## Facts

- World Vision operated child-care centers abroad and, in 1974, opened the Tuol Kauk Nutrition Center in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, caring for needy and often seriously ill children.
- As conditions worsened in Cambodia, World Vision arranged (with governmental consent) to evacuate twenty Cambodian children to the United States in April 1975 and brought them to California.
- Because World Vision was not licensed as a California adoption agency, it transferred custody of the children to Family Ministries, a California nonprofit and state-licensed private adoption agency.
- The transfer was conditioned on the children being placed only in evangelical Protestant homes; Family Ministries adopted and enforced that limitation, excluding otherwise qualified adoptive parents of other faiths.
- Dr. Richard Scott (Episcopalian) treated Toup Yen, one of the children, and he and his wife sought to adopt her; Family Ministries refused to consider them solely because they were not evangelical Protestant.
- The Scotts sued for injunctive and declaratory relief to stop enforcement of the religious restriction and to prevent steps toward adoption placements under that policy; they also petitioned to adopt Toup Yen.
- The trial court granted the adoption petition, appointed Dr. Scott guardian ad litem for the group of twenty children, and permanently enjoined Family Ministries from placing the children for adoption subject to its evangelical-only policy.

## Issues

1. Whether a private, state-licensed adoption agency may impose religious eligibility requirements on prospective adoptive parents beyond the limited religious matching provisions in California Administrative Code, title 22, § 30643.
2. Whether a private licensed adoption agency’s placement decisions under California’s adoption scheme constitute state action subject to constitutional limits.
3. Whether asserted defects in pleadings, standing, or alleged judicial prejudice required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the permanent injunction barring Family Ministries from enforcing an evangelical-only placement policy.
- The court held that a licensed private adoption agency’s placement activity constitutes state action because California delegates to such agencies key governmental functions leading to judicially authorized adoption.
- The court construed title 22, § 30643 to avoid constitutional infirmity by interpreting it to preclude agencies from imposing religious requirements beyond the regulation’s limited religious matching provisions.
- The court rejected ancillary arguments concerning pleading sufficiency, standing, and judicial prejudice as inadequate to disturb the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- When a private adoption agency is licensed and integrated into a state adoption framework such that it performs required steps leading to a court-approved adoption, its placement decisions are attributable to the state and are subject to constitutional constraints.
- Regulatory authorization for limited “religious matching” in adoption placements cannot be read to permit broad religious tests or categorical exclusions of otherwise qualified adoptive parents.
- Courts may construe administrative regulations narrowly to avoid unconstitutional state-sanctioned religious discrimination in adoption placements.

## Conclusion

A state-licensed private adoption agency performing essential placement functions within California’s statutory adoption system acts under state authority and may not enforce a blanket religious eligibility policy; any permissible consideration of religion is limited to the narrow religious matching allowed by regulation as constitutionally construed.


Scott v. Family Ministries, 135 Cal. Rptr. 430 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)