NEW YORK GIVES ADOPTION AGENCY ULTIMATUM: CHANGE POLICY EXCLUDING UNWED OR SAME SEX HOMES, OR SHUT DOWN

New Hope Family Services of Syracuse, which was founded in 1965 by a
pastor and seeks “to be Christ’s hands extended to offer hope and help
to people with pregnancy, parenting, adoption, or post-abortion
needs,” says in its complaint that it was visited in September by a
representative of the New York OCFS for an official review that included
meeting with staff and perusing sample records.

Syracuse regional office Director Sara Simon later sent New Hope
Interim Director Judy Geyer a letter that, while requesting a few policy
adjustments, praised the organization for its work.

“Our office found that your program has a number of strengths in
providing adoption services within the community. One of which is the
strong emphasis on assisting the birth parents in making an informed
decision for their newborn, providing them time to make the decision,
along with a supportive and detailed adoptive family selection process,”
the correspondence read.

However, just days later, Geyer received a phone call from Suzanne
Colligan, who had conducted the review, to advise that a problem had
been found with the faith-based organization’s placement policies.
Colligan reportedly told Geyer that New Hope must allow placement with
unmarried couples and homosexuals, or the adoption agency would be
“choosing to close.”

Geyer said that New Hope could in no way violate its religious
convictions and that the organization would “never choose to close. You
will be forcing us to close.” According to the legal challenge, Colligan
advised during the call that “[s]ome Christian ministries have decided
to compromise and stay open.”

Geyer soon after received a formal letter from Laura Velez, the
deputy commissioner of OCFS division of child welfare and community
services.

“It was found that the agency’s policy pertaining to not placing
‘children with those who are living together without the benefit of marriage’ or ‘same sex couples’ violates Title 18 NYCRR § 421.3, and is discriminatory and impermissible,” Velez wrote.

She requested a formal response in regard to revising the policy to
eliminate the exclusion, and warned that “should the agency fail to
bring the policy into compliance with the regulation, OFCS will be
unable to approve continuation of NHFS’ current adoption program and
NHFS will be required to submit a close-out plan for the adoption
program.”

New Hope Family Services has consequently decided to take the matter
to court in order to continue serving children in the state without
having to violate their Christian convictions in the process.

Its formal complaint states that several other faith-based agencies
have lost their authorization because of the State’s requirements, and
points to a quote from OCFS spokesperson Monica Mahaffey in the Buffalo
News, in which she declared, “Discrimination of any kind is illegal and
in this case OCFS will vigorously enforce the laws designed to
protect the rights of children and same sex couples. … There is no place
for providers that choose not to follow the law.”

New Hope also outlined that it has had to turn away four prospective
adoptive families because of OCFS’ threats, and rather refer them
elsewhere, as well as four expectant birth mothers who wanted help
placing their children up for adoption.

The organization also operates its own pregnancy resource center, and
says that its work to help mothers with unplanned pregnancies will
likewise be negatively impacted if it is unable to place children in
foster care or with adoptive families.

“OCFS has conditioned New Hope’s perpetual authorization to
perform adoption services on New Hope’s willingness to renounce or
violate its religious beliefs pertaining to marriage and family,” the
legal challenge states.

“Defendant has violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
by conditioning New Hope’s perpetual authorization to provide adoption
services on its willingness to relinquish its First Amendment rights,”
it contends.

New Hope says that there are numerous secular adoption agencies in
the state that work with unmarried or same-sex households, and that the
government does not need to force a Christian organization to violate
its mission or give up its right to the free exercise of religion to
accomplish its purposes.

It is seeking an injunction against OCFS enforcement, as well as a
declaration that the government’s actions violate the adoption agency’s
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Read the legal challenge in full here.