Amicus Curiae Brief — Obergefell v. Hodges
Supreme Court brief2015
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 14-556 ria e
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Gnited States
JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., AND BRITTANI
HENRY, ET AL..,
Petitioners,
Ve
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ET AL.,
Respondents.
On WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF THE COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA, OHIO
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS
MAJEED G. MAKHLOUF — AWATEF ASSAD
DIRECTOR OF LAW RUCHI V. ASHER
Counsel of Record ASSISTANT LAW DIRECTORS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY DORON M. KALIR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY
2079 East 9" St., 7 FI. CUYAHOGA COUNTY
Cleveland, OH 44115 DEPARTMENT OF LAW
mmakhlouf@cuyahogacounty.us 2079 East 9" st. 7” FI.
(216) 698-6464 Cleveland, OH 44115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................ micmeaaaiaeusaads nienaebiadeetad ill
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE...............00c0c0c0ceeeeeeeees 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................----cececceececeecseccececeeees 5
ETE ES Se ee ee ee Ea Ee 6
I. CHILDREN RAISED BY SAME-SEX PARENTS
ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES AFFORDED By THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO CHILDREN
RAISED BY OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTS ..................00000.2- 6
A. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Discriminates Against Children Of
Same-Sex Parents Because It
Prevents Those Children From Having
Two Legally-Recognized Parents Like
Children Of Opposite-Sex Parents.................... 8
1. As Windsor Demonstrates, Ohio's
Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Demeans, Humiliates, and
Stigmatizes Children Raised By
Same-Sex Parents .......................cccscceceeeeeeee 10
2. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage And
Recognition Bans Prevents
Children from Establishing a Legal
Relationship with Their Parents,
Thereby Depriving Them of the
Emotional and Financial Benefits
Afforded to Children of Opposite-
ER 14
B. Ohio’s Same Sex Marriage And
Recognition Bans Harm Children As
They Prevent Adoption and Foster
ll
Parenting by Same-Sex Parents........................ 20
Il. SAME-SEX PARENTS WHO RAISE CHILDREN
ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS
AFFORDED By THE FOURTEENTH
SOO EEE EEE EEE EEE EER EEE EEE EERE EEE OHHH eee
A. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Discriminates Against Same-Sex
Parents As It Denies Them The Most
Fundamental Liberates Offered By the
Fourteenth Amendment to Opposite-Sex
aaa ieee 23
1. Ohio’s Denial of Fundamental
Parental Rights from Same-Sex
Parents Amounts to “Every Parent’s
Worst Nightmare.” ................-...ccceceesseeeeeeeees 26
2. Ohio's Denial of Fundamental
Parental Rights Imposes an
Extremely Heavy Burden —
Financial and Otherwise — on Same-
EEE SER ens Nc eRe 27
3. Ohio’s Denial of Fundamental
Parental Rights Negatively Affects
Same-Sex Parents’ Employment
III, - cinicutcnieicieshiiiesbeetaninimnnminetntansinietall 30
B. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Turns
Same-Sex Parents into Second- Class
IIIS ccisucdeateeietnnaunidniddaeieemaniaaindmamendiiimianeieamsnan 31
SIIIIIITITTTITTIIT snsichitnidinsnincinineniatieiiaitadindiabaniilaademinienneiananainiiins 31
SIIIEITEIanstniiidiniiglinbecinendhiaieitneiinanbiiteihammimmientedaheimiens 1A
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir.
IIIT ch iasaeareiecathinsasthdthesinpeapeainsaaieiiiacapiniannigtmnaiaetiastiigiia deadbeat passim
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir.
ETA een. Se eee eae 15
Campaign for Southern Equal. v. Bryant, No.
3:14-CV-818-CWR-LRA, 2014 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 165913 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 25, 2014)............. 21
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc.,
Ee Cs le Gi CR ctcccccencccsccceseccccnctccesccocssens 8
DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir.
ST kesieiestiicianighesepininansedeueainicinietiniaadinaidaiaamnetnaieianiambeiiniels passim
DeBoer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D.
I ai 10,18
Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp.3d 1036 (S.D.
| ee ee ae 25,29
In Re Adoption of Doe, 130 Ohio App. 3d 288
en passim
In re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387 (2002)................. 16
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469,
EEE een aan eee 32
Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2014) ............ 25
Meyer v. Neb., 262 U.S. 390 (1923)..........0000.00ce. 23
Obergefell v. Symyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968
SR eee passim
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)........... 24
IV
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)..................... 22
U.S. v. Windsor, _U.S. _.. 133 S. Ct. 2675
ETSY ae se See ne a ae OE passim
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)....... 24
STATUTES
es Ce, IIIT, Titi eras UF Biccvcccennescescatsccscsiucntiensieennts 4
lalalaliii 6
er, CPI TIT sins cccnenernienntncsuneedindpeiiennanetnns 2
OHIO REV. CODE SIOL.OU(C) .......cccccccccccccscccccsccceces 6,16
ORIO REV. COMB SB107.0G .....cccccrccsccccccccccccccoscccccccvcsses 8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Gary J. Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United
States (Williams Institute, UCLA School
of Law, Feb. 2013), available at
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/lgbt-parenting.pdf (last
RRR TREE 7
Gary J. Gates, Same-Sex Couples in Ohio: A
Demographic Summary, April 2014, available at
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/OH-same-sex-couples-demo-apr-
Internal [nitiatives, Cuyahoga County
Division of Children and Family Services,
http://cfs.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/II-
LGBTQ.aspx (last visited Feb. 27, 2015).....passim
Jurisdictions With Marriage Equality, available
at http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/n
Vv
ationwide-status-same-sex-relationships#2
(last visited Feb. 27, 2015)..........000000..c cece eee 26
PCSAO FActT BOOK: 11TH EDITION, 2013-
2014, Public Children Services
Association of Ohio, available online at
http://www.pcsao.org/PCSAO Factbook/1 1t
hEdition. html (last visited Feb. 27, 2015)............ 2
Susan J. Becker, Second-Parent Adoption by
Same-Sex Couples in Ohio: Unsettled and
Unsettling Law, 48 CLEVELAND STATE LAW
REVIEW 101, 125 (2000)........................200. ....passim
U.S. Census Bureau — Cuyahoga County
Quick Facts, available at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/
39035.htm! (last visited Feb. 27, 2015)................. 2
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Anited States
No. 14-556
JAMES OBERGEFELL, ET AL., AND BRITTANI HENRY, ET
AL.,
Petitioners,
Vv.
RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ET AL.,
Respondents.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF THE COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA, OHIO
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Cuyahoga County submits this Brief as amicus
curiae in support of Petitioners.! Home to the city of
Cleveland, Cuyahoga County is the most populous
county in the State of Ohio — one of the four states
' Pureuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amicus curiae state
that no counsel for any party authored this Brief in whole or in
part, and that no entity or person, other than amicus, its
members, or its counsel made any monetary contribution
towards the preparation and submission of this Brief. In
keeping with Supreme Court Rule 38.4, this Brief is submitted
on behalf of the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio, by its authorized
law officer.
2
subject to the opinion of the Sixth Circuit below.
According to recent estimates, about 1.2 million
people reside in Cuyahoga County, consisting of
roughly ten percent of Ohio’s total population today.”
The Cuyahoga County Division of Children and
Family Services is one of the largest child-welfare
agencies in the State of Ohio.% The Division's
activities are regulated by both state‘4 and federal
law.5 It deals on a regular basis with adoption and
other issues related to same-sex parents.
The Division works tirelessly to ensure the health
and safety of children and their parents, regardless
of sexual orientation. In doing so, the Division
considers the emotional, psychological, and physical
well-being of children and their parents to be of
prime importance, whether the parents are of the
same or opposite sex.
The Division established the Lesbian Gay
Bisexual Transgender Questioning (LGBTQ)
2 See U.S. Census Bureau — Cuyahoga County Quick Facts,
available at http://quickfacts.census.gov /qfd/states/ 39/39035.
html. (The exact numbers are 1,263,154, and 11,572,005,
respectively, as estimated for the year 2013 (the last year for
which data is available)).
3 PCSAO FACT BOOK: 11TH EDITION, 2013-2014, Public Children
Services Association of Ohio, available’ online at
http://www.pcsao.org/PCSAOF actbook/1 IthEdition. html.
4 See Ohio Revised Code, Ch. 5153.
5 See, e.g., See Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA), 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.; Multi-Ethnic Placement Act
of 1994 (MEPA), Pub. L. No. 103-382; Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), Pub. L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115;
and The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act, Pub. L. 110-351.
3
Committee in 2012 to support the Division and
community partners in providing competent services
to youth and families who identify as LGBTQ. To
demonstrate the effects of the same sex marriage
ban, and to ameliorate the hardships suffered by
children and community members, the LGBTQ
committee has collected statements from those
affected by the ban — parents, children, and child
welfare professionals alike.®
Amicus strongly believes that the children of
same-sex parents are entitled to the same rights and
privileges afforded by the Constitution to children of
opposite-sex parents; and that, similarly, same-sex
parents are entitled to the same rights and privileges
afforded by the Constitution to opposite-sex parents.
Amicus further believes that the legal foundation to
this claim can be found in the Fourteenth
Amendment, which guarantees both the “equal
protection of the laws,” and “due process” to “any
person within its jurisdiction,”’ regardless of sexual
orientation.
But beyond the legal arguments, beyond the
constitutional theories, and beyond the learned
reasoning, Amicus believes that this Court should
hear directly from those who have been — and are
still being affected — by Ohio’s ban on same-sex
marriage. This Court should hear the voices of the
children — boys and girls — who yearn to have two
6 These statements, and more about the work of the LGBTQ
Committee, are available online at http://cfs.cuyahogacounty.us/
en-US/II-LGBTQ.aspx and are reproduced in the attached
Appendix.
7U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.
4
legal parents, just like all their friends; of the
parents, who long to protect their children through
stable, committed, and legally recognized
relationships; and of the professionals — social
workers, adoption agencies, family law attorneys,
and other child welfare professionals — who witness
the daily hardship, humiliation, and suffering that
are merely a part of what constitutes a same-sex
family unit in Cuyahoga County in 2015.
Amicus will bring forth the voices of school
children who constantly fear the bigotry and
prejudice they face at school with children taunting
them for “not having a family;” and the voices of
younger children who cannot tell the difference
between “not legally recognized” and “criminal,”
fearing their parents are the latter; and those of
parents who fear that in the event of death of one of
them the other would not be able to establish any
legal connection to their shared child; and of a
veteran attorney who reveals the anxiety and
frustration of parents when they find out that the
non-biological parent has no standing or rights
whatsoever with regard to the shared child. (See,
Declarations attached to Appendix.)®
These, and the many other examples provided in
the following pages, clearly demonstrate that
regardless of the level of scrutiny with which this
Court would find apt to review Ohio's same-sex
8 To protect the privacy and safety of the declarants, the
declarant’s identities have been redacted. The original signed
declarations are on file with the Cuyahoga County Department
of Law. These declarations are also available online at
http://cfs.cuyahogacounty .us/en-US/I]-LGBTQ.aspx.
D
marriage ban, the ban cannot survive judicial review
due to its’ horrific, tragic, and _ unjustified
implications — none of which correspond with any
state interest.
It is because of these real stories and the actual
discrimination that Cuyahoga County’s same-sex
parents and their children face each day that the
County chose to file this Brief. As the governmental
entity charged with protecting the welfare of children
in its jurisdiction, Cuyahoga County could not stand
idle in this case.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This case is about children who are discriminated
against on account of their parents. It is also about
parents who are discriminated against on account of
their sexual orientation. It is about a differentiation
between two kinds of parents — same-sex parents and
opposite-sex parents. Such differentiation cannot
survive constitutional scrutiny, as this Court has
noted: “[this] differentiation demeans the [same-sex]
couple, whose moral and sexual choices’ the
Constitution protects and whose relationship the
State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of
thousands of children now being raised by same-sex
couples. The law in question makes it even more
difficult for the children to understand the integrity
and closeness of their own family and its concord
with other families in their community and in their
daily lives.” United States v. Windsor, _U.S.__, 133
S. Ct. 2675, 2694 (2013) (internal citations omitted).
Amicus agrees with the Seventh Circuit's
observation — adopted by the dissent in the cases
6
below — that while “[flormally these cases are about
discrimination against the small homosexual
minority in the United States [....] at a deeper
level... they are about the welfare of American
children.” Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648, 654 (7th
Cir. 2014) (cited in DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388,
421 (6th Cir. 2014)). It is the “welfare of American
children” that is at the center of this Bref. Amicus
will demonstrate how both children of same-sex
parents and the parents themselves are deeply
affected by Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage and its
refusal to recognize such marriages even if they took
place in a jurisdiction recognizing such marriages.
Amicus advances two primary arguments. First,
children who are raised by same-sex parents are
entitled to the same rights and privileges afforded by
the Fourteenth Amendment to children raised by
opposite-sex parents. Second, same-sex parents are
entitled to the same rights and privileges afforded by
the Fourteenth Amendment to opposite-sex parents.
ARGUMENT
I. CHILDREN RAISED BY SAME-SEX PARENTS ARE
ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
AFFORDED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
CHILDREN RAISED BY OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTS.
The State of Ohio, through both its Constitution
and laws,% denies same-sex couples the right to
marry. It also refuses to recognize such marriages
should they occur in a jurisdiction recognizing same-
sex marriages. Thus, the State of Ohio shamefully
9The Ohio Const. Art. 15 § 11 and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
3101.01(C).
7
deprives children of same-sex couples and their
parents the equal protection of the laws and due
process guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The effects of Ohio’s discriminatory laws are far-
reaching. To fully comprehend them, however, one
has to first consider the numbers. In the United
States, an estimated 220,000 children are being
raised by approximately 125,000 same-sex couples.
See Baskin, 766 F.3d at 663.!° Approximately 20,000
of those couples — nearly one in six of the national
population — reside in Ohio. !! Of those 20,000
couples, 19 percent are raising children under age 18
in their home.!? Thus, more than 3,760 same-sex
couples in Ohio are raising nearly 6,800 children.!
Accordingly, a sizeable portion of the national
population of same-sex couples living and raising
children in Ohio are subject to the daily effects of the
10 Citing Gary J. Gates, LGBT Parenting in the United States, 3
(Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, Feb. 2013), available
at http://williamsinstitute law.u du/wp-
content/uploads/lgbt-parenting.pdf, (“there are approximately
125,000 same-sex couples raising nearly 220,000 children’).
11 See Gary J. Gates, Same-Sex Couples in Ohio: A Demographic
Summary, April 2014, available at
http://williamsinstitute law. ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/OH-
same-sex- - -apr- ; (“Tabulations from
Census 2010 show that there are 19,684 same-sex couples living
in Ohio.”) Overall, Ohio is home to 11.5 million people (see
supra, note 2), which consists of only 3.5% of the total 320
million poagee eanvantny aveng in rea entire } Vales ren (see
12 Gates, Same-Sex Couples in Ohio, Id.
13 Jd.
8
same-sex marriage ban. Similarly, thousands of
children, whose only “crime” was that they are raised
by same-sex parents, are punished every single day
by the State’s refusal to recognize their parents’
marriage.
A. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Discriminates Against Children of Same-
Sex Parents Because It Prevents Those
Children From Having Two Legally-
Recognized Parents Like Children of
Opposite-Sex Parents.
The Equal Protection Clause mandates that “all
persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473
U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban
treats children of same-sex parents differently from
similarly situated children of opposite-sex couples. In
particular, Ohio allows married couples, single
persons, and step-parents to adopt. '* Conversely,
Ohio adoption laws prohibit same-sex couples from
jointly adopting their children because same-sex
couples are unable to marry. In fact, due to Ohio’s
same-sex marriage ban, step-parent adoptions are
likewise unavailable to same-sex parents in Ohio.
The case of Jn Re Adoption of Doe, 130 Ohio App.
3d 288 (1998) is instructive. There, Ohio’s Ninth
Appellate District considered a motion by a same-sex
partner of the biological parent (the second parent) to
14 Ohio Rev. Code § 3107.03, which limits the type of persons
allowed to adopt in the State of Ohio, does not include same-sex
partners who are unable to marry; as a result, they are not
allowed to jointly adopt.
9
adopt the biological minor child raised by both. Jd.,
at 289. The court found that the second parent was a
suitable person to adopt; the court also found that
the adoption was in the child’s best interest. Jd. Still,
the court denied the second parent’s motion, holding
that adoption by the same-sex partner (an unmarried
adult) would automatically trigger a termination of
the parental rights of the legal biological parent. Jd.
at 292. To reach this result, the court first asserted
that “[a]doption’ in Ohio is a creature of statute.” Jd.
at 290 (internal citations omitted.) It then held that
according to the statute, granting the same-sex
partners motion would have “the effect of
terminating all parental rights of [the] biological
parent[].” Jd. at 291.
In other words, granting the wish of one parent to
adopt would lead the other parent to lose all legal
rights they had towards the child. The court
heartlessly presented the same-sex parents with a
reverse King Solomon dilemma, requiring them to
choose who will be the one — and only one — who will
have legally-recognized ties to the child.
Such an absurd result — the termination of
parental rights of the biological parent upon a motion
to adopt by the other parent!® — would never even be
contemplated for an opposite-sex couple seeking to
jointly adopt their child. Such discrimination is
unjustifiable, and the Constitution cannot tolerate
such a distinction.
15 See also Susan J. Becker, Second-Parent Adoption by Same-
Sex Couples in Ohio: Unsettled and Unsettling Law, 48
CLEVELAND STATE LAW REVIEW 101, 125 (2000).
10
As the district court in Obergefell has noted: “[{In
Ohio], while opposite-sex married couples can invoke
step-parent adoption procedures or adopt children
together, same-sex married couples cannot. While
Ohio courts allow an individual gay or lesbian person
to adopt a child, a same-sex couple cannot.”
Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 980 (S.D.
Ohio, 2013). Such practices, among others, have led
the district court to hold both Ohio Constitutional
and statutory bans on same-sex marriage
unconstitutional. This result should be affirmed
here.
1. As Windsor Demonstrates, Ohio’s
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Demeans,
Humiliates, and Stigmatizes Children
Raised by Same-Sex Parents.
Striking down as unconstitutional a key provision
of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), this Court in
Windsor, _ US. _.. 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013),
entertained the proposition that laws discriminating
against same-sex couples solely on the basis of their
sexual orientation cannot withstand constitutional
scrutiny. The Court also noted the demeaning effect
such laws have on same-sex parents, and the
humiliating effect they have on their children:
DOMA undermines both the public and
private significance of state-sanctioned same-
sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all
the world, that their otherwise’ valid
marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.
This places same-sex couples in an unstable
position of being in a second-tier marriage.
The differentiation demeans the couple, whose
11
moral and sexual choices the Constitution
protects, [....], and it humiliates tens of
thousands of children now being raised by
same-sex couples. The law in question makes
it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their
own family and its concord with other families
in their community and in their daily lives.
Id. at 2694 (emphasis added).
But the Court did not stop there. Finding that
DOMA unreasonably denies same-sex couples federal
recognition of their marriages, this Court
emphasized that the “avowed purpose and practical
effect of the law here in question are to impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma
upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made
lawfully by the unquestioned authority of the
States.” Jd. at 2693 (emphasis added). Thus, this
Court has recognized the demeaning, humiliating,
and stigmatizing effects of a law that does not ban
same-sex marriages, but merely refuses to recognize
them, finding it unconstitutional. A fortiori, where
the law in question not only refuses to recognize, but
completely bans such marriages, the same logic
should follow.
The stories captured in the declarations cited in
this Brief are merely a few, representative examples
of these stinging effects of fear, humiliation, and
stigma that same-sex families face in Cuyahoga
County every day. '* Take, for example, the case of
16 To protect the privacy and safety of the declarants, the
declarant’s identities have been redacted. The original signed
——eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee...
12
Child 2, who was raised by two same-sex parents and
now has a daughter of his own. Speaking about his
experiences growing up, he notes that “[o]f course the
legal aspects were extremely detrimental to my
family [...], but the social and psychological damage
that is being perpetuated by the state was just as
difficult.” Decl. Child 2, 38. When Child 2’s mother
met her partner, “I finally received the love from a
second parent that I did not know existed. I bonded
with her as I had never done with anyone else before.
[...] [She] taught me what it was to be respectful, to
have a work ethic, and to take pride in everything I
do. All of the core values that I pride myself on today
and work to instill in my daughter were taught to me
by her.” Jd., at 75. Yet, growing up, Child 2 “spent
the majority of my teenage years afraid to tell people
about someone SO important to me.” Jd., at 47. The
same-sex marriage ban and its resulting stigma
forced him to hide his family from society so he could
“protect my family from the bigotry and prejudice
that they would be sure to face at community events
and school activities.” Jd.
Or take the example of Jane Doe 4’s children.
Despite being legally married in New York, Jane Doe
4 found out upon arriving to this great state that
“legally speaking, our family doesn’t exist in Ohio,
and countless other places, and that reality has a
direct correlation with how other people view us.”
Decl. Jane Doe 4, 94. Jane Doe 4 has two children, a
declarations are on file with the Cuyahoga County Department
of Law. All Declarations cited in this Brief are included in the
attached Appendix. They are also available online at
http://cfs.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/II-LGBTQ.aspx.
13
son and a daughter. At age 6, her son “was worried
that we would be arrested upon re-entering Ohio. In
his mind, since same-sex marriage is not legal in
Ohio, our marriage effectively made us criminals.”
Id., at 96. As for her 1l-year old daughter, she has
been brutally taunted at school by children claiming
that she doesn’t “have a family” and constantly
asking her “how does it feel to not have a family?” Jd.
at 95. The taunts, to be sure, “don’t begin or end
there,” Jd., but are of much prolonged nature.
Similarly, Jane Doe 9’s children constantly had to
“prove they were smart, talented, and socially
skilled, in order to be as good as the students from
‘normal’ families. They succeeded;[sic] good grades,
well-liked, athletic, leaders. Even so, they were often
not welcomed into the homes of some of their
friends.” Decl. Jane Doe 9, 43.
As one of the same-sex parents has noted, a clear
ruling from this Court in favor of marriage equality
“would send a strong message that [having such a
family] is an accepted form of family,” which is
“especially important to children, and even more so
adopted children, who are trying to figure out their
place in the world.” Decl. Jane Doe 1, 48.
14
2. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage And
Recognition Bans Prevents Children
From Establishing A Legal
Relationship With Their Parents,
Thereby Depriving Them of the
Emotional and _ Financial Benefits
Afforded to Children of Opposite-Sex
Parents.
The refusal to allow same-sex parents to jointly
adopt their children has been described as “[t]he
most arbitrary feature” of the state’s treatment of
same-sex couples. Baskin, 766 F.3d at 671. This
refusal damages not only the parents; it also “harms
children, by telling them they don’t have two
parents, like other children, and harms the parent
who is not the adoptive parent by depriving him or
her the legal status of a parent.” Jd. Thus, although
the same-sex parent has established a long-lasting
and loving relationship with the child, he or she
“remain[s] a total stranger to the child in the eyes of
the law.” Susan J. Becker, Second-Parent Adoption,
at 107-108.
Neither those arbitrary features nor the fact that
one of the parents remains a complete legal stranger
to the child were ever discussed in the majority
opinion below. The court merely paid lip-service to
the constitutional rights implicated — and disparate
treatment caused — by the same-sex marriage bans
enforced by the States of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky,
and Tennessee.'’ Only in the dissent did Judge
17 The dissent shares this view. See DeBoer, 772 F.3d at 421
(Daughtrey, J. dissenting) (“{[The majority] wholly fails to
grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal
15
Daughtrey courageously redirect the focus to the
effect of marriage equality bans on American
children. See, DeBoer, 772 F.3d at 422.
The harmful and stigmatizing effects of the same-
sex marriage bans on children and their parents
have been well-documented.!8 For example, Professor
Susan Becker has noted that “a child’s attachment to
his or her ‘psychological parent’ is extremely well-
documented and important, and that disruption to
that relationship for any period of time can be
exceedingly detrimental to the child.” Becker at 114.
Yet, the marriage and recognition bans, like those
in Ohio, lead to absurd results following the death or
incapacitation of the legal parent. “[T]here is no legal
guarantee that the court will either award
guardianship to [the non-legal] parent or eventually
permit him or her to adopt the child.” DeBoer v.
Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d 757, 763, (E.D. Mich. 2014.)
While the legal parent can use a power of
attorney appointing the non-legal parent as the
child’s guardian, there is no guarantee that a probate
court would honor the appointment. Becker at 108, n.
51. Same-sex couples in Ohio can petition the court
[....] [In fact,] the majority treats both the issues and the
litigants here as mere abstractions.”)
18 See Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352,372, n.4 (4th Cir. 2014)
(Striking down Virginia same-sex marriage ban, which
similarly imposed a functional ban on adoption by same-sex
couples). The Fourth Circuit noted that “Virginia Marriage
Laws actually harm the children of same-sex couples by
stigmatizing their families and robbing them of the stability,
economic security, and togetherness that marriage fosters.” Jd.
at 383.
16
for shared custody. Jn re Bonfield, 97 Ohio St. 3d 387
(2002). This, however, is an inadequate substitute to
full parental rights accorded through an adoption.
Ohio's adoption law, as_ restricted by the
unconstitutional same-sex marriage and recognition
bans, shamefully allows any individual possessing an
interest in the child’s welfare — “a distant relative of
the child, a neighbor, teacher, or ‘anyone who claims
to have an interest in the child” — to sever the child’s
relationship with his or her psychological and real
parent. DeBoer, 772 F.3d at 763 (Daughtrey, J..,
dissenting) (internal citations omitted.)
The DeBoer district court in Michigan also noted
that these children are placed in a state of “legal
limbo’ if that parent dies or is incapacitated.” Id. at
764. Indeed, the very idea of removing a child from
the custody and care of a loving and devoted parent,
for no reason other than that parent’s sexual
orientation, simply cannot stand to reason. The
effects of such removal are devastating, both to the
child and to the surviving parent. It is undisputed
that children raised by opposite-sex couples never
need to endure such horror. This, again, is yet
another example of the discrimination that cannot —
and should not — survive constitutional scrutiny.
In addition to its same-sex marriage ban, Ohio
applies a same-sex marriage recognition ban —
effectively terminating same-sex marriages
conducted elsewhere. See, Ohio Rev. Code §
3101.01(C)(3). That ban, much like the marriage ban,
has “a destabilizing and stigmatizing impact,” on the
people it targets — an impact no opposite-sex couple
must endure. Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d
17
968, 979 (2013). And the children, again, are harmed:
“[t]he only effect the bans have on children’s well-
being is harming children of same-sex couples who
are denied the protection and stability of having
parents who are legally married.” Id., at 994-995.
Here too, to state the obvious, no children of
opposite-sex parents will ever have to endure the
consequences of the parents’ nuptials taking place in
another American jurisdiction.
These court findings are supported. by
testimonials of same-sex children in Cuyahoga
County. Thus, for example, John Doe 1’s children do
not fully comprehend their precarious legal position,
and the hkelihood of facing separation from one of
their parents should disaster strike with the other
parent. Instead, this year, John Doe 1’s eight-year-
old daughter told him that “her birthday wish was
that her Daddy and Papa could get married.” Decl.
John Doe 1, 48.
Or take the case of Jane Doe 9, whose former
husband — and the father of her children — died
within a week of her own father’s passing. Her same-
sex partner became a parent to her devastated
children. The partner bonded with the children in a
way their biological father never could, but the
uncertainty of her legal relationship to her children
took a visible toll. For example, the youngest son
“alternated between acting out and clinging to both
of us but particularly my partner, his ‘other mom
[....! She never missed a basketball, baseball, or
football game. She was there when he was angry or
sad or both. He took comfort in her for many
reasons.” Decl. Jane Doe 9, 46.
18
Despite the real relationship that developed
between Jane Doe 9’s partner and her son, the son
continued to experience “persistent worry about the
loss of another parent.” Jd. at 98. He turned down a
college scholarship because “he was afraid to leave us
because he worried that something would happen to
one of us.” Jd. Thus, Ohio's ban on same-sex
marriage deprived this young man of academic and
professional opportunities.
Or take the case of Child 1. She was happy to
receive her mother’s partner as her own new parent:
“She cared for us when we were sick, helped us with
bills, attended our sporting events, and offered us
unconditional love. She walked us down the aisle and
has been present for the birth of five grandchildren.”
Decl. Child 1, {4. Her new mother thus successfully
filled the void left by her former, absentee, alcoholic,
but biological father.
In spite of this, and because of Ohio’s same-sex
marriage and recognition bans, Child 1 grew up with
the fear that, should something bad happen to their
biological mother, she and her siblings would be
required to separate from their new mother and
“would [be] forced to live with a relative that was
merely an acquaintance to us instead of the only
other parent we had known.” Decl. Child 1, 45.
Another exaniple is that of Jane Doe 4. This
same-sex mother has witnessed first-hand the
hardship and suffering her kids had to endure due to
the extra daily scrutiny by their peers. Now, when
asked about having more children, she admits that
she does not know if she could, in good conscience,
“ever expand her family and do that to more
19
children.” Decl. Jane Doe 4, 413. As Jane Doe 1 has
noted with regards to her children:
[T]o have their family recognized as legitimate
and real in the eyes of the government can give a
sense of security and legitimacy to [our children’s]
lives. They are not able to fully understand the
legal ramifications, but they are able to hear the
fear in our voices when they ask what would
happen to them if one of us were to die and we
cannot promise that the plans we have set up
would be honored.
Decl. Jane Doe 1, 48.
Ultimately, same-sex parents “accept all the
responsibilities of marriage — to love, honor, and care
for one another and our children —without any of the
rights or protections.” Decl. John Doe 1, 49. As
another pair of mothers summed it well, “to not be
recognized as a full parent is an indignity. And Ohio
is doing this daily.” Decl. Jane Doe 7&8, 47.
There is no legitimate reason to justify the
difference in legal treatment between children raised
by same-sex parents and similarly-situated children
raised by opposite-sex couples. “The overwhelming
scientific consensus, based on decades of peer-
reviewed scientific research, shows unequivocally
that children raised by same-sex couples are just as
well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual
couples.” Obergefell, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 994, n.20
(emphasis omitted). The expert in the DeBoer case
similarly “found no _ statistically significant
differences in general characteristics or in
development between children raised in same-sex
20
households and children raised in opposite-sex
households, and that the psychological well-being,
educational development, and peer relationships
were the same in children raised in gay, lesbian, or
heterosexual homes.” DeBoer, 772 F. 3d at 425
(Daughtrey, J., dissenting).!9
Without the possibility of creating a meaningful,
legally recognized tie to their second parents, the
children of same-sex parents live in fear and
uncertainty that — in the event something bad
happens to one parent — they would be forced to lose
both. This result is unjust, unfair, and unequal. It
should cease.
B. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage And
Recognition Bans Harm Children As
They Prevent Adoption and _ Foster
Parenting by Same-Sex Parents.
Experts have found that the same-sex marriage
and recognition bans increase the potential risks to
children awaiting adoptions and placement in
permanent homes. DeBoer, 722 F.3rd at 424-25
(Daughtrey, J., dissenting). See also Becker, at 115.
There are many children in foster homes waiting to
‘9 See also Deboer v. Snyder, 973 F. Supp. 2d at 763, (E.D. Mich.
2014) (expert noted several reputable organizations “expressing
support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and
gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical
Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association,
American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of
America, National Association of Social Workers, and the
Donaldson Adoption Institute”).
21
be adopted. In 2011, there were approximately
400,000 children in foster care. 22 In 2013 in
Cuyahoga County, there were on average 1,800
children per month in state custody, and 375
children per month awaiting adoption.
By prohibiting same-sex couples from adopting
these children as a couple, marriage bans have a
chilling effect on adoptions and foster care
placements. “[S]ame sex marriage improves the
prospects of unintended children by increasing the
number and resources of prospective adopters.”
DeBoer, 722 F.3d at 423 (Daughtrey, J, dissenting).
In Campaign for Southern Equal. v. Bryant, No.
3:14-CV-818-CWR-LRA, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis
165913, at*85 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 25, 2014), the court
noted that “given the number of children in [...] any
state—awaiting placement in a_ stable family
environment, it is irresponsible to deny those
children the shelter and enrichment that same-sex
families can provide.” Id.
Ohio’s marriage ban discourages the adoption of
children and _ (foster parenting. Such laws
disincentivize same-sex couples from adopting
children:
Even though one person can legally adopt a
child, should anything happen to the adoptive
parent, there is no [....] legal framework that
20 Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d at 663, citing to the U.S. Dept. of
Health & Human Services, Children's Bureau, "How Many
Children Are in Foster Care in the U.S.? In My State?"
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/faq/foster-care4.
22
would ‘ensure that the children would
necessarily remain with the surviving non-
legal parent,’ even if that parent went through
the arduous, time-consuming, expensive
adoption-approval process [....] [States] would
save money by moving children from foster
care or state care into adoptive families, and
although same-sex couples [...] are almost
three times more likely than opposite sex
couples to be raising an adopted child and
twice as likely to be fostering children, there
remains a legal disincentive for same-sex
couples to adopt children [....]
DeBoer, 772 F.3d at 424-425 (Daughtrey, J.,
dissenting).
Finding a home for a lost child is one of
Cuyahoga County’s primary responsibilities
through its child welfare agency. States,
legislators, and courts have always lauded that
goal. No child — definitely no court — can accept a
diversion from this objective solely based on
sexual orientation.
Il. SAME-SEX PARENTS WHO RAISE CHILDREN ARE
ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all
parents — regardless of gender, race, or sexual
orientation — a fundamental liberty interest in the
“care, custody, and control of their children.” Troxel
v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). In fact, as this
Court has noted, this liberty interest “is perhaps the
oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized
23
by this Court.” Jd. Such fundamental interest, the
Court emphasized, “includes the right of parents to
establish a home and bring up children.” Id.
(internal citations omitted).
The “right of parents,” in turn, means thet the
State has limited powers when it comes to
intervening in the relationship between a parent and
his or her child: “the child is not the mere creature of
the State; those who nurture him and direct his
destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to
recognize and prepare him i (*({for additional
obligations.” Id. See also, Meyer v. Neb., 262 U.S.
390, 399 (1923) (interest protects parents’ rights “to
control the upbringing and education of children,”
which is “as essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men.”)
A. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Discriminates Against Same-Sex Parents
AS It Denies Them The Most
Fundamental Liberties Offered By The
Fourteenth Amendment to Opposite-Sex
Parents.
The rights of “those who nurture [the child] and
direct his destiny” are of the highest stakes in this
case. If this Court let the Sixth Circuit decision
stand, the very liberty interests enjoyed by all — the
fundamental liberty interests that are the oldest to
be recognized by this Court — would not apply only to
a certain group of parents who are of the same sex.
In the eyes of the law, these parents will not be
able to care for, take custody of, or control their
children. In the eyes of the law, these parents will
24
not be able to establish a home and bring up
children. In the eyes of the law, these parents will
not be able to nurture and direct their children’s
destiny, due to no crime, no harm to the children,
and no fault of their own.
It is solely due to discrimination, animosity, and
bigotry towards the parents’ sexual orientation. The
Fourteenth Amendment must not, indeed cannot,
tolerate such treatment of one particular group of
parents. This Court should make this clear.
This Court has long emphasized its “tradition of
interpreting the Due Process Clause to protect
certain fundamental rights and ‘personal decisions
relating to marriage, procreation, contraception,
family relationships, child rearing, and education,’
and noted that many of those rights and liberties
‘involve the most intimate and personal choices a
person may make in a lifetime.” Washington uv.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 726 (1997) (nternal
citations omitted). Such “fundamental rights and
personal decisions” are precisely at stake here.
This Court has also observed that “[flamily
relationships, by their nature, involve deep
attachments and commitments to the necessarily few
other individuals with whom one shares not only a
special community of thoughts, experiences, and
beliefs but also distinctively personal aspects of one's
life.” Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619-20
(1984). Such “deep attachments” and “special
community of thoughts” should be enjoyed by all
parents, not only those of opposite sex. Neither the
Constitution nor this Court have ever recognized a
reason to distinguish between groups of parents
25
based on their sexual orientation. Ohio should not do
so now.
Unfortunately, the existing same-sex marriage
and recognition bans — such as Ohio's — intentionally
create such unconstitutional discrimination. The
bans patently infringe upon the rights of parents to
care for their children. They “burden[] the ability of
the child’s parents to exercise their parental rights
and responsibilities.” Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp.3d
1036, 1050 (S.D. Ohio, 2014) (emphasis omitted.)
They irreparably harm the parent-child relations. As
the Ninth Circuit has observed:
[I]n extending the benefits of marriage only to
people who have capacity to procreate, while
denying those same benefits to people who
already have children [the States] materially
harm and demean same-sex couples and their
children. Denying children resources § and
stigmatizing their families on this basis is
illogical and unjust. It is counterproductive, and it
is unconstitutional.
Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 472-73 (9th Cir. 2014)
(internal citation omitted.)
The sacred bond between a parent — any parent —
and their child cannot be interrupted by a line in
Ohio’s Revised Code or its State Constitution.
26
1. Ohio’s Denial of Fundamental
Parental Rights from Same-Sex
Parents Amounts to “Every Parent’s
Worst Nightmare.”
While this Court has been a staunch defender of
parental rights for close to a century, one group of
parents — one distinct, well-identified, and well-
established group — has been left out. The group of
same-sex parents, who raise their children with the
same amount of love, affection, and care as many of
their opposite-sex counterparts, received no rights
from this Court. They received no protection, and,
until the Court’s recent decision in Windsor, received
no recognition either. This situation should end
today. Indeed, many states have already recognized
the unconstitutional — not to mention demeaning and
degrading — nature of such a targeted discrimination
against one group of parents.?! Shamefully, however,
several other states still allow this sad state of affair
to continue. And Ohio is one of these states. Such
deprivation of fundamental rights harms those
parents. It stings them every day, as they are
reminded, constantly, that they are not entitled to
the most basic rights and privileges that all other
parents — but them — take for granted.
As noted by one pair of same-sex parents in
Cuyahoga County, “imagine raising your own child
and not having these fundamental rights like being
able to make a medica/ decision at a life threatening
21 Currently, 36 states allow same-sex marriages and therefore
full parental rights. See, Jurisdictions With Marriage Equality,
available at http://www .jlambdalegal.org/publications/
nationwide-status-same-sex-relationships#2.
27
moment. This would be every parent’s worst
nightmare and it is a true picture for same-sex
parents in Ohio.” Decl. Jane Doe 7 & 8, 49/4.
Same sex parents are forced to choose “who would
become the legal adoptive parent” — a choice no
opposite-sex couple is forced to make. Decl. John Doe
1, 45. Thus, wanting both of his children to be legally
related, John Doe 1 was forced to tell the other
parent that he had no legal rights towards the
children they both raised, and he was not permitted
to be present when the adoption of both was
finalized. An opposite-sex parent cannot even
imagine such a plight.
2. Ohio’s Denial of Fundamental
Parental Rights Imposes an Extremely
Heavy Burden - Financial and
Otherwise — on Same-Sex Parents.
Deprived of the rights afforded as a matter of
course to their opposite-sex counterparts, same-sex
parents in Ohio are forced to expend “thousands of
dollars in legal fees” in their attempt to create
tenuous legal substitutions to the legally-recognized
status of marriage. Decl. Jane Doe 4, 49. See also,
Decl. Jane Doe 1, 47; Decl. Child Welfare
Professional 2, 95. They do so in myriad ways —
through wills, shared parenting agreements, powers
of attorney, and more. Decl. John Doe 1, 4/7.
Thus, same-sex parents are burdened in ways
that an opposite-sex parent could never imagine: “We
keep documents at home and have provided them to
the schools and pediatrician. We have also carefully
written our Wills so that in the event that something
28
were to happen to me, our children should remain
with [the non-married other parent]las the legal
guardian.” Decl. Jane Doe 1, 47. One couple even
resorted to “filing a petition to adopt in an out-of-
state probate court using [an] Ohio home study,” but
“Ohio would not issue new birth certificates for the
children documenting the court's decision.” Decl.
Child Welfare Professional 1, 45.
Another example well demonstrates’ the
complexity of inter-state same-sex parenting.
Despite being legally married in Pennsylvania, and
after “applying for legal guardianship and filing a
shared parenting plan” in Ohio, Jane Doe 5 will have
to raise her daughter knowing that her wife's
parents, “who have struggled to accept their
daughter's sexuality and her decision to move to
Cleveland, would be given preference.” The daughter
that she prepared so long for could be ripped away.
Decl. Jane Doe 5&6, 47. Jane Doe 5’s parents, the
child’s non-biological grandparents, “would not lkely
receive visitation or continuation of their
relationship with our child.” Jd.
Finally, in the event of the non-biological mother’s
death, the child could not legally inherit from her
estate and could not receive social security benefits
or other death benefits. Jd. See also, Decl. Jane Doe
4, 412 (“[T]he reality is that my parents (who are
only mildly tolerant of our life) could fight in court to
obtain custody and possibly win, even though [the
other parent] has been their parent their entire
lives.” Decl. Jane Doe 1, 47.
Same-sex parents are deprived of the benefits of
healthcare, visitation, and decision-making;
29
adoption, custody, and other parental rights; tax,
wills and estates and probate benefits. At times,
Jane Doe 1’s wife “would have to call me at work and
pull me out of meetings to give permission for her to
talk to a teacher about an issue at school, or give
permission for the doctor to treat our child because
she was the one at the appointment.” Id., 46.
Same-sex parents are limited in their ability “to
make legal, academic, and health decisions for [the
legal child].” Decl. Jane Doe 4, 910. Carving out
exceptions “to allow the other, non-legal parents, to
make decisions on a daily basis would have to be
made, on a case-by-case basis, if the non-legal parent
brought the proper legal paperwork, and the person
receiving the paperwork was amenable to it.” Id.
Same-sex parents cannot even put both parents’
names on their children’s birth certificates — “the
basic currency by which parents can freely exercise
these protected parental rights and responsibilities.”
Henry v. Himes, 14 F. Supp.3d at 1050 (emphasis
omitted). This inability “saddles the child with the
life-long disability of a government identity
document that does not reflect the child’s parentage
and burdens the ability of the child’s parents to
exercise their parental rights and responsibilities.”
Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis omitted.)
30
3. Ohio’s Denial of Fundamental
Parental Rights Negatively Affects
Same-Sex Parents’ Employment
Opportunities.
Finally, same-sex parents are limited in their
career opportunities. They are forced to find jobs
that voluntarily offer benefits to same-sex domestic
partners. See, Decl. Jane Doe 5 and 6.
Even where employers provide health coverage
for same-sex partners, Jane Doe 4 found that when
her wife lost her job, Jane Doe 4 was unable to add
her wife onto her insurance until the next open
enrollment period — purely because Ohio did not
recognize their marriage. The financial burden was
significant, and had the roles been reversed, Jane
Doe 4’s children would have been without insurance.
For Jane Doe 7 and Jane Doe 8, building a future
together “entailed immigrating to the UK, which
although financially pricey, was a relatively simple
and straight forward process.” Decl. Jane Doe 7 & 8,
93. Like Jane Doe 7 and Jane Doe 9, many same-sex
parents find parenting in Ohio to be so oppressive
that these talented individuals, and dedicated
parents, leave the state entirely. Decl. Attorney 1,
13.
Ohio’s marriage and recognition bans render the
most basic right of parents “incredibly daunting and
would be crushingly expensive.” Decl. Jane Doe 4,
410. And ultimately, “there is no amount of money or
paperwork that will ever give [the child] the same
security as her peers.” Decl. Jane Doe 5 & 6, 48; see
also, Decl. John Doe 1, 47. It is heartbreaking to see
31
“the anxiety and frustration in many parents’ faces
when I tell them that the non-biological parent (or
non-adoptive parent) has no legal standing or rights
with regard to their children.”
B. Ohio’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Turns
Same-Sex Parents into Second-Class
Citizens.
Same-sex parents are similarly situated to
opposite-sex parents regarding their children, yet
they are treated differently by the laws and
Constitution of Ohio. They are precluded from
enjoying the Constitutional and statutory benefits
afforded to opposite-sex couples. This Court found
that such discrimination leads to a_ second-class
status. Same-sex parents deserve protection from
such discriminatory laws.
The list of benefits extended to opposite-sex
couples and their children — and excluded to all
same-sex parents — is long. Those benefits are
scattered throughout federal and state law. See
Windsor, 133, S. Ct. 2695 (2013) (describing a litany
of financial benefits afforded under federal law and
regulations only to opposite-sex couples.) This Court
should end this disgraceful — and unconstitutional —
discrimination today.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of the children whose welfare
Cuyahoga County is charged with protecting, the
County urges this Court to stop the unconstitutional
discrimination against them and their same-sex
parents.
32
The Sixth Circuit’s majority’s “wait and see”
approach cannot stand. Seventeen years ago, an Ohio
Court of Appeals, in Jn re Adoption of Doe, 130 Ohio
App. 3d 288, took the same approach refusing to
allow a same-sex parent to adopt their child until a
legislative change arrives. The law in Ohio has not
changed since. Those children are now adults.
Today’s children and their same-sex parents
should not be required to sustain another seventeen
years of humiliation, discrimination, and second-
class stigma in anticipation of an unpredictable
legislative change of heart. The children and their
parents whose stories are told in this Brief are
seeking justice from this Court. They are looking to
this Court to properly apply the Fourteenth
Amendment of their Constitution, which guarantees
“the equal protection of the laws” to “any person
within its jurisdiction,” regardless of that person’s
age, gender, or sexual orientation.
A “court owes no deference to a legislature’s
judgment” of a “quintessentially legal question.” Kelo
v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 517
(2005)(O’Connor, J, dissenting). The Equal
Protection and Due Process clauses are, by
definition, limits on the powers of government and
must be applied in this matter. There is no
justification for deferring to legislatures on the
interpretation of the constitutional limits on their
powers. The Court should not subcontract the
exercise of its constitutional judicial review powers to
the whim of state legislatures.
Another generation of American children
should not be forced to wait a single day to enjoy the
full
rights and privileges guaranteed by
33
Constitution. They have waited long enough.
For these and the other reasons stated above,
the Sixth Cuircuit’s decisions in the cases below
should be REVERSED.
Respectfully submitted,
MAJEED G. MAKHLOUF —
DIRECTOR OF LAW
Counsel of Record
AWATEF ASSAD
RUCHI V. ASHER
ASSISTANT LAW DIRECTORS
DORON M. KALIR
VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY
CUYAHOGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF LAW
2079 East 9% St., 7% Fl.
Cleveland, OH 44115
(216) 698-6464
mmakhlouf@cuyahogacounty.us
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
The County of Cuyahoga, Ohio
their
APPENDIX
1A
APPENDIX
BE, EE TID B occececevescesecscwienccsiondiiameienaianein 2A
BE. GUID TD BS eccicinceceescnccnteticcesenmeiatanaanai |
es GD BI Bonicievetvnscccrvessenrsedsstiniasniaaamannee 10A
BD, I TG. viicccctenssureviccmantiebial seseitianaa 12A
Decl. Jane Doe 5 & 6.......... esadeiiaumaeiaiesatianianae 19A
Decl. Jane Doe 7 & 8........................ seotunteitadiiimeiaiianas 24A
I, SED Te Dicccccecccccscesessetdsitstmsssoiemmnaneaaene 29A
Bs SEITE Wcvviscudscovnecussaceenyanhecsontnupnaniensasmnananiaen 34A
I, GEE Silcsienssscisecsissiinnctecetositonssitenseantnimemaiainaannee 37A
Decl. Child Welfare Professional 1......................... 40A
Decl. Child Welfare Professional 2...................0.0... 43A
Decl. Child Welfare Professional 3..................0...... 46A
BE, GRIND BF cccicccaceciscesesesnecentceccededisianeeae 48A
2A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI )
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556,
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL., )
)
)
)
Respondents.
DECLARATION OF
JOHN DOE 1
I, — an under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares
as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. On New Year's Day this year, my
partner and | just celebrated our 25th anniversary.
We met in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1990 and lived
there for 10 years before moving to Cleveland. I!
grew up in a western suburb of Cleveland and moved
back to be close to my parents and brothers who live
in the area. We also wanted to adopt children and
thought it would be easigr in Ohio than Tennessee—
that was before the constitutional ban on same-sex
marriage in Ohio.
4. We became licensed foster and adoptive
3A
parents in 2003, and shortly afterwards our son was
placed with us as a foster child. The county
determined that we were the family most able to
meet our son’s needs and entrusted him to our care.
We were both his foster fathers for a year. When he
was available for adoption after a year, only one of us
could be his legal adoptive parent because we were
not able to be married. We decided that I would
become the legal adoptive parent, chiefly because |
had better health benefits. On the day that the
adoption was finalized, the magistrate invited me
into her office but not my partner until after the
finalization was complete. What should have been a
celebration was a bittersweet moment for both of us.
5. In 2007, we were fortunate to adopt a
second child and our daughter joined our family.
Once again, we had to decide who would become the
legal adoptive parent. Once again, we choose me, not
just because of benefits, but because we wanted to
children to be legally related as siblings. If my
partner had been the legal adoptive parent of our
daughter, our children would not have been legally
related. Once again, we had the bittersweet
experience of my partner not being included in the
actual adoption finalization.
6. We are both parents in the eyes of our
children. They treat us equally as parents. We wish
that the law would treat us equally as well.
Fortunately, we work for supportive companies, who
gave us both family leave at the point that the
children were placed with us and sick days when our
children are ill, though my partner’s company is not
required to do so. My partner actually takes more
days off when one of the children is sick or there is
no school. We are grateful for this support, but we
4A
should have this protection by law rather than
depend on the good nature of an organization or
supervisor.
7. We have worked with an attorney at
considerable expense to protect ourselves through
our wills, powers of attorney, and a joint custody
agreement. We still feel vulnerable, however, and do
not have the same legal protections that marriage
would give us instantly. The children have asked
what would happen if something were to happen to
me. We have had to explain that we do not have the
same assurance as a married couple that the
surviving parent would be able to continue to parent
without a legal proceeding. Our children yearn for
the security that marriage would bring to our family.
They want our family to be like other families.
8. We want to be married in Ohio. We
could go to another state, but this has been our home
for 15 years and my family is here. In addition, if the
marriage is not recognized by the State of Ohio it is
not worth much to us. We celebrated our daughter's
eighth birthday yesterday. She told me that her
birthday wish was that her Daddy and Papa could
get married. I hope that her wish comes true this
year. And | hope that my parents—who have been
married for 63 years and who are now too elderly to
travel to another state to watch us wed—will be able
to witness it.
9. We accept all the responsibilities of
marriage—to love, honor, and care for one another
and our children—without any of the rights or
protections. Our children, families, friends,
neighbors, co-workers, and fellow church members
regard us as they would any married couple. We ask
that the State of Ohio would treat us the same way
by allowing us to be married.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my actual
knowledge and belief.
Executed on 24 day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
ama
6A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL,
ET AL., AND BRITTANI
HENRY, ET AL..,
Petitioners,
Vv.
RICHARD HODGES,
DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ET AL.,
Respondents.
CASE NO. 14-556
DECLARATION OF
JANE DOE 1
i a a oe oe oe oe ee _ ee
1, MER, wnder 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. Marriage equality is an issue that
affects people and society in a number of ways. Since
a young age I have believed in the idea of Marriage
Equality, even before it was a recognized movement,
TA
based on ethical principles that all people deserve
the same rights. However, as an adult I now have a
very real and concrete life that is affected by this
issue. These are some points from my life that can
give a picture of how this issues affects a real family:
4. My wife and I have been together for
over 2 decades. In 1995 we had a Holy Union
Ceremony. This had all the makings of a real
marriage complete with a Church service, and
reception where we were surrounded by our family
friends while we promised our lives to each other and
celebrated. As much as this was very real to us, and
we have lived a “married life” ever since, we were
always aware that we were not recognized in the
same way that couples who have a legally recognized
union are.
5. In the years following our Union, we
adopted 5 children through the foster care system.
While we were fortunate enough to find an adoption
agency that was welcoming, there were constant
reminders of how our situation was different from
other families. In one particularly painful situation
a social worker actually pushed for (and succeeded)
in a reunification effort of a baby with his biological
family because she felt that the child going to live
with a drug addicted mother who had said she did
not want him was better than him being adopted by
us.
6. Even when we (or rather I) was able to
adopt, there were always questions of “who is the
mother”, which was awkward for us and upsetting to
our children. At times im | would have to call me at
work and pull me out of meetings to give permission
for her to talk to a teacher about an issue at school or
SA
give permission for the doctor to treat our child
because she was the one at the appointment. We
have been fortunate that these incidents were not too
numerous and we were able to explain things to
others without any long delays to what our children
needed. But the occurrence of them is always in our
mind and makes us pause at times about where and
how to tell professionals about our family.
J We have spent thousands of dollars in
legal fees to try and give ie my permission to care
for our children. We keep documents at home and
have provided them to the schools and pediatrician.
We have also carefully written our Wills so that in
the event something were to happen to me, our
children should remain with Kate as their legal
guardian. However the reality is that my parents
(who are only mildly tolerant of our life) could fight
in court to obtain custody and possibly win, even
though Kate has been their parent their entire lives.
8. Our children _ a
a Vc are generally
comfortable talking about their family, but still face
questions and confusion when having to explain if
their parents are married, or how they have 2 moms.
I realize marriage equality across the nation will not
instantly change everyone's beliefs about this topic.
But it would send a strong message that it is an
accepted form of family, and put into the common
language a way to talk about it. This concreteness is
especially important to children, and even more so
adopted children, who are trying to figure out their
place in this world. To have their family recognized
as legitimate and real in the eyes of the government
can give a sense of security and legitimacy to their
lives. They are not able to fully understand the legal
9A
ramifications, but they are able to hear the fear in
our voices when they ask what would happen to
them if one of us were to die and we cannot promise
that the plans we have set up would be honored.
9. In 2010, we were legally married in
Canada. We were hoping for a little more security
with our family, but in reality we saw very little
direct effect in our home state. Eventually with
changes at the Federal level we have seen some
benefits. One issue in particular is related to health
insurance. For a variety of reasons, we have
structured our family so that we is the stay-at-
home mom. However, without an employer was
unable to find affordable reliable health insurance
coverage. Eventually my employer offered domestic
partner benefits, which allowed —S to be covered
under my insurance plan but I had to pay a different
amount and additional taxes. When the Federal
rules changed we were finally treated the same as
other couples and no longer charged additional tax
for our family to be covered. If we had not left our
home state to obtain a legal marriage elsewhere, this
would not be possible.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24 day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
ARR ITRS
10A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI +d)
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL.., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) JANE DOE 2
)
)
)
)
I, RR under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
l. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. At the age of 8, my mom passed away
and I was placed in foster care, living from home to
home until the age of 18. I’ve always wanted
someone to love me for me and grew up looking for a
mother figure. At the age of 14 I started to feel
differently. Most girls my age were boy crazy, but
11A
not me. | was girl crazy! Then at 18, low and behold
I met her, my first love. Although we had known
each other since we were 8 years old, we hadn't felt
this way towards each other before. After we had
been together for about 8 years we decided to get
married. We found a minister and who performed
the ceremony and gave us a certificate of marriage.
However there were still issues that kept me and my
spouse from having a normal married life. She found
a very good job with fantastic benefits, but, our
marriage was not considered legal and she wasn’t
allowed to carry me on her insurance. It really came
at the most inconvenient time because | started
experiencing serious health issues. Had our
marriage been recognized, we wouldn’t have gone
through the hardships that eventually took its toll on
our relationship. By legalizing same sex marriage,
these young people who are in the system, but are of
legal age to marry, will be able to be together,
married, without suffering the hardships
surrounding the ban of same sex marriage. I hope
my story will help another gay couple through this
journey. Thank you.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 26t* day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
ane
12A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI )
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NOS. 14-556
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) JANE DOE 4
)
)
|, SRS, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares
as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. [ am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. My wife and I have been married for 2
years (in New York state) and together for 5. I had
two children from a previous relationship, both of
which she is helping to co-parent. Being that their
dad still has visitation rights to the kids, second
parent adoption isn’t an option within the confines of
13A
our current family structure, but certainly has
impacted our decision whether or not to expand our
family further and the rights and privileges
associated with legal marriage have impacted our
family in the present.
4. The legal code as it exists helps dictate
how we understand the world around us and societal
expectations in terms of navigating interpersonal
interactions and negotiating business. deals.
Marriage is, in practical effect, a hybrid of all of
these things. I do not think marriage equality will
remove bigotry or small mindedness, but it will
provide people with an infrastructure of predictable
legal action that is universally acknowledged,
understandable, and defensible. Right now, legally
speaking, our family doesn’t exist in Ohio, and
countless other places, and that reality has a direct
correlation with how other people view us.
5. Recently, our 11 year old daughter was
mercilessly mocked at school by a boy who kept
taunting her that “[she doesn’t] have a family” and
“how does it feel to not have a family.” These taunts,
which don’t begin or end there, stem from him
realizing that she lives in a household with, and is
being parented by, a same sex couple. Sixth grade is
tumultuous enough without having the added
complication of people scrutinizing and ultimately
deciding that the people you live with don't
constitute a family. Unfortunately, in Ohio, in strict
legal terms they are right.
6. We also face the conundrum of trying to
teach our kids to respect authority and follow the
rules, yet simultaneously telling them that this
14A
particular rule (and in Ohio's case, Constitutional
amendment) is ignorant and rooted in fear. When
the four of us, accompanied by our families and
closest friends, went to New York for our wedding
ceremony, our youngest, who was 6 at the time, was
worried that we would be arrested upon re-entering
Ohio. In his mind, since same sex marriage is not
legal in Ohio, our marriage effectively made us
criminals. The lack of equality in our state does not
appear to children as a mere nuance in civil status,
to them, we are social and, after having been married
in another state, legal pariahs. They fear for our
family. They fear the police. They fear that we are
“bad.” These fears culminate in a confusing reality
in which their knowledge and confidence in us as
people and in our family unit is challenged by society
as a whole. This is a daunting reality to deal with as
an adult and doubly so for a child.
ms Recently, my wife lost her job. Despite
me being employed at a place with open and
inclusive policies, including same sex partner health
care coverage, her mid-year lack of employment did
not constitute a “change of circumstance” that would
qualify her for coverage. As a result, the upper
administration at my employer looked into other
heath care plans and their policies regarding same
sex couples. They found that across the board, in
states where same sex marriage is not legal, the only
time a same sex partner/spouse can join or rejoin the
plan is during open enrollment. The option of adding
a heterosexual spouse to your healthcare plan after a
“change of circumstances”, which losing a job is
universally acknowledged as, is commonplace. Yet,
consistently in states that do not recognize same sex
marriages, this option is not available for same sex
15A
couples. This unanticipated lack of health care
coverage put our family in a financial conundrum
and made a bad situation exponentially worse.
8. My wife, by training, is a teacher. Ina
state in which there is a complete lack of protection
for homosexuals, she could essentially be fired from
her school district simply for being gay. Some
districts have, of their own volition, decided to add
sexual orientation to their list of protected statuses
within the district, but many have not. If employed
in a district that has not added sexual orientation as
a protected status, she has to make the decision
whether her co-workers and administration should
be privy to the existence of our family. She has to
choose between acknowledging her family and
maintaining, a tenuous at best, sense of job security.
In a competitive job market, that also means she
needs to decide between applying everywhere that
has available positions that fit her area of
certification or if she should only apply to the limited
number of schools that have explicitly stated that
sexual orientation is a protected status. Both are
limiting and risky choices for a variety of reasons.
Having been’ together while some of _ the
aforementioned scenarios played out, I will attest
that these choices are disheartening and degrading
for every member of our family. How do you teach
children to love themselves and be proud of their
family when the adults who are leading them don't
feel legally safe to acknowledge their existence or the
true composition of their family in their professional
realm? The level of stress that these choices create
permeate the reality of all family members. Nobody
wants to feel invisible, particularly not a child.
16A
9. We have spent thousands of dollars
having legal paperwork drawn up that spells out the
legal expectations we have for ourselves, our
property, and our mutual right to make decisions
regarding each other in the event that one of us is
incapacitated. All of these things are inherently
assumed if your marriage is legally recognized. It is
taxing to explicitly name, on legal documents, your
parents and siblings to purposefully exclude them
from decision making, to ensure that your spouse
might be given that chance. In reality, despite these
lengths being taken, we are both well aware that
many hospitals and courts will continue to ignore our
carefully planned requests and, in a time sensitive
situation, that is a potentially life changing scenario.
10. In discussions about whether we would
expand our family or not, we have had to consider so
many elements of a legal nature that the process has
becoming indescribably daunting and, in reality,
would be crushingly expensive. In Ohio, only one of
us could be the child’s parent. That means that only
one of us would be allowed to make legal, academic,
and health decisions for that child and exceptions to
allow the other, non-legal parent, to make decisions
on a daily basis would be made, on a case by case
basis, if the non-legal parent brought the proper
legal paperwork and the person receiving said
paperwork was amenable to it. Such a process is
arduous and invasive. I shouldn't have to articulate
the construct of my family at every denta! check-up
or if my child needs to go to an urgent care for an ear
infection. Nor should I have to worry that every time
I am in a decision making situation with my children
that they may or may not experience somebody not
only scrutinizing our family, but possibly rejecting
17A
one of us as their parents through their denial of our
ability to access treatment or make decisions for that
child.
11. If we chose to expand our family, being
that only one of us could be that child’s legal parent,
that means we would be limited to insuring that
child on one of our insurance policies. What happens
if there is a job loss or major change of
circumstances? We would never have the option of
putting that child on the other parent’s insurance.
In that scenario, potentially a parent and child are
both uninsured making them, and our family as a
whole, more vulnerable and exponentially more
financially unstable.
12. If we expanded our family, one of us
would not have access to FMLA if there was a
medical issue with any additional children. If we
expanded our family, those children would not be
eligible to receive one of our social security benefits if
a tragedy befell our family.
13. I can't tell you how many evenings I go
to bed and wonder if living my truth is at too high of
an expense for my kids. They are good, strong,
brave, kind, and proud, but the daily scrutiny and
treatment that we and they receive, and the blind
eye that so many people turn to it, is taking a toll.
The cumulative effect of that toll is yet to be
determined, but certainly does impact them in
profound ways. I don't know if I, in good conscious,
could ever expand our family and do that to more
children.
14. Marriage equality is but one step in
18A
eradicating these issues, but is a huge leap in letting
families like ours know that we matter and we will
be protected regardless of what popular (or
unpopular) opinion is. We, and our kids, should
know that we are of equal value and nobody, and no
state, should have the right to say otherwise.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 23 day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
// =
19A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI )
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
v. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL., )
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents. DECLARATION OF
JANE DOE 5 AND
JANE DOE 6
I, — under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares
as follows:
x I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. - 3 and I met 6 years ago while
studying for the bar exam in Philadelphia. It turned
out that we'd both been working for the same law
firm but hadn't yet met, so a colleague introduced us.
We became quick friends, but didn't start dating
until a year later.
20A
4. After dating for a little over a year, |
accepted a new job and made the difficult decision to
move back home to Cleveland, Ohio to be closer to my
family. EMM) and I continued dating long distance
with many long drives between Cleveland and
Philadelphia. = proposed to me on one of those
trips back to Philly a year later and we had a
commitment ceremony with our friends and family in
the oldest botanical garden in America in September
of 2012. When Pennsylvania lifted their gay
marriage ban in 2014, and I were finally able
to apply for a marriage license and were legally wed
by the PA Supreme Court justice that me clerked
for during law school.
5. It was bittersweet knowing that we had
to go out of state in order to have our relationship
recognized. So why didn't we just wait for Ohio to
catch up with the other 37 states that currently
permit gay marriage? Because - a and I had
decided to start our family and Emily was three
morths pregnant. It was our hope that marriage
would afford us additional legal protections to our
relationship and our future children. Unfortunately,
we learned that an out of state marriage license has
very little value in Ohio and offers almost no
protection to our family.
6. As the non-biological mother of our soon
to be born daughter, Ohio law treats me as a legal
stranger. A stranger that has no rights to make
healthcare decisions, no access to medical records,
and whose name will not appear on the birth
certificate despite the fact that we are legally
married at the time of her birth. To further
complicate matters, Ohio law only recognizes one
21A
mother, so the only way I could have parental rights
would require to completely give up her rights.
And Ohio does not permit second parent adoptions
like many other states do, so I cannot apply to be
recognized as our daughter's other parent. Nor can I
apply to adopt our daughter as a step-parent. Our
attorney, ee has advised us that the sad
truth is that there is very little we can do to protect
our family unless Ohio adopts new laws. She will
guide us through the process of applying for legal
guardianship and filing a shared parenting plan, but
even these will provide very little security.
7. Getting legal recognition is important
because it will impact our child's well-being. These
are issues that currently keep us up at night
worrying what could happen to our family. In the
event that something happens to ee during child
birth and our child is left without her biological
mother, the law favors her next of kin, her biological
grandparents rather than her non-biological mother.
Her grandparents who live in Philadelphia, who have
struggled to accept their daughter's sexuality and
her decision to move to Cleveland, would be given
preference over me, the non-biological mother. The
daughter that we have prepared so long for, could be
ripped away from me without any consideration. In
the event of a divorce, has no ability to request
that I pay child support or provide any assistance in
raising the daughter that we brought into this world
together. would become a single parent with
no right to support and I could walk away obligation-
free. The current laws would not give me the ability
to seek custody, visitation or co-parenting mghts for
our child. My parents, her _ non-biological
grandparents, would not likely receive visitation or
22A
continuation of their relationship with our child.
Finally, in the event of my death, our daughter is not
considered my heir, meaning she will not legally
inherit from my estate (and will not be treated as a
grandchild to inherit from my parents) and cannot
receive my social security or other death benefits.
These are only a few our concerns, there are so many
other scenarios where Ohio would provide limited, if
any, protections under the law.
8. Ohio's laws leave all three of us
vulnerable in different ways. We have done as much
as we can to minimize the risks we face. There are
questions and steps we have had to take that our
heterosexual counterparts don't have to think or
worry about. Our attorney has drafted documents
and a plan to help protect our family, but there is no
amount of money or paperwork that will ever give
our child the same security as her peers. Every day
brings more considerations and questions we have to
tackle to ensure the best possible care for our child.
We've had to worry about whether I can, as the non-
biological mother and legal stranger, add our child to
my current health insurance plan. I've had to ask
our provider and the Cleveland Clinic if I will be
afforded the same rights and access during the
delivery of our child. I've had to navigate
maternity/paternity policies to see if 1 am permitted
a leave to care for a child that Ohio law says is not
mine. We are grateful to work for employers who
recognize our family for exactly what it is and grant
us the same rights and benefits as our heterosexual
colleagues. However, we know that there are
countless others in our community working for
companies who are not as inclusive and who have no
recourse or protections under the law. We are
23A
fortunate to have access and the ability to seek
experienced legal representation to protect our
family when we know that many others cannot afford
to take the steps needed to do the same.
9. We don't want to raise our daughter in a
state that treats our family like second-class citizens.
We respectfully request that Ohio provide the same
level of recognition, respect, and sanctity to our
marriage and our family as every other marriage and
family within our state. We would like Ohio to legally
recognize both of our daughter's parents, with a birth
certificate that reflects the truth of her birth, so that
she can be legally cared for by both of us, as her
parents. Our daughter will invariably learn about
the inequality in our world one day, I just hope that
lesson doesn't come sooner than it has to.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on 24th day of February, 2015 in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.
_——
24A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ETAL., AND BRITTANI _i—+SdYWw
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
?. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) JANE DOE 7 AND
) JANE DOE 8
)
)
)
|, HMMA, 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. Family is the central pillar holding up
the foundations of our modern society. The fact that
25A
we are in a same-sex marriage does not change the
wholesome family values that we want to teach our
child. Our story starts 8 years ago with a Brit
_— 2 and an American Hi falling in love.
After a few years we wanted to build a future
together. This entailed immigrating to the UK,
which although financially pricey, was a relatively
simple and straight forward process. The laws
protect LGBT people, partners and families here in
the United Kingdom (UK). In 2013, we decided to
grow our little family and in July 2014 we welcomed
a son into the world. Again, the laws protected us
and it was straight forward. As we were married, my
partner was listed as “parent 2” on his birth
certificate. No questions asked. We work and live
the same as conventional couples and their families,
and enjoy the same benefits. The laws are on our
side. We simply don’t have to worry for a second
about our relationship being questioned. Both of us
are parents and can make decisions for him, etc.
4. Being a first time parent is a wonderful
blessing and frightening experience. To love
something so completely and wanting to raise them
to be a confident, loving and hardworking individual
can become a minefield. Is this the right type of
formula? Is this the right kind of toy to spur his
development? Is this the right song to sing?
Although when these things boil down, do they make
a difference? The jury is still out, but what does
make a difference is family and feeling secure and
safe. Time and time again we hear stories of same-
sex individuals raising a family and doing this
together, despite the obstacles Ohio laws make for
us. But imagine raising your own child and not
having these fundamental rights like being able to
26A
make a medical decision at a life threatening
moment. This would be every parent's worst
nightmare and it is a true picture for same-sex
parents in Ohio.
5. In a few years’ time, our family will be
looking to head back to Ohio. Unfortunately, we are
concerned about the current state laws and how they
may negatively impact on the stability and security
of our wonderful family. In 2013, when the Supreme
Court struck down DOMA, we knew that our dream
of returning to the home was becoming a reality as
our family was now recognized federally. This
change became most significant when our son was
born. Despite being born in the UK to a same-sex
couple, he was immediately granted American
citizenship. Additionally both of us were registered
as parents on his US birth certificate. This was an
absolute validation that our family was welcomed by
the US federal government, what a relief!
6. However Ohio is still discriminating
against families like ours. Families that would like
to return to Ohio, to their extended family, to work
hard and provide a loving and stable environment for
our son, so that he can grow up and contribute to a
positive work force and become a positive member of
society. Ohio hasn’t validated our families. Same-
sex parents in Ohio who want to raise their children
as confident and happy children are always faced
with a threat that they are not the same, deserve less
than conventional couples and cannot make decisions
for the children they raise and love unconditionally.
7. Although recognized federally as both
parents to our son, we are still unsure if Ohio will
recognize my partner as “parent 2”. If we decide to
27A
have more children in Ohio, it has been made clear
that my partner will not be recognized as a parent.
However, the decision made for having children will
be decided by both of us, just as it is with all couples.
My partner had just as much of a struggle dealing
with a hungry, swollen, hormonal pregnant wife,
with late night runs to the local convenient store for
a specific bar of chocolate which of course they did
not have. She was there at every medical
appointment, to hear and see our son growing. She
was there holding my hand during the emergency
caesarean to bring him safely into this world. She
has done night feeds, rocked him to sleep, reads him
books, changed a million and one diapers (and
counting) and most importantly shows him
uncenditional love as only a parent can do. To not be
recognized as a full parent is an indignity. And Ohio
is doing this daily.
8. Please remember when making a
decision, we are not asking for “special rights” or
different rights. We want to simply live with our
families close by and not have to worry about
security and stability for our family. We want to be
able to equally make decisions for our son and be
recognized as both his parents. We don’t think this is
too much to ask.
9. I sincerely hope that when the day
comes when we will return to Ohio, the heart of it all,
we all will be protected, accepted and allowed to live
the same life and have the same rights as every other
conventional family enjoy.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
28A
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24t% day of February, 2015 in,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
29A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI _)
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) JANE DOE 9
)
)
)
)
I, . Se under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. My partner, THM and I have been
together since 1995. I brought four children into our
relationship from a previous marriage. TH has
30A
loved, parented and sacrificed for them from the
beginning. The children, two sons and two
daughters also loved her and depended on her for
care, advice, and _ support. Our family was
predominantly happy and functional. We held our
children to higher standards. Being the children of a
lesbian covple in a mostly white, straight, middle
class suburb was challenging to our kids. They often
had to prove themselves, prove they were smart,
talented, and socially skilled, in order to be as good
as the students from “normal” families. They
succeeded; good grades, well liked, athletic, leaders.
Even so, they were often not welcomed into the
homes of some of their friends. We as their mothers
were almost always not welcome. If we had been
legitimized with a marriage license, it might have
been different for some.
4. In 1999, my father, who our children
loved, was dying of lung cancer. As a family we
visited him frequently in the Veteran’s Hospital in
Huntington W. Va. Ta also loved him and was
loved by him. It was very difficult for us to drive
from Cleveland, Ohio to Huntington almost every
weekend, but we did. We would often meet
resistance at the hospital because only family was
allowed into see my father. TH was not family
given that we could not be married. Our sons,
especially, were losing a father figure/role model in
my father. He was a retired career Marine who lived
by the Marine’s honor standard. They were his only
grandchildren and they were very special to him. |
got the call in the early morning of April 6, 1999 that
Dad had passed. We set about letting all of the
children know then sitting together with them as
they, and we, tried to deal with it. His funeral was
31A
held on Wednesday of the following week. Our oldest
son gave the eulogy. The kids huddled together as
taps were played. The funeral was devastating.
5. As we drove home, I received a call from
a former neighbor who informed me that my ex-
husband, the children’s father, had been hospitalized
and was in critical condition. The children had a
difficult relationship with their father. He was a
good man, but an alcoholic with the typical strained
parenting that goes along with that. Regardless of
the history, it was frightening to know their father
was in critical condition as they drove home from
their beloved grandfather's funeral. Their father
died one week from the day that their grandfather
died. It was a compounded grief. We watched our
strong, good children stand next to their father’s
grave confused and doubly sad. All of our children
had various emotional reactions to the loss of these
two men only a week apart.
6. THM and I felt their grief and worked
together to try to ameliorate its effect. Along with
the usual elements of loss and grief, we recognized
that there was generalized fear, especially with our
youngest child who was [J years old at the time. He
alternated between acting out and clinging to both of
us but particularly my partner, his “other” mom, who
had represented a father figure for him. She never
missed a basketball, baseball or football game. She
was there when he was angry or sad or both. He took
comfort in her for many reasons. She was steady,
consistent, fair and firm.
me | and I realized that we needed to
make sure that be knew that he was safe and
secure and that he would be taken care of if anything
32A
were to happen to me. His grandparents on both
sides were not stable. His father’s parents were
dealing both with colon cancer and his grandfather's
alcoholism. Added to that, they had rejected all of
the children when I divorced their son and I came
out. My father was now deceased and my mother
also struggled with addiction. [J asked often if he
could be sure that he could stay with one of his
mom’s should something befall the other. I, of
course, would have custody. TJ however would
have no legal right or legal standing should
something happen to me. We consulted an attorney
to try to find a solution. The only advise we were
given was that I could make mention in my will that
I wanted TA to be his guardian should something
happen to me. Had we been a heterosexual couple
who was married, there was more that could be done.
8. me struggled with the _ insecurity
throughout his high school years. That was reflected
by continued acting out and the tendency to sabotage
when he got close to success. There was more than
one reason for this, but his persistent worry about
the loss of another parent was significant. As he
approached graduation, he was offered a scholarship
at a D II college to play football. Although this was
something that he dreamt about since he was very
young, he turned it down. After many long tearful
conversations as to why, we discovered that he was
afraid to leave us because he worried that something
would happen to one of us. Certainly it was an
unreasonable belief to think that if he was here he
could prevent disaster, but he couldn’t shake it.
wound up going to the local junior college and living
at home. It took until he was engaged to his wife for
him to move into a place of his own.
33A
9. There have been many _— times
throughout the life or our family when being able to
say that we were married would have made our lives
better and made us more legitimate in the eyes of
those who only understand the concept of marriage.
We have created many of our own rituals over the
years we have been a family to emulate what
straight couples take for granted. Although our story
is significant, | know there are many more couples
whose children have struggled because of the
inability to be married in Ohio. It is my fondest hope
that my home state gets to a place that allows the
lives of all of us to be honored and legitimized.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed: on this 24% day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
sme
34A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI )
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
v. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) CHILD 1
)
)
I, — ae under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
5 I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. My mother left my father when I was
five years old. He was an alcoholic. He was
financially and emotionally unavailable and
35A
sporadically in the lives of my siblings and I until his
death at age 49.
4. When my mother met her — Tae
she embraced me, ME and as her
own. The void that had been left by my unavailable,
sick, father was finally filled and Ti quickly
became a parent to us. She cared for us when we
were sick, helped us with bills, attended our sporting
events, and offered us unconditional love. She
walked us down the aisle and has been present for
the birth of 5 grandchildren.
5. She is our second mom. But because my
parents cannot get married, she has never been
given the rights, privileges, and respect of a legal
parent. She couldn't take us out of school when we
were sick. She couldn’t sign permission slips, or get
recognized at banquets and at senior night. When
we went off to college and my mom was struggling
financially, she couldn’t put us on her health plan.
And most tragically, if something had ever happened
to my mother, she could not have legally adopted us.
We would have been forced to live with a relative
that was merely an acquaintance to us instead of the
only other parent we had known.
6. The sadness and shear tragedy of the
marriage ban in Ohio was never more apparent than
on a sunny June day in 2012 when had a brain
aneurysm. As the family sat vigil in the hospital,
hanging on the doctor’s every word, my mother, her
partner for 17 years, was merely a “friend” in the
eyes of the hospital and the state. They did not use
the words spouse or wife because they could not.
Gratefully, the hospital staff was respectful to my
mother and did their best to accommodate her. But
36A
the reality was that had ez not survived, my
mother would not have had the same rights as a
legal wife. At a time when my mom was
experiencing so much pain and fear, this too had to
weigh heavy on her heart and mind.
7. I was born in Ohio. It is my home. It is
a shame that it remains a place where two people
like my parents cannot get married and share the
same rights as a heterosexual couple. Being legally
married is more than just a title or a piece of paper.
It impacts the children of homosexual couples in so
many ways. But most importantly we do not get to
legally recognize those individuals who have raised
us and loved us simply because the government has
told us we cannot.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 25% day of February, 2015 in
Mecklenburg, North Carolina
ls
37A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL,
ET AL., AND BRITTANI
HENRY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
V.
RICHARD HODGES,
DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ET AL..,
Respondents.
CASE NO. 14-556,
DECLARATION OF
CHILD 2
I, a under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. While the marriage ban in Ohio has
negatively impacted my family in so many ways from
a legal standpoint, the archaic and antiquated stance
38A
on same sex marriage in Ohio has been detrimental
to myself and my siblings from a social and
psychological standpoint as well.
4. I am the youngest of four, and my
mother left my alcoholic father when I was just an
infant. My father was an unreliable, absent man
who was unable to care for his children while
battling his demons. For most of my childhood, I was
the son of a single mother.
5. When my mother found her partner,
TWH. I finally received the love from a second parent
that I did not know existed. I bonded with her as I
had never done with anyone else before, treated
me as her own son from the very beginning. Ti
taught me what is was to be respectful, to have a
work ethic, and to take pride in everything I do. All
of the core values that I pride myself on today and
work to instill in my daughter were taught to me by
her.
6. The Ohio marriage ban helps to
perpetuate the stigmatism that accompanies same
sex couples. While people are free to think for
themselves, many ideals and norms for Americans
are based on the public perception and governmental
regulations that they live with.
7. As an adolescent, I lived in a middle
class suburb. I spent the majority of my teenage
years afraid to tell people about someone SO
important to me. I was a 3 sport athlete, captain of
the varsity football team, and all-county football
player, but I could not share any of this with 3 in
public because my community was not accepting of
same sex couples. I was afraid to have friends over
to my house because I did not want them to know
39A
and tell everyone else; not only for my reputation,
but to protect my family from the bigotry and
prejudice that they would be sure to face at
community events and schoo] activities.
8. By Ohio refusing to recognize same sex
marriages, my family has been cheated out of special
moments that most all other families get to proudly
share. Of course the legal aspects were extremel
detrimental to my family (not legally being
child, health insurance rights for our family), but the
social and psychological damage that is being
perpetuated by the state was just as difficult.
9. I love Ohio. It is a part of whol am. I
plan to stay here and raise my family in Ohio. But it
is time Ohio steps up and recognizes that its stance
on marriage is dated and flawed. Ti is my parent,
and is the grandmother of my child. It is time that
the state government recognizes her the same way.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24 day of February, 2015 in
Medina/Ohio.
/s/ =
40A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI _i—sOWpD
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556,
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL.., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) CHILD WELFARE
) PROFESSIONAL 1
)
)
)
I, ae under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
l. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. As a Licensed Professional Counselor
and Adoption Assessor, working in the field of Foster
Care and Adoption for 20 years, I have felt the
41A
impact of the Ohio Ban on same sex marriages.
4. Years ago I worked with two women in
a long term committed relationship who became a
family of 5 through adoption. One partner adopted 2
children, and the other adopted the third child. Since
neither of the companies they worked for offered
health insurance or medical care for domestic
partners, both women had to return to work after the
adoptions, necessitating the use of child care for very
young children. Their children were not able to
benefit from the consistent care and bonding that
could have occurred if one of the partners had been
able to remain home with the children during those
very important first years. They, as responsible
parents, would not allow any of the children to go
without medical coverage, and therefore both
mothers worked. If they had been able to get
married, and the children were each legally tied to
both mothers, one could have provided full time care
and nurturing.
5. I have also worked closely with many
same-sex adoptive families who legally are not given
the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.
For example, when completing a home study, I must
approve only one partner as the adoptive parent. I
recently completed a home study for a Second Parent
Adoption with one gay couple. The couple had to
resort to filing a petition to adopt in an out-of-state
probate court using the Ohio home study. The
parents successfully obtained a final decree of
adoption as proof of the second parent’s relationship
with the children. Ohio would not issue new birth
certificates for the children documenting the court’s
decision. It is assumed, but not guaranteed, that this
adoption will be recognized under the Full Faith and
42A
Credit Clause of the Constitution.. This process
imposed a financial burden on the family in an effort
to secure legal rights, money which could have been
spent on the care of the children.
6. J am personally aware of approximately
10 same sex couples who have adopted infants after
being chosen by birth parents who voluntarily
surrendered their parental rights. I am also
personally aware of many others waiting to adopt.
My experience shows me that same sex couples are
chosen by birth parents with approximately the same
frequency as heterosexual couples or single adopters.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24 day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga, Ohio.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
JAMES OBERGEFELL,
ET AL., AND BRITTANI
HENRY, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
Vv.
RICHARD HODGES,
DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, ET AL.,
Respondents.
43A
STATES
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 14-556
)
)
)
)
)
)
) DECLARATION OF
) CHILD WELFARE
) PROFESSIONAL 2
)
)
)
)
|, Jnr 28 USC. § 1746,
declares as follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. I am an 18 year employee of the
Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family
44A
Services. I have worked as a direct services
caseworker in child protection. 1 facilitated team
decision making meetings when the removal of a
child was being considered or a child already in
CCDCFS custody was facing a possible placement
change or was in need of permanency. I also
facilitated case review meetings for children in care.
Parents, their partners, caregivers, friends, family,
service providers, GALs, caseworkers, and CCDCFS
staff are invited to these meetings. Many of these
individuals or couples identify as LGBTQ.
4. Children of same sex couples in Ohio
are impacted by the gay marriage ban every day,
whether they are in CCDCFS custody or home with
their parents. The same struggles that challenge
heterosexual relationships may leave same _ sex
relationships in perpetual discord. This is because
the challenges will not go away unless the ban is
lifted. I have seen the same sex marriage ban lead to
a great deal of confusion for the adults and especially
their children who cannot comprehend the power
differential and responsibility solely placed upon the
legal parent.
5. Same sex couples who wish to become
foster parents or adoptive parents often find they are
not as welcome at some of the private licensing
agencies. Once some do become licensed, they face
adversity with child care and right to consent. I am a
member of the CCDCFS LGBTQ committee and we
are busy and collaborating with our foster care and
residential treatment providers about their own
policies and visible welcoming statements for all. We
continue to enhance our work by welcoming new
members and consultants who add to our mission of
working with both children and adults to gain the
45A
support and resources to better understand and work
together as family and community in Cuyahoga
County.
6. I am currently involved in _ solution-
focused research and program-related activities
focused on child welfare practice improvement.
CCDCFS is the largest child welfare agency in the
state of Ohio with approximately 800 total staff, and
about 500 caseworkers. In 2013, 1,677 children per
month on average were in the custody of CCDCFS
and cared for outside of their homes. CCDCFS served
5,644 children in their own homes in 2013. Also in
2013, 375 children were waiting for an adoptive
family.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24% day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
eases
46A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI _)
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL.., )
Respondents. )
) DECLARATION OF
) CHILD WELFARE
) PROFESSIONAL 3
)
)
)
)
I, ee under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares as
follows:
4 I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. I am an Adoption Subsidy Supervisor at
Cuyahoga County DCFS.
47A
4. Cuyahoga County did receive a call a
couple of years ago regarding a same sex couple who
adopted in Cuyahoga County. The partner who
adopted had passed away and the partner who did
not adopt was unsure what to do about the adoption
assistance. It was explained to her that the adoption
assistance was unable to be kept open and the
adoption assistance payment had to stop effective the
date of death. Thank you.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24t* day of February, 2015 in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
ala
48A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
JAMES OBERGEFELL, )
ET AL., AND BRITTANI )
HENRY, ET AL., )
Petitioners, ) CASE NO. 14-556
Vv. )
RICHARD HODGES, )
DIRECTOR, OHIO )
DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH, ET AL.., )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Respondents.
DECLARATION OF
ATTORNEY 1
I, — a under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare as
follows:
1. I have personal knowledge of all facts
recited herein.
2. I am over eighteen years old and
competent to make the following representations and
give the following consent in this matter.
3. I am an attorney in Lakewood, Ohio,
specializing in estate planning and shared custody
49A
for non-traditional families. I have been practicing
law for over 17 years, and during that time, I have
seen and heard the devastating effect that Ohio's
Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has had on
LGBT families. I have seen the anxiety and
frustration in many parents’ faces when [ tell them
that the non-biological parent (or non-adoptive
parent) has no legal standing or rights with regard to
their children. I have witnessed the drama and
uncertainty when parents split, and they are not able
to go to Domestic Relations Court to resolve the
custody and property issues resulting from their
broken relationship. It is not uncommon for LGBT
families to leave Ohio for states which provide family
and relationship protection.
4. This government-sanctioned discrimination
must end. Children in non-traditional families need
the legal protections and certainty afforded to
children in “traditional” families in Ohio.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my actual knowledge
and belief.
Executed on this 24% day of February, 2015, in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
=
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.