In the Matter of the Adoption of T.K.J. and K.A.K., Children
Colorado Court of Appeals
931 P.2d 488 (1996)

- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
G.K. and L.J. (plaintiffs) were an unmarried, same-sex couple. Each was the natural mother of one of the two children, T.K.J. and K.A.K. G.K. and L.J. both sought a coparent adoption of the other’s biological child, which would grant the rights and duties of a stepparent adoption while allowing her to retain the parental rights of her biological child. Under Colorado law, a child was available for adoption “only upon” (1) a court order terminating the parent-child relationship; (2) a court order memorializing a parent’s voluntary relinquishment of parental rights; (3) consent of the parent in a stepparent relationship if the other parent was deceased, terminated the parent-child relationship, or abandoned or failed to provide support for the child; or (4) consent of the parent or parents in a stepparent adoption if the child was born out of wedlock. The law also stated that after adoption, the natural parents “shall be” divested of any legal rights or obligations related to the child. The district court denied G.K. and L.J.’s petition for adoption, finding that T.K.J and K.A.K. were not available for adoption within the meaning of the law because G.K. and L.J. were unmarried and each sought to retain her parental rights over her biological child. G.K. and L.J. appealed, arguing that the law was silent as to whether a person could adopt the child of an unmarried partner without terminating that parent’s rights and duties and that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of adoption.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Metzger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.