Scott v. Family Ministries
California Court of Appeal
135 Cal. Rptr. 430 (1976)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
World Vision, an evangelical Christian relief organization, operated a childcare center in Cambodia in 1974. Individuals who brought children to the childcare center were told that the child could be placed for adoption in a Christian home in another country. In April 1975, 20 children were evacuated from Phnom Penh by World Vision with the consent of the Cambodian government and were brought to California. However, because World Vision was not a licensed adoption agency in California, World Vision transferred custody of the children to Family Ministries (defendant) with the requirement that the children be placed in evangelical Protestant homes. Family Ministries only placed children in evangelical homes, excluding children from Catholic, Episcopalian, Jewish, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, and Buddhist homes. Richard Scott (plaintiff) was a physician who treated Toup Ven, one of the children brought to the United States. When Scott attempted to adopt Toup Ven, Family Ministries refused to consider Scott because Scott was Episcopalian. Scott filed a lawsuit against Family Ministries on behalf of himself and the 20 children and filed a petition to adopt Toup Ven. The court granted Scott’s petition to adopt Toup Ven and appointed Scott as guardian ad litem for the children. The trial court later entered a judgment against Family Ministries preventing the agency from placing the children for adoption. Family Ministries appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, 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. 46,500 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.