Co-Parent Adoption: The Ease and the Pitfalls of the Simplified Process
Even with the steps forward taken by this state to promote equality for same-sex couples with respect to marriage and adoption, it is evident there are still gaps in our statutory scheme that need reform to adequately reflect society's evolving attitude to promoting strong family structures for all couples seeking to start a family.
January 22, 2024 at 10:30 AM
7 minute read
In recognition of the outdated legal limits placed on same-sex couples ability to start a family, the New Jersey Legal Parentage Act (N.J.S.A. 9:17-69 to 71) amended the law governing the adoption of children in 2020. The law now permits civil union partners and married same-sex couples to obtain a judgment of adoption, in simplified fashion, without background checks or a court appearance. This new simplified co-parent adoption legislation replaces the cumbersome procedure of a second parent or step-parent adoption for same-sex couples.
Unlike for same-sex couples, there is a presumption of paternity for a husband under N.J.S.A. 9:17-43 for married heterosexual couples. Prior to the enactment of the Legal Parentage Act, same-sex couples had to undergo a lengthy and expensive process to adopt, even if both parents were listed on the child's birth certificate. The adoption process, for same-sex parents previously required background checks including: (l) Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) fingerprint background checks; (2) Division of Child Protection and Permanency system name checks, now referred to as Child Abuse Records Information (CARI); and (3) Domestic Violence Registry checks. As a result of the enactment of the Legal Parentage Act, courts now waive those background checks. However, the co-parent adoption process does not obviate the need for same-sex couples in New Jersey to obtain a judgment of adoption, it merely simplifies the process.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllReminder: Court Rules and Statutes Apply to Pendente Lite Custody Decisions
8 minute readAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250