Couple seeks right to marry. The hitch?

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,431
Reaction score
549
They're legally father and son


(CNN)—The legalization of same-sex marriage has given way to a new problem for a Pennsylvania couple, who technically are father and son.

Before states across the country began striking down bans on same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court ultimately decided the issue nationwide, some gay couples used adoption laws as a way to gain legal recognition as a family, and the related benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights.







Nino Esposito, a retired teacher, adopted his partner Roland "Drew" Bosee, a former freelance and technical writer, in 2012, after more than 40 years of being a couple.

Now, they're trying to undo the adoption to get married and a state trial court judge has rejected their request, saying his ability to annul adoptions is generally limited to instances of fraud.

"We never thought we'd see the day" that same-sex marriage would be legal in Pennsylvania, Esposito, 78, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The adoption "gave us the most legitimate thing available to us" at the time, said Bosee, 68.

The adoption process Bosee and Esposito went through was not uncommon. Although it is difficult to gather hard numbers, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, a group supporting the couple, says it learned that many couples in states across the country lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships. Now these couples seek to marry, but first they must confront state adoption laws that provide no easy path to annulment.

In Pennsylvania, Esposito and Bosee knew other couples who successfully annulled their adoptions in order to marry.

They quickly made plans to do the same after Pennsylvania legalized marriage between same-sex couples in May 2014.

"We realized we could have a complete union, which is what we want," Esposito said.

But Judge Lawrence J. O'Toole, of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, ruled against the couple. He noted that the primary purpose of the adoption was to reduce the Pennsylvania inheritance tax payable upon the death of one of the men from 15% to 4%, "as the two men would now be in a parent-child relationship instead of a third party relationship."
O'Toole said he was "sensitive to the situation" but noted that despite the fact Esposito and Bosee desire to marry, "they cannot do so because they are legally father and son."

"This Court welcomes direction from our appellate courts in handling parallel cases," O'Toole wrote.

"We don't believe the Pennsylvania judge who refused to annul this adoption was unsympathetic," said Witold Walczak, the Legal Director of the ACLU Pennsylvania, "he simply felt that the legal path to doing so should be forged by an appellate court."

"The ACLU is hopeful that the Superior Court will apply established legal principles to allow annulment of adoptions by same-sex couples who that they can finally partake of their constitutional right to marry," Walczak said.

While in most of the country there have not been problems implementing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges, there have been some pockets of resistance.

Some probate judges and other public officials in the South, citing religious objections, stopped issuing marriage licenses all together to avoid issuing licenses to gay couples.


Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, in a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, asked that the Justice Department weigh in on the side of Esposito and Bosee.

"LGBT couples should have the right to obtain a marriage license, no matter the state or jurisdiction in which they reside," Casey wrote. "In adoption cases such as these, the law has changed dramatically since the adoptions were first carried out."

Attorneys Mikhail Pappas and Andrew Gross, who represent Esposito and Bosee, say they would welcome help from the Justice Department to make clear their clients have a civil right at issue in the case.

In court papers, the attorneys argued: "The personal and social benefits of marriage are legion and unparalleled relative to any other association between individuals that our society formally sanctions and recognizes."

Dena Iverson, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department received Casey's letter and is reviewing his request.

Esposito and Bosee said they're being cautious now about planning a wedding. When they filed their adoption annulment they anticipated being able to marry the same day.

"We had our $80 in cash and we were ready to go across the street to get our license. Judge O'Toole had other ideas," Esposito said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/polit...-pennsylvania0252PMVODtopLink&linkId=18464438
 
Adoption annulments are usually difficult to prevent the adoptive parents from dropping the responsibilities of taking care of a child. The laws need to be amended to allow for these people to get annulments without setting president that would endanger adopted children.
 
Would it been easier to write Wills and contract explains what their wishes were until time was right to marry
 
Wills can go into funny limbo some times. Especially if it's contested by family that may or may not approve of the relationship. At the time adoption was the safest way to insure that the partner had family rights such as medical decisions and inheritance.
 
The original adoption was a fraud. The two men did NOT have a father/son relationship.
 
I thought of that too. I wonder if claiming that would get them into trouble though?
 
Wills can go into funny limbo some times. Especially if it's contested by family that may or may not approve of the relationship. At the time adoption was the safest way to insure that the partner had family rights such as medical decisions and inheritance.

no thought of that...then that the law that has to be changed Witness Will or contract should be allowed in law.If they both not minors what's hold up on marriage maybe law should have people update Wills and things every year
To be adopted you normally a child so adopting parent would be quite a lot older which brings another full set of problems if not crimes
i thought America treated gay marriage same as straight one.All this sort of thing is dishearting

About to contest a Will me self it really is mine field.
 
I thought of that too. I wonder if claiming that would get them into trouble though?
Well, if they lied under oath or made false statements on the adoption forms, I would think so.

On the other hand, if they claim the adoption was legit, then if they had sex together that was incest, and that opens up another can of legal worms.

It's a mess. Adoptions that are made only to get around legal or financial snafus are fraudulent, and offensive to those families who pursue authentic adoptions.
 
. . .
i thought America treated gay marriage same as straight one.All this sort of thing is dishearting
. . .
Same-sex married couples have the same legal rights of inheritance and probate process as opposite-sex married couples.

Unmarried couples, same-sex and opposite-sex, can both run into problems with inheritances and wills.
 
Yea, this isn't discrimination. If a man adopted a woman and then wanted to get married there would be the same problem.
 
The original adoption was a fraud. The two men did NOT have a father/son relationship.

Well not a fraud per se. They did it to access legal and other rights. The article made it sound like it was a Flowers in the Attic sort of sitution.
 
Well not a fraud per se. They did it to access legal and other rights. The article made it sound like it was a Flowers in the Attic sort of sitution.
Are you saying that the two men had a father and son relationship at the time of the adoption, not a romantic or sexual relationship? If not, then it was a fraud. (After "40 years as a couple" is when the adoption took place, and there is only a 10-year difference in their ages; that doesn't sound like a father/son relationship.)

It's like green card marriages. Two consenting adults get married because the one (immigrant) wants "access to legal and other rights" that come with marrying an American citizen. The US government recognizes that as a fraud.

According to the article, "the primary purpose of the adoption was to reduce the Pennsylvania inheritance tax payable upon the death of one of the men from 15% to 4%." In other words, the motive for the adoption was financial, not for stabilizing a parent/child relationship.
 
At least the judge didn't issue a bench warrant to arrest him for incest. In PA, even adopted kids count!
 
Back
Top