Tennessee Couple Says Adoption Agency Turned Them Away for Being Jewish
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In a photo provided by the Rutan-Ram family shows, Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram in an undated photo. The Rutan-Rams are plaintiffs in a lawsuit claiming that state funding of a child-placing agency that discriminates based on religion is unconstitutional. (via the Rutan-Ram family via The New York Times)
=============================================================================
Last year, Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram, a Jewish couple living in Tennessee, planned to adopt a boy in Florida. But on the day they were set to begin a family training course required in their state, an initial step in the process, the agency that had been scheduled to provide the training backed out, saying the couple did not share its Christian beliefs, a lawsuit says.
The adoption ultimately fell through.
“It was the first time I felt discriminated against because I am Jewish,” Elizabeth Rutan-Ram, 30, said in a statement.
“It was very shocking,” she said. “And it was very hurtful that the agency seemed to think that a child would be better off in state custody than with a loving family like us.”
The lawsuit, filed in state court in Tennessee on Wednesday, comes nearly two years after Gov. Bill Lee signed a law that allows state-funded child-placement agencies to decline to assist in cases that “would violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”
Civil rights groups and Democratic lawmakers had opposed the measure, saying it could be used to discriminate against families of various faiths or identities. The American Civil Liberties Union urged Lee, a Republican, not to sign the legislation, which it said assured faith-based foster care and adoption agencies of state funding even if they excluded families based on religious beliefs.
The couple’s lawsuit — the first to challenge that law, according to a Knoxville News Sentinel report Wednesday — names the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services and its commissioner, Jennifer Nichols, as defendants. The complaint alleges that state funding of child placement agencies, such as Holston United Methodist Home for Children, that discriminate “against prospective or current foster parents based on the religious beliefs of the parents” violates the Tennessee Constitution.
“Ms. Rutan-Ram did not expect that a state-funded agency would reject a loving family simply because the family did not share the agency’s preferred religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said.
In addition to the couple, the lawsuit names as plaintiffs four religious leaders and two Tennessee residents who objected to their taxes being used to fund the alleged discrimination.
“The Tennessee Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, promises religious freedom and equality for everyone,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate legal director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is representing the plaintiffs. “Tennessee is reneging on that promise by allowing a taxpayer-funded agency to discriminate against Liz and Gabe Rutan-Ram because they are Jews.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Children’s Services declined to comment on the case, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation. The office of the Tennessee attorney general, Herbert Slatery, did not reply to an email. Holston United Methodist Home for Children, the agency that refused to work with the Rutan-Rams, referred questions to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization in Scottsdale, Arizona, which did not reply to an email.
Holston’s president, Bradley Williams, said in a statement that the agency was “committed to Christian biblical principles” and “places children with families that agree with our statement of faith.”
“We view the caregivers we partner with as extensions of our ministry team serving children,” he said. “So from the very beginning, we seek to find alignment with them, and if we cannot do so, we try to help them find an agency that may be a better fit.”
The couple first saw the boy, who was about 3 years old, last January, Elizabeth Rutan-Ram said in an interview Thursday, on the website for the Heart Gallery of Tampa, a nonprofit organization that profiles children in the foster care system and helps match them with adoptive families. Drawn to his smile, his age and his resilience in overcoming developmental challenges, the Rutan-Rams decided to start the adoption process.
Rutan-Ram said she had asked Holston “if us being a Jewish household would be a problem.” The agency said it would get back to them, she recalled. At first, Holston agreed to provide the mandated parent training and home-study certification, which would then be presented to Florida before the guardianship could take effect, the lawsuit said.
The couple would have then been eligible to foster the child in their home for six months before adopting him. But on Jan. 21, 2021, the day they were scheduled to begin the foster parent training class, Melissa Russell, a Holston employee, emailed Elizabeth Rutan-Ram.
The lawsuit quoted the email as saying, “As a Christian organization, our executive team made the decision several years ago to only provide adoption services to prospective adoptive families that share our belief system in order to avoid conflicts or delays with future service delivery.”
When their plans for the boy fell through, the couple could not find another agency willing to assist them with an out-of-state adoption, Elizabeth Rutan-Ram said.
The couple, who live in Knoxville, are now fostering a teenage girl.
“I have always wanted to adopt,” she said. “I felt like my life would not be complete.” This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
I feel sorry for all the foster children being stuffed into eXtra eXtra rightwing fundamentalists homes. In many states Christian organizations not only control most adoptions, but are all up into children's social services especially foster programs which are cash cows for deadbeat far rightwing christian fundamentalists...
This should be a cut-and-dry case. What the adoption agency did was against the state constitution. It also violates the separation of church and state.
Should be. But it will not surprise me if it isn't.
That state cannot force anyone to adopt a religious belief. This is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause when tax dollars are being used to further religious beliefs or mandate religious training. The consecutive Christians would be outraged if the state would force them to take classes in any of the various other Christian sects or regions northern than their own to adopt a child, but they are hypocrites who didn't have a problem using the state to trample the rights of others and the well being of a child when they are using their religious beliefs as a weapon toward others.
Agreed.
But sadly, many do try.
Absolutely! No call for that kind of crap... I'm not a believer in the state being in the adoption business either... But there is no way they should be denied simply cause of religious belief.... Here in WA we have the other direction unfortunately...
In ANY direction, for any cause, except for being provably unfit, (in a court of law) the state should not be making these decisions....
There isn't enough families willing to adopt in the first place to have such a weak reason to deny one...
Sickening...
Evangelicals only like the Jews that are in Israel where they will be pawns in the biblical "end times" scenarios.
Evangelicals also claim to love and support Israel, but it is only for that same reason, their apocalyptical fantasy.
Another anti-Evangelical generalization.
That is a bigoted statement as well as being an incredibly sweeping generalization.
Holston United Methodist Home for Children
Is this a state agency?
According to the article, it is a state funded agency, did you read the article GJ?
Also, adoption is a legal procedure controlled by both the Courts and the receiving state
but ultimately the sending state holds the most cards.
So both states have to approve.
Imo this is no different than the Catholics that deny adoption to gay people.
Religious organizations have no business being in the business...
Bingo
They have proven time and again they cannot be objective.
And they will keep proving it, again and again.
You know the Muppet song "It's not easy being green"? Well, as I see it, it's not easy being Jewish, even in the :EXCEPTIONAL" "Land of the free and home of the brave" Just because there are laws concerning the division of "Church and State", this experience proves they are not necessarily effective when it comes down to plain ordinary God-fearing, law-abiding, "EXCEPTIONAL" Americans. It will be interesting to see what the courts do with this, especially if the courts in which this case passes through are right-wing.
I thought in Florida the courts made the state stick with a Catholic organization. Would not let them not renew a contract with them or something.
I have no knowledge about that.
I need to look it up. I think the courts forced the state to use them.
I told you about my uncle. My cousin inherited the business, mostly military uniforms, flight suits etc.
There was a case where a couple of Navy pilots were involved in a fiery crash and sued the business for damages.
Every time a story appeared in the local news or papers they mentioned the business was Jewish.
WTF?
Zero relevance.
One thing I don't think people realize, this was an interstate adoption, it has to be approved by both states officials... under the ICPC it requires both states to approve..
Neither states laws dictate, initiated by the state with custody of the child, either state could reject the adoption out of hand and there is no appeal... We lost five grandchildren because of it.... Adopted out of the family...
A lot of people do not know about ICPC... But federal law requires the states to consider interstate adoption petitions... and rather than go the federal law route, the states got together and formulates this monstrosity... WE were denied custody of our grandchildren cause the representative decided that Ohio was only dumping it's special needs children onto the State of Washington... We had approval from the state of Ohio and were ready to make the trip to Ohio to meet them and go over the paperwork...
The governors ombudsman got into the picture, but the single representative for the state here had already rejected the application and wired it off to Ohio.. There was nothing that could be done... That decision was final.. We found out from the Ohio representative...
The whole adoption process sucks and state governments being involved in more than just a supervisory capacity makes it even worse...
It's a disgusting case, all around