What does out of wedlock mean when a child is adopted?

OK, this might be a question only attorneys would ask, but there’s a reason why we ask it, and that reason is A.R.S. § 8-117. That law states that when a child is adopted, the law will treat that child “as though the child were born to the adoptive parent in lawful wedlock.” That was the issue in Sheets v. Mead, 238 Ariz. 55 (App. 2015) where a lesbian couple had been foster parents to a child. They intended to raise the child together, but because same-sex marriage was not legal at the time, only one of them could adopt the child. Thereafter, they broke up, and the adoptive mother blocked her former partner from seeing the child. Her former partner filed for third-party visitation on the basis that the child was not born in lawful wedlock. The Court of Appeals held that when a child is adopted before a visitation petition is filed, a third party cannot bring a visitation petition on the basis that the child was born out of wedlock. Sheets v. Mead, 238 Ariz. 55, 58 ¶ 16 (App. 2015). That ruling was, for obvious, widely viewed as unjust. The Legislature has since responded by changing the law to override Sheets by introducing A.R.S. § 25-409(I), which provides, “For the purposes of this section, a child who is adopted may be treated as if born in lawful wedlock only if the child is adopted jointly by parents who are married to one another as provided in section 8-103, subsection A.”