A mother of four
asking her uncle to provide temporary foster care for
her children while she undergoes drug rehab should be of no
concern to anyone but her and her uncle. Unless
that uncle cohabits with another man and lives in
Utah.
There was a time
not too long ago when a typical evening in Mike Oberg
and Gregg Valdez’s home involved a quiet family meal
in the kitchen of their comfortable residence in
Salem, Utah. During the meal they’d chat about
their day and ask Little Mike, Valdez’s 13-year-old
son, about school or skateboarding; if Valdez’s
17-year-old daughter wasn’t out with friends,
she might join them at the table.
But that quiet
evening ritual changed when Valdez’s niece,
Antoinette Rudman, 34, had a drug relapse in mid
September and called her uncle on a Friday afternoon
to ask if he’d temporarily take care of her four
young children. Valdez, who works as a case manager at
a local prison, immediately jumped in his car to pick
them up.
Though the family
still gathers for dinner every evening, now there’s
an excited energy at the table as the older kids chat
and squabble. After dinner, the couple, who have been
together for more than four years, spend most of the
evening prodding the children to do their homework and
to take their baths. Though Valdez calls the experience a
“fun challenge,” he also wryly notes
that “it’s not quiet anymore. And there
aren’t leftovers anymore.”
In most states
and in most cases, the agreement Rudman had made with
Valdez about the care of her children wouldn’t merit
much attention, since the person that a parent chooses
as a temporary guardian is a private matter. But an
assistant attorney general representing the
state’s Division of Child and Family Services has
argued that because Rudman was being monitored by the
state for drug use, the arrangement violates a Utah
state law that prohibits those cohabitating in a sexual
relationship from becoming foster or adoptive parents -- a
law that some critics say was designed to target gay
and lesbian couples.
Following the
legal challenge, the children have been allowed to remain
in Valdez’s custody only because of an emergency
court order; a hearing scheduled for October
29 will determine whether the children will be
returned to their mother, will stay with Valdez or other
relatives, or will be placed elsewhere.
Click here to follow The Advocate on Twitter.
Page 1 of 3