Landmark Lawsuit Protects California’s Adoptive Children and Parents from Discrimination

Landmark Lawsuit Protects California’s Adoptive Children and Parents from Discrimination

In Australia there is broad consensus between the two major parties about heterosexual parties being able to adopt. Contrast with the recent case from California…

Landmark Lawsuit Protects California’s Adoptive Children and Parents from Discrimination

(San Francisco, California, May 21, 2007) – Michael and Rich Butler, a San Jose couple, successfully resolved their landmark discrimination suit on Monday against the operators of the for-profit websites Adoption.com and ParentProfiles.com.

“This case was about ensuring that these businesses stop discriminating against same-sex couples in California by excluding them from offering loving, stable homes to children,” said Michael Butler, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “We have succeeded, and we believe this case sends the message that Californians will not tolerate businesses that discriminate.”

In 2004, the Butlers filed a lawsuit after defendants refused to post their profile online solely because they are a same-sex couple. The defendants’ websites, Adoption.com and ParentProfiles.com, charge fees for posting profiles of potential adoptive parents. Using the websites, birth parents can search those profiles to choose potential adoptive parents for their children. On March 30, 2007, San Francisco federal district court judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued a decision holding that California law applies to the Defendants and permitting the Butlers to take their case to trial.

According to the settlement, Adoption.com and ParentProfiles.com have agreed to either comply with California antidiscrimination law or cease providing their services to Californians. The agreement, provides that: “no Defendant shall Post Biographical Data of California residents seeking to adopt directed to prospective birth parents unless the Service is made equally available to all California residents qualified to adopt in California.”

“We were forced to sue the defendants because they refused to follow California law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status,” said Neel Chatterjee, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, who jointly represents the Butlers along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This case sends a clear message. Regardless of where you are headquartered, if you want to do business in California, you must comply with California law. The defendants have conceded that they must either comply with California law or stop benefiting financially from California consumers. With this settlement, we have stopped a serious discriminatory practice.”

According to Lynne Jacobs, the Executive Director of Adopt International, “I have been the director of a licensed adoption agency for 24 years. In my experience, many birth mothers choose same-sex couples to adopt their children. I have worked with same-sex adoptive families for years, and have seen first hand that sexual orientation has nothing to do with being good adoptive parents. Discrimination in the adoption industry hurts everyone.”

In addition to its profiling service for parents seeking to adopt, Adoption.com lists profiles of foster children who need adoptive homes. As part of the settlement, the Defendants agreed that the Adoption.com photo listing of children in foster care waiting to be adopted does not discriminate and is available on an equal basis to anyone seeking to adopt.

Link to the (US) National Center for Lesbian Rights

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Self-Represented Litigant in Family Court Australia: What You NEED to Know First

Representing yourself in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is increasingly common. Cost pressures, the perceived simplicity of some disputes and a desire to stay hands-on drive many people to act without a lawyer. That can work in certain circumstances, but there are important legal and practical limits to be aware of —… Read More »Self-Represented Litigant in Family Court Australia: What You NEED to Know First

My Surrogacy Reform Wish List for Australia

Australia’s surrogacy framework is fragmented, outdated and producing avoidable harm for intended parents, surrogates and, most importantly, children. A clearer, fairer and nationally consistent approach to surrogacy law reform would reduce cost, stress and legal uncertainty while better protecting human rights and minimising exploitation. Below is a practical wish list for reform that focuses on… Read More »My Surrogacy Reform Wish List for Australia

Harmful proceedings orders

A change that was made to the Family Law Act 1975 in 2024 was to allow the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia to make a harmful proceedings order. This is to stop the never ending cycle of abusive court proceedings, which often stretch on for a decade, and… Read More »Harmful proceedings orders

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board