|
Adoption News - 22 -
Perdue vs Mississippi
[
Gay Couples
sue over Okla. Adoption Law
] [
Children's Groups appeal overturning of Florida Gay Adoption Ban
]
[
Britain
Parliament Oks Gay Adoption
] [
Lesbian Couple from VT Prevail in Adoption Suit
] [
Out of the Shadows ]
[
ACLU
Dismayed by 11th Circuit Appeal Upholding Floridas Anti-Gay Adoption Law
] [
US Adoptions Get Easier ]
[
Supreme
Court Lets Stand Floridas Gay Adoption Ban
] [
Experts Dispute Bush on Gay Adoption Issue
]
[
Adoptees
Deserve Access to Family Health Histories
] [
Committee Defeats Bill to Ban Gays from Adoption
]
[
Civil
Debate Over Civil Union ]
[ Study
Says Foreign Children Adapt Well
] [
Custody After Civil Union Pits States and Judges
]
[
Birth
Mothers vs Egg Donor Decision Upheld
] [
Hello I'm Your Sister - Our Father is Donor 150
]
[
Lund Family
Center Capital Campaign Remarks
] [
Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers
]
[
Adoption
Institute Supports Gay Parents
] [
Gays See Shift in Momentum Toward Acceptance in Alabama
]
[
Judge
Rejects Law on Gay Adoptions
] [
Perdue vs Mississippi ] [
Gay
Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue
]
[
Gay Couple
Awaits Adoption Ruling from US Court
] [
China Tightens Adoption Rules, U.S. Agencies Say
]
[
A Taste of
US Family Life, But Adoption in Limbo
] [
Gay Couple Win Lawsuit Against Adoption Web Site in Arizona...
]
[
Significant
Victory for Same Sex Couples in Oklahoma
] [
Report Urges States To Open Adoptee Records for Adults
]
[
State Court
Recognizes Gay Marriage From Elsewhere
] [
Miami Judge Rules Against Florida Gay Adoption Ban
]
[
House
Passes Bill Restricting Birth Certificates For Adoptions By Unmarried Couples
]
Perdue vs Mississippi
This
case involves the placement of same sex parents names on
an adoptive child's birth certificate.
PERDUE OPINION
OF THE COURT
IN THE
CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
TALIESIN PHILLIP CHARLES
GOLDSTEIN PERDUE, A MINOR BY HIS
PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, MARTHA
HOLLY PERDUE and CHERI LYNN GOLDSTEIN
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CAUSE NO. G-2001-1891 S/2
MISSISSIPPI STATE BOARD OF HEALTH;
MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH; DR. ED THOMPSON;
MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF PUBLIC
HEALTH STATISTICS; and JUDY
MOULDER
DEFENDANTS
OPINION OF THE COURT
THIS CAUSE
is before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment. The cross-motions were fully briefed, and the
matter came on for hearing before the Court on February
14, 2003. Plaintiff and Defendants agree that no issues
of material fact are present. After careful
consideration of all relevant evidence, testimony, oral
and written argument, as well as all pertinent case and
statutory law, the Court makes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as set forth below.
Plaintiff
was born in Jackson, Mississippi in 1997 and was adopted
by Martha Holly Perdue and Cheri Lynn Goldstein in
Vermont in April 2000. Ms. Perdue and Ms. Goldstein are
Plaintiff’s “adopting parents” as that phrase is used in
Mississippi Code Annotated §93-27-21. There is no
dispute in this litigation as to the validity of
Plaintiff’s adoption under Vermont law.
In May
2000, a request was submitted to the Mississippi Bureau
of Public Health Statistics (the “Bureau”) for a revised
birth certificate reflecting Plaintiff’s new name and
the names of his adoptive parents. The request for a
revised birth certificate complied with the Bureau’s
procedural requirements. However, the Bureau refused the
request for a revised birth certificate for the sole
reason that Plaintiff’s adoptive parents are both women.
The Bureau interpreted Mississippi law as not providing
for revised birth certificates when both parents are of
the same gender.
The case is
governed by Mississippi Code Annotated §93-17-21, which
mandates that the Bureau of Vital Statistics issue a
revised birth certificate listing the adopting parents’
names: “The said bureau [of Vital Statistics] shall
prepare a revised birth certificate which shall contain
. . . The names of the adopting parents and the new name
of the child.” By phrasing Section 93-17-21 in mandatory
terms, the Legislature has cast the Bureau’s duty in
mandatory terms, and the Bureau has no discretion to
deviate from the statute’s terms. See D.D.B. v. Jackson
County Youth Court, 816 So. 2d 380, 383 (Miss. 2002);
Mississippi State Hwy. Comm’n v. Waller, 353 So. 2d 755,
757 (Miss. 1997).
Rule 27 of the
“Rules Governing the Registration and Certification of
Vital Events,” promulgated by the State Department of
Health, establishes that the Vermont adoption must be
recognized for birth certificate issuance purposes: “A
new certificate for birth, for a child born in
Mississippi and adopted in this or any other state,
shall be prepared by the State Registrar and registered
in accordance with Section 93-17-21 . . . . The State
Registrar shall honor orders of courts of other states
having appropriate jurisdiction over Mississippi born
persons in matters of adoption.” Further, recognition of
the Vermont adoption decree is compelled under the Full
Faith and Credit Clause of the federal constitution.
U.S. Const. Art. IV, sec 1; see Baker v. General Motors
Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 233 (1998) (“A final judgment in
one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory
authority over the subject matter and persons governed
by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout
the land.”); Galbraith & Dickens Aviation Ins. Agency v.
Gulf Coast Aircraft Sales, Inc., 396 So. 2d 19, 21
(Miss. 1981).
Mississippi law
provides that adopted children and their adopting
parents have all the same rights as if the child had
been born to the adopting parents in lawful wedlock,
Mississippi Code Annotated §93-17-13, Plaintiff was
lawfully adopted in Vermont and that adoption is due the
recognition of the courts and administrative agencies of
Mississippi. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is well taken
and is hereby granted. Likewise, Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is not well taken and is hereby denied.
Defendants shall prepare a revised birth certificate for
Plaintiff, listing his name as Taliesin Phillip Charles
Goldstein Perdue and listing Martha Holly Perdue as
“Parent” and Cheri Lynn Goldstein as “Parent.”
Defendants shall deliver the revised certificate to J.
Cliff Johnson, counsel for Plaintiff, within ten (10)
days of entry of this Order.
SO
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
THIS the 5th day of March, 2003.
s/___________________________________
CHANCELLOR WILLIAM HALE SINGLETARY
Back To Top |
