The
Virginia
Supreme
Court
ruled
on
April
22
that
the
state
must
issue
birth
certificates
to
same-sex
parents
who
have
adopted
children
born
in
Virginia.
The
case
of
Katherine
Anne
Fisher-Davenport,
et
al
vs.
Deborah
Little-Bowser,
et
al
involved
three
sets
of
adoptive
parents
and
their
four
children,
all
of
whom
live
outside
of
Virginia.
The
parents
in
this
case
adopted
the
children
in
D.C.
and
New
York,
which,
unlike
Virginia,
allow
same-sex
partners
to
adopt
a
child
jointly.
After
their
adoptions
were
finalized,
each
of
the
couples
requested
that
the
Virginia
Department
of
Vital
Records
issue
a
new
birth
certificate
listing
both
parents’
names.
In
each
case
the
Vital
Records
office
refused
to
issue
new
certificates
with
both
parents’
names
and
offered
instead
to
issue
a
certificate
in
one
parent’s
name.
This
was
not
acceptable
to
the
parents
who
insisted
that
they
needed
both
parents
listed
on
the
birth
certificates.
According
to
a
brief
filed
in
support
of
the
plaintiffs
by
Professor
Joan
Hollinger,
one
of
the
principal
authors
of
the
Uniform
Adoption
Act,
children
without
both
parents
listed
on
their
birth
certificates
may
have
difficulty
getting
a
U.S.
passport,
enrolling
in
school,
obtaining
medical
treatment,
inheriting
from
his
or
her
adoptive
parents
or
proving
that
the
child
is
eligible
for
Social
Security
and
other
state
and
federal
benefits.
The
families
filed
suit
in
Richmond
Circuit
Court.
They
argued
that
the
Department
of
Vital
Records
should
follow
the
statute
that
requires
new
birth
certificates
be
issued
to
all
adopted
children.
In
February
2004,
Richmond
Circuit
Judge
Randall
G.
Johnson
sided
with
the
Department
of
Vital
records
ruling
that
requiring
the
state
to
list
the
names
of
the
children’s
adoptive
parents
on
new
certificates
directly
conflicts
with
Virginia’s
policy
prohibiting
joint
adoption
by
unmarried
couples.
In
their
appeal
to
the
Supreme
Court,
lawyers
for
the
families
argued
that
Vital
Records
was
violating
not
only
the
statute
on
birth
certificates,
but
that
their
refusal
to
issue
the
certificates
violated
the
Full
Faith
&
Credit
and
Equal
Protection
clauses
of
the
U.S.
Constitution.
The
Virginia
Supreme
Court
chose
to
rule
on
the
narrower
of
the
issues
—
the
state
statute.
The
court
ruled
that
where
there
is
a
report
of
an
adoption
the
state
has
to
issue
a
new
certificate.
In
response
to
the
court’s
decision
Judith
Williams
Jagdmann,
the
attorney
general
of
Virginia,
issued
the
following
statement:
“We
are
disappointed
that
the
Virginia
Supreme
Court
rejected
the
Commonwealth’s
position.
Fortunately,
the
decision
does
not
create
a
substantive
constitutional
right,
but
is
merely
an
interpretation
of
a
statute
which
can
be
corrected
by
the
General
Assembly.”
Sen.
Emmett
Hanger
(R-District
4),
chair
of
the
Rehabilitation
&
Social
Services
committee
said
that
he
would
support
changing
Virginia
law
so
that
it
would
not
require
that
the
state
issue
birth
certificates
to
same-sex
parents.
Hanger
said
that
he
expects
such
legislation
to
be
referred
to
his
committee
and
that
he
would,
“patron
the
legislation
myself
in
order
to
make
Virginia
law
consistent
on
this
issue.”
“It
would
be
very
unfortunate
if
the
legislature
tried
to
change
the
statute
because
the
people
who
are
most
hurt
by
the
Department
of
Vital
Records
stance
on
this
matter
are
the
children
who
were
adopted
out
of
state,”
Glenberg
said.
“Virginia
might
have
its
own
feeling
about
these
adoptions
but
they
did
take
place.
Children
have
a
right
to
have
both
parents
on
their
birth
certificate.
“Our
position
will
be
that
all
legislation
that
doesn’t
treat
children
adopted
by
same-sex
couples
the
same
as
any
other
children
is
unconstitutional.”
“It’s
appalling
that
people
who
profess
to
support
children
and
strengthen
families
would
make
it
so
difficult
to
get
something
so
simple,”
said
Tim
Fisher,
one
of
the
parents
in
the
case.
Fisher’s
children
are
now
15
and
almost
13
and
his
family
has
been
trying
to
get
birth
certificates
for
almost
13
years.
Eartha
Melzer
can
be
reached
at
emelzer@washblade.com.
