Florida court strikes down gay adoption ban

MIAMI Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:29pm EDT

Related Topics

MIAMI (Reuters) - There is no rational reason to prohibit all homosexuals from adopting children, a Florida appeals court said on Wednesday in a ruling that upheld a gay man's adoption of two young boys.

Florida was the only remaining U.S. state to expressly ban adoption by gay men and women, and state officials said after the court ruling the ban would no longer be enforced. They have 30 days to decide whether to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

A lower court found in 2008 that the ban violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment. It allowed the plaintiff, a gay man named Frank Martin Gill, to adopt two boys -- half-brothers he had been raising as foster children since 2004.

The Florida Department of Children and Families said the lower court erred and the adoption was illegal under the state's 33-year-old ban on adoption by gays.

But the state's Third District Court of Appeal in Miami on Wednesday upheld the lower court's finding that "there is no rational basis for the statute."

Gill said he was thrilled the court recognized that the ban did a disservice to children most in need.

"This is a giant step toward being able to give our sons the stability and permanency that they are being denied," Gill said in a statement issued by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Department of Children and Families was weighing whether to appeal Wednesday's ruling to the Florida Supreme Court. The appellate ruling applies directly only to the Gill family, and a decision from the state's highest court would provide a clear resolution in all jurisdictions.

"We are currently not enforcing the ban," department spokesman Joe Follick told Reuters in reaction to the ruling.

"The primary consideration on whether to appeal is finding the balance between the value of a final ruling from the Florida Supreme Court versus the impact on the Gill family."


The children were removed from their home because of abuse and neglect when one was 4 years old and the other 4 months old. A court terminated their crack-addicted parents' rights to the boys.

When they were placed with Gill, the older boy did not speak and the younger one had an untreated ear infection. Both had ringworm and other medical problems, the court documents said.

Both sides in the case, including state officials, agreed the children were thriving in the care of Gill and his male partner. The parties in the case also agreed "that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents," the appellate ruling noted.

"Given a total ban on adoption by homosexual persons, one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that homosexual persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents," the opinion states. "No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument."

During the original trial, psychologists, social workers, family experts and a clergyman gave conflicting testimony about the development of children raised by gays.

The court found such children were no more likely to be homosexuals themselves, engage in early sexual experimentation, suffer mental illness or domestic violence, or abuse drugs than children raised by heterosexuals.

The Department of Children and Families argued that children would have better role models and face less discrimination if they were placed in non-homosexual households, preferably with a husband and wife as the parents.

But the court said the statute did not accomplish that goal since it allowed single people to adopt and allowed gays to serve as foster parents.

"It is difficult to see any rational basis in utilizing homosexual persons as foster parents or guardians on a temporary or permanent basis, while imposing a blanket prohibition on adoption by those same persons," the court said.

Florida also allows people with criminal histories or histories of substance abuse to be considered as adoptive parents on a case-by-case basis, the ruling noted.

On average, there are about 850 children in state custody and available for adoption on any given day, Follick said.

The case is No. 3D08-3044, Florida Department of Children and Families versus In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (9)
lib4ever wrote:
This is a wonderful blow to bigotry and ignorance!!!!

Sep 22, 2010 5:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
wolf91101 wrote:
why should gays be allowed to adopt kids. marriage is a union between a man and woman. thru this union and love children are produced. it’s adam and eve, not adam and steve. i agree with no adoption to gays. yes i am adopted, i have that right to voice my opinion.

Sep 22, 2010 5:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
daniwitz13 wrote:
This problem exists because our courts and law makers have NOT made a definitive distinction between a Man and Woman. One has to be blind not to see that there are differences between the sexes. Besides others, the greatest is the FACT that one can bear and bring forth another human being. Needless to say, a Man cannot. A child is synonymous with a child, a Mother and Child. Therefore, any Woman can adopt a Child, whereas a man should not. There is a NATURAL bonding between a Woman and Child. Can a Man breastfeed a Child, NO. The prospect that a Man CAN nurture and raise a Child is irrelevant. The Child will sense that something is missing which is inborn to them. This is nothing against Fathers or Men, ONLY on the point of Men adopting Children and the role that Woman play as Mothers.

Sep 22, 2010 5:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.