Persons eligible to adopt a child or an adult are:
(1) A single person.
(2) A married person and his or her spouse.
(3) A married person individually “without his or her spouse joining in the petition” if the individual is adopting an adult and “if all of the interested parties consent.”
(4) A married person individually “without his or her spouse joining in the petition” if the individual is adopting a child and “if the failure of the other spouse to join in the petition or to consent to the adoption is excused by the court for good cause shown or in the best interest of the child.” MCL 710.24(1)-(2).
B. Persons Not Eligible to Adopt
1.Persons Convicted of Child Abuse or Criminal Sexual Conduct
Before an adoptive parent is approved for child placement, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires a criminal record check be conducted on the prospective adoptive parent. See 42 USC 671(a)(20)(A) (requiring, for purposes of federal funding, Michigan to conduct a criminal record check for a prospective adoptive parent before the adoptive parent is approved for child placement).1
The prospective adoptive parent may not adopt a child if his or her criminal record shows that the adoptive parent has been convicted of child abuse or criminal sexual conduct. See MCL 710.22a, which specifically provides:
“A child shall not be placed with a prospective adoptive parent and an adoption order shall be not issued if a person authorized to place the child or the court authorized to issue the order has reliable information that the prospective adoptive parent has been convicted under any of the following:
(a) . . . [accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purpose under] MCL 750.145a and [child sexually abusive activity or material under MCL] 750.145c.
(b) . . . [criminal sexual conduct or assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct under] MCL 750.520b to [MCL] 750.520g.
(c) A law of another state substantially similar to 1 of the sections included in subdivision (a) or (b).”
For additional information on the enumerated crimes listed in MCL 710.22a, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Sexual Assault Benchbook.
2.Unrelated Adults or Unmarried Partners (Second Parent Adoptions)
Although Michigan trial courts are seeing unrelated persons petitioning together to adopt a child or adult, the statutory authority holds firm to limiting the group of prospective adoptive parents to single persons, married persons filing a joint petition for adoption with his or her spouse, and a married person individually filing a petition for adoption “without his or her spouse joining in the petition” in certain limited circumstances. See MCL 710.24(1)-(2).
However, a second parent adoption properly entered in one State must be recognized in its sister States under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause. VL v EL, 577 US 404, 405-406 (2016) (reversing the Alabama Supreme Court and remanding for further proceedings on the adoptive parent’s request for child custody because the Alabama Supreme Court was obligated under the United State Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize an adoption judgment entered by a Georgia court that had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and decide an adoption petition that resulted in it entering a “final decree of adoption [that] allow[ed the biological mother’s same-sex partner] to adopt the children and recogniz[ed] both [the biological mother and her same-sex partner] as [the children’s] legal parents”). See also Giancaspro v Congleton, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 19, 2009 (Docket No. 283267)2 (finding that, where a single parent internationally adopted three children from China and an Illinois court permitted the adoptive parent’s partner to adopt the children under a second parent adoption, “[t]he trial court correctly concluded that the Judgment of Adoption entered in Illinois [was] entitled to full faith and credit under the United States Constitution, establishing each party as an adoptive parent of the minor children, irrespective of their relationship with each other and irrespective of whether they could have jointly adopted the children in Michigan[, but t]he trial court erred in failing to recognize that, as a consequence, [the partner] ha[d] validly stated a claim on which relief c[ould] be granted under the Child Custody Act in Michigan.”).
C.Considerations of Age, Race, National Origin, Religious Affiliation, Disability, or Income
A prospective adoptive parent must not be refused services based solely on his or her age, race, religious affiliation, disability, or income level.3 MCL 722.957(1). However, religious affiliation may be considered when the adoption facilitator is a private child placing agency operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious institution or organization. MCL 722.957(2).
For purposes of federal funding, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires that Michigan have a state plan in place that prohibits the state or any other entity within the state from denying a person the opportunity to become an adoptive parent or have a child placed for adoption with him or her on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person, or of the child involved, and prevents Michigan from delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive parent or the child. 42 USC 671(a)(18)(A)-(B). For additional information on federal funding subsidies, see Section 10.8.
Moreover, it is a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 2000d et seq., to delay or deny an adoptive or foster parent the opportunity of child placement on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
But see the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 1901 et seq., and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), MCL 712B.1 et seq., which requires certain placement preferences be followed when the adoptee is an Indian child. See Chapter 11 for information on the ICWA and the MIFPA.
1 For additional information on federal funding subsidies, see Section 10.8.
2 Unpublished opinions are not precedentially binding under the rule of stare decisis. MCR 7.215(C)(1).
3 But see In re ASF, 311 Mich App 420, 435 (2015) (finding that the MCI Superintendent did not violate MCL 722.957(1) by considering the petitioners’ ages where the MCI Superintendent “did not withhold consent to adopt solely on the basis of [the] petitioners’ ages”; “[rather, the] petitioners’ ages were only one factor that [was] considered[ among] . . . many other factors involved in [the] decision to withhold consent”). The Court also found that the MCI Superintendent did not violate the Michigan Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2302(a), by considering the petitioners’ ages when the “consent for adoption was denied because the [MCI S]uperintendent found that adoption by [the] petitioners was not in [the child’s] best interests in light of a number of factors, including [the] petitioners’ ability and willingness to provide long-term care for a then four-year-old child.”