ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Over A Dozen Families Affected By Act 1 Step Forward To File Lawsuit

LITTLE ROCK—The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down a new law that bans any unmarried person who lives with a partner from serving as an adoptive or foster parent in the state of Arkansas.

At a press conference at the Arkansas State Capitol this morning, several of the plaintiffs described how Act 1, which is set to go into effect on January 1, impacts their families and why they decided to be part of the case.

Stephanie Huffman, who already adopted one child from the state in 2004, was one of the plaintiffs who spoke at today's press conference. Huffman and her partner of 10 years, Wendy Rickman, want to adopt another child or a pair of siblings through the Department of Children and Family Services, but now can't because of Act 1. "The state already knows we're good enough parents that they placed one child with us before Act 1 passed," said Huffman. "Who knows how many children are now cut off by this law from loving homes?"

In the lawsuit filed today, the ACLU argues that Act 1 violates the federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Participating in the case are 29 adults and children from over a dozen different families, including a grandmother who lives with her same-sex partner of nine years and is the only relative able and willing to adopt her grandchild who is now in Arkansas state care, several married heterosexual couples who have relatives or friends disqualified by Act 1 who they want to adopt their children if they die, and a heterosexual woman who wants to be a foster or adoptive parent but can't because she lives with her partner of five years. The complaint was filed this morning in Pulaski County Circuit Court.

"Ever since the election, we've been hearing from all corners of the state from dozens of families who are panicking about how Act 1 impacts them," said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "This law hurts families and children in many ways – it takes away parents' right to decide for themselves who will adopt their children if they die, it denies the many children in Arkansas state care a chance at the largest possible pool of potential foster and adoptive homes, and denies couples who are living together but unmarried the chance to provide loving homes to children who desperately need them."

Among the plaintiffs and their families are:

Sheila Cole: Sheila lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma with Jennifer, her partner of nine years. Sheila's adult daughter from an earlier relationship had a baby girl in May of 2008 who was placed in the Arkansas foster care system when she was two months old. Sheila wants to adopt her granddaughter and is the relative best able to take in the baby. Every week she makes a four-hour round trip to Bentonville for two hours of visitation with her granddaughter. Sheila has taken foster parenting classes with Oklahoma's DHS and has passed a home study. She is now waiting for approval from Arkansas, but she's worried she might not be approved to adopt her own granddaughter because of Act 1.

Stephanie Huffman and Wendy Rickman: Stephanie and Wendy have been together for 10 years and are raising two sons together, one of whom is a 7-year-old with special needs whom Stephanie adopted from the state in 2004. Stephanie and Wendy want to adopt another child, or perhaps a pair of siblings, but can't because of Act 1.

Frank Pennisi and Matt Harrison; Meredith and Benny Scroggin: Frank and Matt have been together for eight years and live together in Little Rock and would like to become foster or adoptive parents. Matt's cousin, Meredith Scroggin, and her husband Benny want Frank and Matt to be able to adopt their two daughters in the event of their death.

Cary and Trina Kelley: Cary and his wife, Trina, have two young daughters and live across the road in Fayetteville from Cary's mother Vickie Kelley and her partner Sophia Estes. Sophia and Vickie have been together 16 years, and cumulatively have three children and six grandchildren. If anything were to happen to Cary and Trina, who held their wedding in Vickie and Sophia's backyard, they want Vickie and Sophia to be able to adopt their children. Trina, Cary's wife, spent many years of her childhood in state care and she feels very strongly that children who need homes shouldn't be cut off from loving relatives like Sophia and Vickie.

Kaytee Wright: Kaytee Wright lives on a farm in Cabot with her partner of five years, Alan Leveritt. Kaytee helps Alan raise his eight-year-old daughter from his previous marriage, of whom he has joint custody. Together she and Alan are also providing a home and financial assistance to a mother and her two young children through a Little Rock shelter for the working homeless. Kaytee was adopted from state care when she was just four weeks old, and she feels very strongly that good homes should be provided to children in the state system. Kaytee would like to adopt a child but cannot because she and Alan aren't married.

For a complete list of all the plaintiff families and more detailed profiles, please visit our site.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christine P. Sun, Rose Saxe, and Leslie Cooper of the American Civil Liberties Union, Stacey Friedman, Garrard Beeney, and Jennifer Sheinfeld of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and Marie-Bernarde Miller and Daniel J. Beck of Williams & Anderson PLC on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Arkansas.

The case is Cole, et al. v. Arkansas, et al. For more information on the case, including today's complaint, visit ACLU Parenting

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 31 December 2008 )

WCSD 8th circuit victory

Tuesday, 02 September 2008
Appeals Court Sides with ACLU, FindsWatson Chapel Students’ Free Speech Rights Violated Court cites landmark student free speech case in finding district unlawfully suspended students for protesting school policy FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 2, 2008 LITTLE ROCK— Today the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of a federal judge in finding that the Watson Chapel School District (WCSD) violated the First Amendment rights of students when they disciplined them for wearing black armbands to protest the student apparel policy. In October 2006 the ACLU of Arkansas filed suit against WCSD alleging the district violated the free speech rights of those students and a federal judge agreed. The school district appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and today that Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that by winning this lawsuit, the student plaintiffs did something “that benefitted all of the students in the school” and “vindicated” students’ right to free speech. In 2006, more than fifty parents and students of the WCSD complained that the school apparel policy was restrictive and unclear and was arbitrarily enforced. Students were punished for such things as wearing a belt that was braided, had too many holes, or were not the “right” color of black or brown. One student was suspended for violating the school literature distribution policy for handing out a flyer criticizing the policy. Students and parents planned for students to wear black armbands/wristbands to school on Friday, October 6th, 2006, to express dissent with the apparel policy. When school officials discovered the plan, they announced that students wearing the bands would be disciplined. Some students wore the bands anyway and were disciplined by the school. Junior high students were held under the watch of armed police officers until parents arrived to pick them up from school.At a hearing that month the ACLU succeeded in getting federal judge Leon Holmes III to stop the school district from enforcing the discipline given the student plaintiffs and to prohibit the district from disciplining the students for wearing armbands in the future. The school maintained the students were suspended for violating the policy and not for expressing their disapproval of it. In his order, federal Judge Holmes said, "the student plaintiffs would suffer harm not only to their First Amendment rights, but also potential exposure to progressive discipline should an injunction not be granted." Judge Holmes noted that the bands were similar to other bands worn by students. Testimony at the hearing showed that students were not disciplined for wearing black wristbands bearing the words “Watson Chapel” sold by the school. The ACLU added claims to the original charge that, not only did the discipline of the students violated their free speech rights, but the apparel policy itself violated the First Amendment by only allowing expressive adornments that support the school district, that the enforcement of the policy violated the due process rights of the students because it was so hard to follow and applied differently to students depending on both the school official and the student, and that the student literature policy was unconstitutional because it required school officials to pre-review and approve of all student literature with no guidelines for approval. A trial was scheduled for On September 10, 2007. The morning of the trial the school district admitted that it did punish the students for wearing the armbands as a protest of the school policy; the judge ruled that WCSD had violated students’ First Amendment rights by doing so, and also found the literature distribution policy was “probably” unconstitutional. However the judge did not find that either the apparel policy or its enforcement was unconstitutional. Both the 8th circuit and the federal judge ruled that the situation was markedly similar to the landmark student free speech case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District where the U.S. Supreme Court held that students engaging in symbolic speech and political expression by wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War were protected under the First Amendment. Quoting that decision the 8th circuit wrote: It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. . . . . The Fourteenth Amendment …protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-- Boards of Education not excepted. …. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. (emphasis added) The school district had claimed that the fact that the Tinker case dealt with an issue of national importance ― the Vietnam War ― while the case against them involved “only” a student apparel policy, meant that the Tinker decision did not apply. In response, the 8th Circuit quoted another famous Supreme Court school case, W. Va. State Bd. of Educ.v. Barnette in which the Court addressed the question of whether school boards could violate the constitutional rights of students: Such Boards are numerous and their territorial jurisdiction often small. But small and local authority may feel less sense of responsibility to the Constitution, and agencies of publicity may be less vigilant in calling it to account. … There are village tyrants as well as village Hampdens, but none who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution. “The 8th Circuit is clearly rebuking the school district for claiming that punishing students for protesting an apparel policy was not as serious as punishing students for protesting national policy,” said Rita Sklar, ACLU of Arkansas executive director. “The Court reminds us that often great constitutional battles are won in the smallest of battlegrounds; and that ‘local authorities’ like school boards sometimes think themselves exempt from the federal Constitution and use their power like ‘village tyrants,’ while the individual who dares to stand up for their rights plays the part of a ‘village Hampden,’ the champion of the rights of all. These students are champions of liberty, as this case has further secured the free speech rights of students in America.” A copy of the 8th Circuit decision can be found at: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/09/073437P.pdf. -end
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 02 September 2008 )

[ Back ]

See it Now!

ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

Over A Dozen Families Affected By Act 1 Step Forward To File Lawsuit