Federal court sides with Oregon Christian mom after she was prevented from adopting children based on religious beliefs

A federal court of appeals has sided with an Oregon woman who sued the state over an adoption rule by the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS) that went against her Christian beliefs. The woman was seeking to adopt children and prevented from doing so by LGBTQ laws.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction barring the ODHS from applying Oregon Administrative Rule Section 413- 200-0308(2)(k) to Jessica Bates while the lawsuit plays out in lower courts.

The rule states that those seeking to foster or adopt children in the state must "Respect, accept and support the race, ethnicity, cultural identities, national origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disabilities, spiritual beliefs, and socioeconomic status, of a child or young adult in the care or custody of the Department, and provide opportunities to enhance the positive self-concept and understanding of the child or young adult's heritage."

The appeals court stated that "The state denied Bates’s adoption application under this policy after Bates, based on her sincerely held religious beliefs, objected to using adopted children’s preferred pronouns or taking them to medical appointments for gender transitions." Bates sued the state for violating her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress wrote in the court’s opinion that materials from an instructor-led course called the Resource and Adoptive Families Training (RAFT) from the ODHS state, "whether or not a youth in your care openly identifies as LGBTQ+," parents should consider "displaying 'hate-free zone' signs or other symbols indicating an LGBTQ-affirming environment (e.g., pink triangle, rainbow, or ally flag.)'"

"Again without regard to whether a child in their care identifies as LGBTQ, parents should consider 'providing acces to a variety of books, movies, and materials, including those that positively represent same-gender relationships' while 'pointing out LGBTQ+ celebrities, role models who stand up for the LGBTQ+ community, and people who demonstrate bravery in the face of social stigma," Bress wrote.

He later added, "Of particular importance to this case, the RAFT materials specifically reference religion in several places. Among other things, the materials state that for LGBTQ youth, 'prejudice and rejection can occur' in certain settings, listing among them 'faith-based communities.’"

Bates, a widowed mother of five, applied in May of 2022 to adopt two children under the age of nine and took the RAFT course. Bates viewed the requirements laid out by the course as "incompatible with her religious beliefs." The opinion later stated, "Bates represents that she will love and support any adopted child, but she will want to share her beliefs with them."

Bates’ application was denied in November of 2022 because she could not "meet the adoption home standards." The letter she received explained, "On July 28, 2022, you completed RAFT Training. After the training you emailed your certifier that the training emphasized SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression) as it related to the requirements that Applicants comply with OAR 413-200- 0308(2)(K). You wrote that you 'cannot support this behavior in a child,’ and that you 'would not encourage them in this behavior.’"

The letter later added, "You indicated that if a child became aware of their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression and that it was inconsistent with your expected sexual orientation or gender identity or expression for that child while in your home, you would love and treat them as your own but would not support their lifestyle or encourage any behavior related to their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. When asked what it would look [like] if the agency requested you to take the child or youth to medical appointments regarding hormone shot appointments as an example, you indicated you would not take them to the appointment and further indicated you think it 'would be considered child abuse.’"

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs, who argued the case on behalf of Bates, said in a statement, "Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from the adoption and foster system. Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa."

"Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state’s ideological crusade."