Rutan-Ram v. Tenn. Dep't of Children's Servs.

• Docket Number: M2022-00998-COA-R3-CV
• Decision Date: 24 August 2023
• Parties: ELIZABETH RUTAN-RAM ET AL. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES ET AL.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

ELIZABETH RUTAN-RAM ET AL.
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES ET AL.

No. M2022-00998-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

August 24, 2023

Session March 3, 2023

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 22-80-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor Carter S. Moore, Judge Roy B. Morgan, Judge

The plaintiffs, a prospective adoptive couple and six other Tennessee taxpayers, brought this declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147, which allows private child-placing agencies that receive state funding to deny services to prospective foster or adoptive parents based upon the agencies' religious beliefs. A three-judge panel concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute. We have determined that the plaintiffs have standing and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded

Alexander Joseph Luchenitser, Gabriela Marissa Hybel, and Richard Brian Katskee, Washington, D.C., and Scott A. Kramer, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Elizabeth Rutan-Ram, Gabriel Rutan-Ram, Jeannie Alexander, Elaine Blanchard, Larry Blanz, Alaina Cobb, Denise Gyauch, and Mirabelle Stoedter.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter, Andree Blumstein, Solicitor General, Reed N. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, and Trenton Michael Meriwether, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellees, Tennessee Department of Children's Services and Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Children's Services.

ANDY D. BENNETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., P.J., M.S., and JEFFREY USMAN, J., joined.

2

OPINION

ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE

In Tennessee, as in many other states, the State contracts with private child-placing agencies ("CPAs") to provide child placement services (including placement, training, supervision, and support services) to prospective and current foster and adoptive parents. In January 2020, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147,^[1]which permits private CPAs that receive state funding to deny services to prospective foster or adoptive parents based on the agencies' "religious or moral convictions or policies."

Gabriel and Elizabeth Rutan-Ram ("the Couple") are a married Jewish couple who live in Knox County, Tennessee. In January 2021, the Couple began efforts to foster and then adopt a child. They identified a child in Florida whom they were interested in fostering and adopting. To be eligible to foster the Florida child, the Couple was required to obtain foster training and a home study from a CPA licensed in Tennessee. The Couple contacted Holston United Methodist Home for Children ("Holston"), a private CPA that receives funding from the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS" or "the Department") to perform child placement services.

On January 21, 2021, Holston informed the Couple that the agency refused to serve them because the Couple did not share the agency's religious beliefs. Pursuant to Holston's guidelines, the agency will serve only prospective or adoptive parents who agree with Holston's statement of faith. Because they were unable to find another CPA in their area that would provide the services needed for an out-of-state adoption, the Couple was not able to adopt the child in Florida.

3

The Couple subsequently decided to seek approval as foster parents for children in the State of Tennessee, rather than considering children in other states. The Couple did not contact Holston again because Holston had already informed the Couple that the agency would not provide child placement services to them due to their Jewish faith. The Department itself provided the Couple with the required training and home study, and the Department approved the Couple as foster parents in June 2021. Since then, the Couple has acted as foster parents for a teenage girl, whom they hope to adopt. The Couple also intends to serve as foster parents for at least one additional child and to pursue adoption of that child.

On January 19, 2022, the Couple and six Tennessee taxpayer residents (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this lawsuit against DCS and its commissioner (collectively, "Defendants") alleging that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-147 and DCS's funding of Holston violate the Tennessee Constitution, specifically article I, sections 3 and 8, and article XI, section 8. In accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-18-101(a)(1)(A), the matter was assigned to a three-judge panel appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2022. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged, in part:

50. Ms. Rutan-Ram was deeply hurt and shocked when she received [the email from a Holston employee informing the Couple that Holston would not provide them with services] Holston's refusal to serve her felt like a punch in the gut or a slap in the face. Ms. Rutan-Ram did not expect that a state-funded agency would reject a loving family simply because the family did not share the agency's preferred religious beliefs. She felt sad that Holston would not help her provide a loving home to the child whom she and her husband had hoped to welcome into their family

51. Mr. Rutan-Ram similarly was hurt, frustrated, and disappointed to learn that his family had been discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. ...

62. State funds that the Department provides to Holston and other childplacing agencies for placement, training, supervision, and support services for current and prospective foster parents come from the State's general fund.

63. The General Assembly annually appropriates funds from the State's general fund to the Department that the Department then pays to private child-placing agencies for placement, training, supervision, and support services for current and prospective foster parents.

4

64. For example, the General Assembly appropriated $382,748,900 from the State's general fund to the Department for the 2021-22 fiscal year, of which $39,717,200 was designated for "Family Support Services," $105,924,800 was designated for "Custody Services," $69,961,600 was designated for "Adoption Services," and $105,819,700 was designated for "Child and Family Management."

65. The plaintiffs are informed and believe that the funds that the Department provides to private child-placing agencies for placement, training, supervision, and support services for current and prospective foster parents come from one or more of these four line items. ...

80. When a government-funded child-placing agency serves only foster parents of a particular faith, that inherently advances that faith, including by directing public funds exclusively to the benefit of members of the faith, and by increasing the likelihood that children served by the agency will be taught or raised in that faith. ...

93. The fact that Holston's refusal to serve them because of their Jewish faith rendered Holston unavailable as an option for obtaining the foster-parent training and home-study needed for approval to serve as foster parents for children in the custody of the State of Tennessee perpetuated the feelings of hurt, sadness, disappointment, and frustration that the Rutan-Rams initially felt when Holston informed them that it would not serve them. ...

105. The Rutan-Rams understand that many private child-placing agencies have reputations of being more efficient and easier to work with than the Department is and of providing better experiences and services to foster parents than the Department does.

106. In addition, a private child-placing agency that operates a facility referred to as a "Group Care Facility" by the Department-a residential facility for children whom the Department classifies as temporarily unable to live at home or with a foster family-will often place those children with foster parents affiliated with that agency once the children are deemed ready to be placed in a foster home.

5

107. Children who reside in Group Care Facilities are particularly likely to have had their parental rights terminated or to be close to having those rights terminated, and are therefore particularly likely to be or soon become available for adoption.

108. A child-placing agency that operates a Group Care Facility is also particularly likely to have detailed knowledge about the characteristics and needs of children from its Group Care Facility whom the agency places with foster parents affiliated with the agency, which the agency can then share with the foster parents to ease the children's transition to the foster home.

109. Thus, partnering with a child-placing facility that also runs a Group Care Facility can be especially beneficial to couples, like the Rutan-Rams, who are interested in eventually adopting a child whom they foster.

110. For these reasons, once their service as the long-term foster parents of the teenage girl is concluded, and in conjunction with commencing the process of serving as the long-term foster parents of another child, the Rutan-Rams will give serious consideration to partnering with and serving as the foster parents for a private child-placing agency instead of continuing to work directly with the Department.

...

112. If state-funded private child-placing agencies were not permitted to discriminate against foster parents based on religion, the Rutan-Rams would likely choose to work with a private child-placing agency when they commence the process of serving as the long-term foster parents of another child.

113. Indeed, if Holston itself were to end its practice of discriminating against foster parents based on religion, and Holston turned out

...