Catholic Social Services Properly Denied Injunction in Foster Care Case | New Jersey Law Journal

Catholic Social Services Properly Denied Injunction in Foster Care Case | New Jersey Law Journal


by the  Editorial Board - New Jersey Law Journal

An outbreak of yellow fever in 1797 spurred the formation of what is now Catholic Social Services of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia (CSS). Rooted in the corporal works of mercy, a principal mission of CSS is the care of vulnerable children. But what began as a voluntary mission of mercy has been transformed. Today the care of foster children is a highly regulated public service, much of which is carried out by private agencies which contract with cities, towns and states. CSS was one of 30 agencies that contracted with the City of Philadelphia for foster care services. Unable to reach an agreement with the city, CSS’s contract expired. It has not been renewed.

CSS objects to the terms set by city nondiscrimination law. It accepts that it is subject to governmental oversight, but an element of the Catholic Catechism leads it to refuse to place children with same-sex couples. CSS will only certify foster parents who are either married or single; it will not certify cohabiting unmarried couples, and it considers all same-sex couples to be unmarried, according to the Third Circuit’s opinion in Fulton and Catholic Social Services v. City of Philadelphia.

Although there is no record of any same sex-couple challenging the agency, the city terminated the CSS contract. CSS sought a preliminary injunction requiring the city to renew its contact and permitting it to turn away same-sex couples who wish to be foster parents. The injunction was denied in the district court, and the denial affirmed on appeal.

In its opinion, the Third Circuit asks, did Philadelphia “have the authority to insist, consistent with the First Amendment and Pennsylvania law, that CSS not discriminate against same-sex couples as a condition of working with it to provide foster care services? Or, inversely, has CSS demonstrated that the City transgressed fundamental guarantees of religious liberty? At this stage and on this record, we conclude that CSS is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.”

keep reading