital as my partner, Lisa, lay dying just steps away in the trauma center, behind locked doors. He punched his code on the keyboard and walked away, leaving me standing in the waiting room with our children -- Katie, David, and Danielle, ages 9 through 13. None of us could see her.
http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid49013.asp
Posted by: ThomasTallis | October 7, 2007 2:42 PM
Was I the only one who read the description of this family situation and think, "Wow. That would make a great family sitcom"? It has all the elements; loads of cute kids, strung out mom, gay uncles. The possibilities are endless. Throw in some courtroom drama and you've got prime time gold.
Posted by: Jordan | October 8, 2007 11:59 AM