In re: Gill is a landmark Florida court case that in 2010 ended Florida's 33-year ban on adoptions by homosexuals. In 2007, Frank Martin Gill, an openly gay man, had petitioned the circuit court to adopt two boys that he and his partner had been raising as foster children since 2004. Gill was prohibited from adopting by a 1977 Florida law prohibiting adoption by gay men and lesbians in that state.ACLU, "In re: Gill - Case Profile", January 19, 2011. After a four-day trial challenging the law, on November 25, 2008, Judge Cindy S. Lederman declared the ban violated the equal protection rights of the children and their prospective parents under the Florida Constitution, and granted Gill's adoption request.Almanzar, Yolanne, "Florida Gay Adoption Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional", New York Times, November 25, 2008.
The state of Florida appealed the trial court decision.Morales, Ileana, "Gay Adoption before Florida Legislature, courts", Associated Press, April 29, 2009. Oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal on August 26, 2009.Anderson, Curt "Fla. gay adoption ban goes to appeals court", Associated Press, August 26, 2009. The district court upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on September 22, 2010, and the state declined to pursue any further appeals, thus effectively nullifying the anti-gay adoption statute. The Florida Legislature undertook comprehensive adoption reform in 2015, repealing the 1977 ban on homosexual adoption, which the state had not enforced since 2010.Gay adoption ban stricken from Florida laws after four decades
Background
Florida adoption cases
In 1977, at the peak of the anti-gay Save Our Children campaign led by Anita Bryant to repeal a Miami-Dade human rights law, the Florida Legislature enacted a law prohibiting adoptions by homosexuals.2010 Florida Statutes, section 63.042(3), accessed 8 July 2011: "No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual."
Several attempts were made in the state legislature to repeal the adoption ban, and there were several unsuccessful challenges in Florida courts, including:
Seebol v. Farie (1991) Cox. v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (1995)Cox v. Fla. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Svcs., 656 So. 2d 902 Amer v. Johnson (1997)
In 1999, the issue was heard in federal court for the first time when the case of Lofton v. Kearney was taken to the United States District Court in South Florida, which upheld the state law in August 2001.Lofton v. Kearney, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Key West Division, 30 August 2001 The case was appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. In May 2002, while the Lofton case was pending, eight former state legislators who voted for the 1977 ban, including the former Senate President and House Speaker, repudiated the law. Former representative Elaine Bloom said, "The hysteria of the times led us to do the wrong thing.""'We Were Wrong,' Say Former Legislators Who Voted For Florida Gay Adoption Ban Nearly 25 Years Ago," American Civil Liberties Union press release, May 17, 2002, accessed July 16, 2011
Furthermore, in June 2003 the U. S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas struck down all remaining sodomy laws nationwide as being unconstitutional violations of the due process rights of gays and lesbians. However, in January 2004, the appeals court ruled against Lofton, finding that the adoption ban did not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.Lofton v. Florida Department of Children and Families, United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 28 January 2004, accessed 9 July 2011Grossman, Joanna. "Adoption Rights for Gays and Lesbians in Florida: A Trial Court Rules That the State's Longstanding Ban Must End," findlaw.com, 9 Dec. 2008, accessed 9 July 2011 In May 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Lofton.Greenhouse, Linda. "Justices Refuse to Consider Law Banning Gay Adoption," The New York Times, 11 January 2005
Foster parenting in Florida
Although homosexuals were prohibited from adopting, the state did allow them to be foster parents or legal guardians. In 1992 a lesbian couple had filed suit (Matthews v. Weinberg 645 So. 2d 487) after the state removed a six-year-old foster child from their home on account of their sexual orientation. In 1994, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the legislature had not prohibited homosexuals or unmarried couples from serving as foster parents. Thereafter, state child welfare workers placed numerous children (including victims of abuse or neglect, special needs children, and infants or toddlers with HIV or AIDS) with same-sex couples over the years, as was the case with the Gill family. As Judge Lederman noted:
During the Gill trial, the Florida Department of Children and Families,Prior to reorganization in 1996, known as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). which operates the state foster care system, admitted in court that "gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents ... that placing children with gay adoptive parents does not harm or disadvantage children emotionally or physically ... [and] that gay people could be the ideal placements for some children." At that time, there were 3,535 children in state custody needing adoptive parents."What Florida's Department of Children and Families Says About The Ban," American Civil Liberties Union, 2 November 2008, accessed 8 July 2011
Issue
On December 11, 2004, the Florida Department of Children and Families placed two boys, who are referred to as John and James Doe in court papers, in the home of Martin Gill and his partner, who had previously fostered several other children. Four-year-old John and four-month-old James were only supposed to be with Gill temporarily, but plans for them to live with relatives fell through.
In 2006, a judge terminated the parental rights of the boys' biological parents. Gill subsequently petitioned the Florida Department of Children and Families in October 2006 to adopt the boys, but although every assessment and home study showed that the boys were thriving under the excellent care of Gill and his partner, DCF denied the petition because it violated the law against adoption by a homosexual. With the help of attorneys provided by the American Civil Liberties Union, Gill filed a petition for adoption with the circuit court in January 2007, which held a four-day hearing on the case in October 2008. The Department of Children and Families was represented by attorneys from the state Attorney General's office. Judge Lederman found in favor of the plaintiff, Gill, and granted the adoption in her ruling on November 25, 2008.
Circuit Court
Over the course of a four-day trial before the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida in Miami-Dade County, both the petitioners and the state presented evidence relating to the best interests of the children involved as well as evidence related to the legitimacy of the ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians.
A psychologist who evaluated the boys testified that it was in their best interests to be adopted by Gill, and that removing them from their home would be devastating. The boys' guardian ad litem, appointed by the court to represent their interests in the proceedings, called Gill and his partner "model parents" and their home "one of the most caring and nurturing placements" he had seen.
The ACLU, representing Gill, called expert witnesses who cited studies that found no significant differences in the stability of same-sex relationships compared to opposite-sex relationships, and no significant differences in outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents versus opposite-sex parents.
The state called Dr. George Alan Rekers, at the time an officer and scientific advisor of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), who presented research (some of which had already been discredited) finding that gay men and lesbians suffered higher rates of depression, anxiety, affective disorders and substance abuse than heterosexuals and that same-sex relationships were less stable than opposite-sex ones. The state also called a second expert witness, Dr. Walter Schumm, Associate Professor of Family Studies at Kansas State University, who conceded that a case-by-case assessment of potential adoptive parents who are gay or lesbian would be more appropriate than the current blanket exclusion.
During the trial, Rekers testified that "gay people [are] mentally unstable and advised that the ban should be expanded to include Native Americans because, Rekers claimed, they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse.""Attorney General Bill McCollum's "Expert" Witness Caught with Male Prostitute," Equality Florida, 4 May 2010, accessed 8 July 2011 However, in her ruling on the case Judge Lederman stated that the testimony of George Rekers "was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence," and that "Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions. ... The court cannot consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."
In her order granting the petition to adopt, Judge Lederman (who had presided over many child welfare cases as Presiding Judge of the Miami-Dade Juvenile Court since 1994) found that Florida's adoption ban violated the equal protection rights of Gill and the minor children without a rational basis for doing so. The court also found that the ban violated state and federal guarantees of the children's right to permanency.Gandossy, Taylor, "Judge overturns Florida ban on adoption by gays", CNN, November 25, 2008. The judge stated in her decision:
Reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010 Florida Department of Children and Families, Appellant, vs. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal
The Attorney General's office immediately announced its intention to appeal the ruling. In December 2008, lawyers for Gill and the children filed a motion requesting that the Florida Supreme Court take up the case immediately, which was denied.
Oral arguments were heard by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal on August 26, 2009. Some observers believed the case would ultimately be decided by the Florida Supreme Court.Miller, Carol Marbin and Gonzalez, Gabriella "Florida's gay adoption ban now in hands of appeals court", Miami Herald, August 26, 2009.
In the appeals court, state attorneys working for McCollum redoubled their efforts to maintain the ban on gay adoptions, and furthermore sought to remove the children from the Gill home, where they had resided happily for five years and, as the circuit judge found, "thrived." In November 2009, the Palm Beach Post reported: