IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF: ATWS, minоr child, KA, Appellant (Petitioner).
S-20-0184
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
May 5, 2021
2021 WY 62
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2021. Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable Daniel L. Forgey, Judge.
Representing Appellant: Stacy L. Rostad, Laramie, Wyoming.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, JJ., and FENN, DJ.
BOOMGAARDEN, J., delivers the opinion of the Court; FENN, DJ., files a dissenting opinion, in which KAUTZ, J., joins.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] Presented a unique adoption scenario, the district court denied KA’s unopposed Petition for Adoption of Minor Child pursuant to
ISSUE
[¶2] Do the adoption statutes prohibit KA from adopting the Child?
FACTS
[¶3] KA seeks to adopt his ex-wife’s son (the Child). When KA and the Child’s mother, BLS, began dating in 2008, the Child was five months old; his natural father was absent. KA immediately stepped in and developed a father/son relationship with the Child. KA and BLS married, divorced, and remarried other people, but continue “coparenting” the Child. KA refers to the Child as his son, the Child refers to KA as “Dad,” and BLS refers to KA as her son’s father.
[¶4] The Child lives with BLS and her spouse in Casper, Wyoming. KA, who lives in Douglas, Wyoming with his spouse, is very involved in the Child’s life. He attends school meetings and activities, takes the Child to medical appointments, and confers with BLS on matters affecting the Child’s well-being. The Child regularly spends time with KA, including on many weekends, on alternating holidays and school breaks, and for half of summer break. The Child has a sibling relationship with KA’s biological son and KA’s extended family considers the Child part of their family. Until recently, the Child believed KA was his biological father. On learning
[¶5] In December 2019, KA filed an unopposed petition to adopt the Child in the District Court for the Seventh Judicial District. The petition reiterated many of the facts recited above, but added some information pertinent to this appeal. First, BLS consents to the adoption. Second, the Child’s biological father, who lives in North Dakota, signed a relinquishment and consent to adoption; a petitiоn to terminate his parental rights was pending. Third, KA is of good moral character and fit and proper to adopt. He could continue to provide proper care, nurturing, and parenting to the Child. KA attached his affidavit pursuant to
[¶6] In March 2020, the same court entered an order terminating the natural father’s parental rights. The father failed to answer, plead, or defend the matter, and consented to the termination. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the Child had been left in another person’s care without provision for his support and without communication from the absent parent for at least one year. The natural father had not seen or interacted with the Child since the Child was a baby, and it was in the Child’s best interests tо terminate his parental rights.
[¶7] The court denied KA’s adoption petition that July. Though it empathized with the reasons for the requested adoption, the court felt constrained—absent clarification from the legislature or this Court—to strictly construe the adoption statutes and concluded that KA failed to establish that he qualified to adopt the Child under the plain language of
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶8] Statutory interpretation and construction are questions of law we review de novo. Matter of Adoption of MAJB, 2020 WY 157, ¶¶ 9, 13, 478 P.3d 196, 200–01 (Wyo. 2020) (citations omitted); see also In re Estate of Kirkpatrick, 2003 WY 125, ¶ 6, 77 P.3d 404, 406 (Wyo. 2003).
[¶9] “When interpreting statutes, we first look to the statute’s plain language to determine the legislature’s intent and we examine the plain and ordinary meaning of the words to determine whether the statute is ambiguous.” Matter of Estate of Frank, 2019 WY 4, ¶ 7, 432 P.3d 885, 887 (Wyo. 2019) (citing In re Estate of Meyer, 2016 WY 6, ¶ 17, 367 P.3d 629, 634 (Wyo. 2016)); see also Interest of: AA, 2021 WY 18, ¶ 17, 479 P.3d 1252, 1258 (Wyo. 2021) (“When interpreting . . . statute[s] and [their] application, we first look at the plain language used by the legislature.” (citation omitted)). “We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe all parts of the statute in pari materia.” Estate of Frank, ¶ 7, 432 P.3d at 887 (quoting In re Estate of Johnson, 2010 WY 63, ¶ 8, 231 P.3d 873, 877 (Wyo. 2010)).
[¶10] “A statute is clear and unambiguous if reasonable persons can agree on its meaning with consistency and predictability.” Id. ¶ 8, 432 P.3d at 887 (citing Estate of Meyer, ¶ 17, 367 P.3d at 634). “Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is found to be vague or uncertain and subject to varying interpretations.” Id. (quoting Estate of Meyer, ¶ 17, 367 P.3d at 634). “If we determine the language of a statute is ambiguous, we apply general principles of statutory construction ‘to construe any ambiguous language to accurately reflect the intent of the legislature.’” Id. (quoting Estate of Meyer, ¶ 21, 367 P.3d at 636).
[¶11] “Where legislative intent is discernible a court should give effect to the ‘most likely, most reasonable, interpretation of the statute given its design and purpose.’” Adekale v. State, 2015 WY 30, ¶ 12, 344 P.3d 761, 765 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Rodriguez v. Casey, 2002 WY 111, ¶ 20, 50 P.3d 323, 329 (Wyo. 2002)). As we have said before, “it is
DISCUSSION
[¶12] After the district court denied KA’s petition and while this appeal was pending, we issued a decision identifying some important principles and distinctions we must heed when construing Wyoming’s adoption statutes.
We have had many opportunities to construe Wyoming’s adoption statutes in the context of fundamental rights or statutory procedure. “The right to associate with one’s child is protected by both the Wyoming and United States constitutions, therefore adoption statutes are ‘strictly construed when the proceeding is against a nonconsenting parent, and every reasonable [inference] is made in favor of that parent’s claims.’” Matter of Adoption of ZEM, 2020 WY 17, ¶ 11, 458 P.3d 21, 24 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting In re Adoption of AMP, 2012 WY 132, ¶ 11, 286 P.3d 746, 749 (Wyo. 2012)); see also Matter of Adoption of CJML, 2020 WY 23, ¶ 7, 458 P.3d 53, 55 (Wyo. 2020) (same). “It is appropriate, therefore, to construe adoption statutes narrowly insofar as a case involves such fundamental constitutional rights as parenthood and the right to procreate.” 2 C.J.S. Adoption of Persons § 7, Westlaw (database updated November 2020); In re CW, 2008 WY 50, ¶ 8, 182 P.3d 501, 503–04 (Wyo. 2008) (“[A]doption statutes are strictly construed when the proceeding is against a nonconsenting parent, and every reasonable intendment is made in favor of the parent’s claims.” (quoting In re Adoption of JRH, 2006 WY 89, ¶ 13, 138 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2006))). However, “[A]doption statutes are not to be construed so narrowly or strictly as to defeat the legislative intent.” 2 C.J.S. Adoption of Persons § 7.
We have said that “[a] statute must be viewed in terms of its objective purpose.” Halliburton Co. v. McAdams, Roux & Assocs., 773 P.2d 153, 155 (Wyo. 1989). The purpose “of the adoption laws is to make provision for the welfare of children, [and] the better rule is to construe adoption statutes in a manner which will promote this purpose.” Matter of Adoption of BGD, 719 P.2d 1373, 1382 (Wyo. 1986); see also 3A J.G. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 69:4, at 713 (8th ed. 2018) (Remedial statutes, such as adoption laws, are “enacted for the protection of life and property and to introduce regulations conducive to the public good.”); Wright v. Wysowatcky, 147 Colo. 317, 363 P.2d 1046, 1048 (1961) (“While courts were formerly inclined to regard adoption statutes as in derogation of the common law and therefore to be strictly construed, the humanitarian purposes of such statutes came to be recognized, and courts generally have evinced a disposition to affоrd them a more liberal construction.”); Matter of Petition of Phillip A.C., 122 Nev. 1284, 149 P.3d 51, 58 (2006) (“Statutes with a protective purpose should be liberally construed in order to effectuate the intended benefits.”); Sharon S. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.4th 417, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 699, 73 P.3d 554, 560 (2003) (“The rule is that the adoption statutes are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objects and to promote justice. Such a construction should be given as will sustain, rather than defeat, the object they have in view.” (citations omitted)).
MAJB, ¶¶ 21–22, 478 P.3d at 203–04 (emphasis added).
[¶13] This case, like MAJB, “does not involve the termination of parental rights, a nonconsenting parent, or the failure to comply with statutory procedures.” See id. ¶ 23, 478 P.3d at 204. As explained above, the Child’s natural father is not a party to this proceeding. The court terminated his parental rights after he relinquished them and consented to the adoption. The Child’s natural mother has also consented to the adoption.
so narrowly or strictly as to defeat the legislative intent.” MAJB, ¶ 21, 478 P.3d at 204 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 25, 68 S.Ct. 376, 380, 92 L.Ed. 442 (1948) (“The canon in favor of strict construction is not an inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose.”).
[¶14] We begin with the observation that there is nothing in the adoption statutes to expressly prohibit KA from adopting the Child. See
[¶15] In instructing an adopting party how to commence an adoption proceeding by filing a petition in district court, the statute explains “[a] petition may be filed by any single adult or jointly by a husband and wife who maintain their home together, or by either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child.”
[¶16] As shown below, the word “single” in the phrase “single adult” is susceptible to more than one meaning. The phrase, therefore, is ambiguous.3 See Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., --- U.S. ---, 137 S.Ct. 734, 739–40, 197 L.Ed.2d 33 (2017) (concluding the term “substantial” was ambiguous because it “may refer either to qualitative importance or to quantitatively large size”); Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of the Cty. of Laramie v. City of Cheyenne, 2004 WY 16, ¶¶ 20–21, 85 P.3d 999, 1005–06 (Wyo. 2004) (determining that use of words without defining them rendered a statute ambiguous when dictionary definitions showed different reasonable interpretations); Lance Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyo. Dep’t Of Revenue, 2004 WY 156, ¶ 20, 101 P.3d 899, 905 (Wyo. 2004) (holding a mineral tax statute ambiguous because the word “producer” was “susceptible to more than one interpretation”).
[¶17] The legislature defined several terms used in the adoption statutes, but it did not define the word “single.”4 See
[¶18] When intending to specify “one” or “individual,” the Wyoming legislature frequently uses the word “single.” See, e.g.,
[¶19] When the legislature underscores marital status, we note the legislature frequently uses the term “unmarried.” See
[¶20] Looking beyond these usage patterns, we focus on the central, discernible purpose of the adoption statutes—to provide for the welfare of children. See MAJB, ¶ 22, 478 P.3d at 204. If we interpret the word “single” in -104(b) to mean unmarried we unquestionably narrow the list of petitioners eligible to adopt a child, thus begging the question: to what legislatively intended end? Perhaps the legislature wanted to ensure that someone who is married does not adopt a child without their spouse’s consent. See, e.g., Browder v. Harmeyer, 453 N.E.2d 301, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (recognizing that the public policy behind rеquiring a married person to jointly adopt with their spouse “is to guarantee harmony on the part of the adoptive parents upon the question of adoption, and to assure a welcome and affectionate reception of the child into its adoptive home” (quoting In re Bresnehan’s Will, 221 Wis. 51, 64, 265 N.W. 93, 99 (1936))). The legislature could have expressly provided such protection, but did not.
[¶21] Section -104(b) is quite unlike provisions other states have adopted to expressly require a married person to obtain their spouse’s consent to such an adoption, and such consent is not required under
[¶22] Section -104(b) is also distinguishable from the clear, mandatory language used in other states to require a married person to file jointly with their spouse where that spouse is not the child’s parent. See, e.g.,
subsection (b), a petition for adoption by a married person may not be granted unless the husband and wife join in the action.”) (Emphasis added.);
[¶23] The dissent deduces that legislative history evidences a legislative intent that -104(b) should be read so that “single” means unmarried, and therefore all married persons who maintain a home with their spouse must file joint petitions. But in 1977 the legislature removed the historical language that mandated “in the case of married persons maintaining a home together, the petition shall be the joint petition of husband and wife[.]” See 1973 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 91, § 1; 1977 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 187, § 1. As it reads today, -104(b) clearly permits rather than mandates different filing options: “[a] petition may be filed by any single adult or jointly by a husband and wife who maintain their home together, or by either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child.” Given this amendment, we cannot agree that the legislative history provides conclusive evidence the legislature intended to prohibit individual married adults from filing a petition.5
[¶24] What is clear and discernable, reading the adoption statutes as a whole, is that the child’s best interest is at the forefront and district courts have the statutory responsibility, in any and all adoption circumstances, to determine whether the
WY 157, ¶ 13, 79 P.3d 1188, 1192 (Wyo. 2003), they are inherently fact-based and case-specific, see ZEM, ¶ 15, 458 P.3d at 25. And district courts alone are positioned tо take and weigh testimony and evidence unique to the child welfare and parental rights concerns in each case. See ZEM, ¶ 15, 458 P.3d at 25; In re Adoption of CF, 2005 WY 118, ¶ 35, 120 P.3d 992, 1004 (Wyo. 2005); Stonham, ¶¶ 13–14, 79 P.3d at 1192–93.
[¶25] In putting the child’s best interest and welfare at the forefront, nowhere did the legislature prescribe what family structure is in a child’s best interest. See
[¶26] We therefore hold that KA may petition to adopt the Child. In acting on his petition, the district court must determine whether the adoption would be in the Child’s best interest,
[¶27] Finally, we note that the natural parents’ rights, which are a countervailing consideration in adoption proceedings, are adequately protected in this case. See CF, ¶ 11, 120 P.3d at 999 (“The right to associаte with one’s children is a fundamental right protected
by the Wyoming and United States Constitutions.” (citation omitted)); Matter of Voss’ Adoption, 550 P.2d 481, 485 (Wyo. 1976) (“[T]he earliest and most hallowed of the ties that bind humanity, in all countries considered sacred, is the relationship of parent and child. Therefore, parents have the first and natural right to their children.”). The natural father’s parental rights have already been terminated on grounds separate from this adoption. The natural mother consents to KA’s adoption of the Child, conditioned on retention of her parental rights. By construing -104(b) in harmony with the purpose
CONCLUSION
[¶28] The adoption statutes, whose purpose of providing for the welfare of children is the surest guide to thеir meaning, do not prohibit KA from adopting the Child, and the adoption, if finalized, would not impact BLS’s parental rights. Because the district court denied the adoption petition on legal grounds, it did not make findings on whether the adoption would be in the Child’s best interest and welfare. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF: ATWS, minor child, KA, Appellant (Petitioner).
S-20-0184
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
May 5, 2021
FENN, District Judge, dissenting, in which KAUTZ, Justice, joins.
[¶29] “At the common law adoption was unknown; therefore, the law governing the adoption of minor children and the rights and liabilities emanating therefrom are governed purely by statutory provisions.” In re Caldwell’s Estate, 186 P. 499, 500 (Wyo. 1920). Further, proceedings for adoption “must be conducted in substantial conformity with the provisions of the statute.” In re Adoption of Stausser, 196 P.2d 862, 866 (Wyo. 1948). When interpreting adoption statutes, the same rules of statutory interpretation that apply to other statutes should be used.
[¶30] The rules of statutory interpretation, applicable to unambiguous statutes, are well established:
We begin by making an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection. We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe all parts of the statute in pari materia. When a statute is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and do not resort to the rules of statutory construction. Wyoming Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides v. Clark, 2001 WY 78, ¶ 12, 30 P.3d 36, ¶ 12 (Wyo. 2001); Murphy v. State Canvassing Board, 12 P.3d 677, 679 (Wyo. 2000). Moreover, we must not give a statute a meaning that will nullify its operation if it is susceptible of another interpretation. Billis v. State, 800 P.2d 401, 413 (Wyo. 1990) (citing McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1283 (Wyo. 1980)).
State ex rel. Wyo. Dep’t of Rev. v. Hanover Comprеssion, LP, 2008 WY 138, ¶ 8, 196 P.3d 781, 784 (Wyo. 2008) (emphasis added). In addition, we “try to determine legislative intent by considering the type of statute being interpreted and what the legislature intended by the language used, viewed in light of the objects and purposes to be accomplished[.]” Fraternal Order of Eagles Sheridan Aerie No. 186, Inc. v. State ex rel. Forwood, 2006 WY 4, ¶ 16, 126 P.3d 847, 855 (Wyo. 2006).
[¶31] The majority focuses on the word “single” in the statute. The statutory provision at issue in this case reads: “(b) A petition may be filed by any single adult or jointly by a husband and wife who maintain their home together, or by either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child.”
find that the statute is not ambiguous, and there is no need to resort to the rules of statutory construction.
[¶32] The majority asserts that the term “single” in
[¶33] Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s legal decision that the Petitioner was not a “single person” as required by the statute. Ordinarily, my dissent would conclude here. However, the majority opinion concluding the term “single” to be ambiguous appears to create a dual standard of statutory construction which requires further analysis and comment.
[¶34] Even if the statute could be considered ambiguous, the rules of statutory construction lead to the same result that “single” should be construed to refer to marital status. We should begin with a review of the legislative history of the adoption statutes. An early version of the precursor to
Any person may appear before the district court or the judge thereof of the county where he or she resides and offer to adopt any minor child as his or her own; provided, suсh minor and his or her parents if living, or guardian, if any, or county commissioners, as hereinafter provided, shall appear and consent to such adoption.
Wyo. Comp. Stat. § 58-202 (Bobb-Merrill 1945).8 Under this version of the statute, the petitioner’s marital status was irrelevant, and any person could adopt any child, provided the required consents were obtained. However, this changed in 1955 when the legislature made sweeping changes to § 58-202, which then read, in relevant part:
Proceedings for adoption of a minor child shall be by petition to the district court. A petition to adopt a minor child may be filed by any natural person who is a resident of the State of Wyoming, and in the case of married persons maintaining a
home together, the petition shall be the joint petition of husband and wifе.
1955 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 184, § 1. For the first time, this amendment restricted adoption based on the petitioner’s marital status, and it required a husband and wife who maintained their home together to file a joint petition.
[¶35] According to the 1963 Session Laws, the amendments that year were made “to provide limitations on who may be adopted [and] to establish what persons are qualified to adopt[.]” 1963 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 59.9 The amendments provided in relevant part:
Section 3. The following persons, if residents of Wyoming, are eligible to adopt a child:
(a) A husband and wife jointly, or either the husband or the wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child.
(b) Any other person who is at least 21 years old.
Section 4.
A. Proceeding for the adoption of a minor child shall be by petition to the district court. A petition to adopt a minor child may be filed by any natural person of 21 years of аge who is a resident of the State of Wyoming, and in the case of married persons maintaining a home together, the petition shall be the joint petition of husband and wife, except that if one of the spouses be the natural parent of the child to be adopted, such natural parent shall not be required to join in the petition. . . .
1963 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 59, §§ 3–4. Under this version of the statute, married persons were required to file joint petitions, while “other” persons who were at least twenty-one could file individual petitions.
[¶36] The statute was amended slightly in 1965 to read:
Proceedings for the adoption of a minor child shall be by petition to the district court. A petition to adopt a minor child may be filed by either (a) a husband and wife jointly, or either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child, or (b) by any other person who is at least twenty-one (21) years old, who is a resident of the State of Wyoming, and in the case of married persons maintaining a home together, the petition shall be the joint petition of husband and wife, except that if one of the spouses be the natural parent of the child to be adopted, such natural parent shall not be required to join in the petition.
1965 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 39, § 1. Then in 1973, it was again amended to reflect a change in the age of majority:
(a) Proceeding for the adoption of a minor shall be by petition to any district court in the state. A petition to adopt a minor may be filed by either:
(i) A husband and wife jointly, or either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the minor; or
(ii) By any other рerson who is an adult, who is a resident of the state of Wyoming, and in the case of married persons maintaining a home together, the petition shall be the joint petition of husband and wife, except that if one of the spouses be the natural parent of the child to be adopted, such natural parent shall not be required to joint in the petition. . . .
1973 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 91, § 1.
[¶37] The word “single” was added in 1977, when the adoption statutes were amended as follows:
1-726.3 Adopting parties. Any adult person residing in Wyoming and found by the court to be fit and competent to be a parent may adopt in accordance with this act.
1-726.4 Petition for adoption of minor; by whom filed; requisites; confidential nature; inspection; separate journal to be kept.
(a) Adoption proceedings shall be commenced by petition filed in district court.
(b) A petition may be filed by any single adult or jointly by a husband and wife who maintain their home together, or by either the husband or wife if the other spouse is a parent of the child. . . .
1977 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 187, § 1. For almost a century, the adoption statutes used words such as “any person,” “any natural person,” and “any other person” when discussing who could file an adoption petition, other than a husband and wife maintaining their home together. We “presume the legislature enacts statutes with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it.” Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 306 (Wyo. 1999). Therefore, the legislature’s choice to amend the statute to read “any single adult” was intentional, and it must be treated as such. Additionally, the legislature continued to require a husband and wife who maintain their home together to file a joint petition.
[¶38] This Court will not “enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters which do not fall within its express provisions.” Gray v. Stratton Real Estate, 2001 WY 125, ¶ 5, 36 P.3d 1127, 1128 (Wyo. 2001) (quoting Bowen v. State, Wyo. Real Estate Comm’n, 900 P.2d 1140, 1143 (Wyo. 1995)). Further, we are not at liberty to rewrite a statute under the guise of statutory interpretation. Jones v. State, 2001 WY 28, ¶ 13, 18 P.3d 1189, 1194 (Wyo. 2001). This Court “cannot
[¶39] The majority acknowledges that our previous cases have held that adoption statutes should be strictly construed. See, e.g., Matter of Adoption of ZEM, 2020 WY 17, ¶ 11, 458 P.3d 21, 24 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting In re Adoption of AMP, 2012 WY 132, ¶ 11, 286 P.3d 746, 749 (Wyo. 2012)). However, the majority appears to create a different standard when a case does not involve a nonconsenting parent, such as this one. The majority contends that we should interpret the “objective purpose” of the adoption statutes, and construe them “in a manner which will promote this purpose” as espoused in In the Matter of the Adoption of MAJB, 2020 WY 157, ¶¶ 21–22, 478 P.3d 196, 203–04 (Wyo. 2020).10 The effect of
this approach is to substitute this Court’s opinion of what a policy should be for that of the legislature. We have long recognized:
Courts are not at liberty to impose their views of the way things ought to be simply because that’s what must have been intended, otherwise no statute, contract or recorded word, no matter how explicit, could be saved from judicial tinkering. Moreover, if the sense of a word is not to be taken in its usual and commonly understood meaning except under circumstances where a different meaning is clearly intended, it becomes impossible for men to mean what is said or say what they mean and purposeful communication is unattainable.
Markle v. Williamson, 518 P.2d 621, 625 (Wyo. 1982) (quoting Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 413, 466 P.2d 18, 27 (1970)).
[¶40] In this case, KA is a husband who maintains his home with his wife, who is not the Child’s mother. Therefore, he is not a “single adult,” and he is currently ineligible to file an individual petition to adopt the Child. He could have adopted the Child when he was married to the Child’s mother, and he can adopt the Child once the Child attains the age of majority, as long as the Child consents to the adoption. See
[¶41] The majority appears to create a less exacting promotion of purpose standard of review under some circumstances while acknowledging a longstanding strict scrutiny review under other circumstances. Furthermore, the majority interpretation, essentially allowing any person to pursue an adoption, renders not only the other statutory provisions meaningless but also the term “single.”
[¶42] For the reasons stated above, I would find that “single” refers to marital status. The majority acknowledges that “if the legislature intended ‘single adult’ to mean ‘unmarried adult’ then KA cannot petition to adopt the child.” Therefore, I would find that the district court correctly denied the adoption petition, and I would affirm the district court’s order.
Notes
The adoption would secure the child’s rights to inheritance and eligibility for worker’s compensation and Social Security benefits. Adoрtion also would protect the child in the event of the natural parent’s death. If the prospective adoptive parent were not the child’s legal parent and the natural parent died, the prospective parent would have to file an action for custody, guardianship, or adoption to preserve his relationship with the child. If contested, this process could be lengthy, costly, and result in denial, thus, in effect, causing the child to lose both parents.