The Real-World Narrative Con't (Part 2)

[Again, one real-world narrative may be worth a thousand abstractions.  Part 1 is here.]

The Children presented Dr. David Brodzinsky, a Clinical and Developmental Psychologist from Oakland, California as an expert in child clinical psychology, developmental psychology with a specialization in adoption, foster care, attachment and the adjustment of children in adoption. Dr. Brodzinsky was retained to conduct an evaluation and assessment of the children’s relationship and attachment to Petitioner, specifically, as the Petitioner, but also to Roe and Tom Roe, Jr., as part of the family unit. Dr. Brodzinsky’s assessment entails compiling facts about the children’s history, observing and interviewing to determine the existence and quality of the children’s attachment to their caregivers. In forming an assessment, the doctor also analyzes the behaviors and tendencies of the children towards the caregivers when stressed, the verbal and non-verbal cues to determine whether the children view their foster parents as individuals capable of offering comfort and advice and, whether the foster parents offer a secure base for the children. Dr. Brodzinsky evaluated the family for six hours over a two-day period in May 2007, at home, during play, individually, during familial interactions and at school.

According to Dr. Brodzinsky, at the time of the assessment, the children were, understandably, slightly more attached to Petitioner, as the primary caregiver who also took time off of work to help the children adjust immediately after the placement. However, the witness also noted that the children exhibited strong signs of attachment to Roe and Tom Roe, Jr., who they consider their “daddy” and older brother. The children showed healthy signs of social development, in that, they were appropriately friendly, but not overly friendly with the witness, who tried to act as a non-participating observer. During playtime, the children rode their bikes after Petitioner reviewed the rules of bicycle riding. During the children’s play, Petitioner maintained focus on their whereabouts and surroundings. The witness was also privy to appropriate levels of sibling conflict, which were quickly resolved.

The children’s teachers, coined in the field as “collateral informants” typically provide useful information into a child’s day-to-day life, cleanliness, and parental involvement. Here, during individual interviews with Dr. Brodzinsky, John and James teachers reported that Petitioner and Roe were very involved in the children’s educational development. Due to the lack of educational support prior to arrival at the Petitioner-Roe home, John struggled in school and had to repeat first grade, but was progressing.

With regard to the children’s understanding of their family dynamic, Dr. Brodzinsky reported that, obviously, James has no independent memory of his former family or caretakers. John has a limited memory of his former family and sometimes confused interactions with his mother and aunt. John, who has had no contact with his sisters in about two years, stated that he misses them. While John did not understand the meaning of adoption at the time of the assessment, Tom Roe, Jr., comprehended the concept in an age appropriate manner.

Based on his assessment, Dr. Brodzinsky concluded that John and James would be emotionally devastated if removed from the Petitioner-Roe home. As Petitioner, Roe and Tom Roe, Jr., are the only family James knows and as John has not yet developed stability, a second separation would cause academic regression, separation anxiety, sleep problems, and trust issues. The witness also opined that it is in children’s best interest to be adopted by Petitioner, as opposed to maintaining lesser forms of permanency through continued foster care, permanent guardianship or the like. According to Dr. Brodzinsky, children, at age appropriate levels, understand that foster parents and guardians are not a legal family. The doctor does not consider Petitioner and Roe’s sexual orientation a factor in their parental abilities or the children’s wellbeing. He concludes that: (1) Petitioner and Roe’s quality of parenting is high and healthy; (2) the parent-child relationships are strong and healthy; (3) the resources and educational opportunities available to the children in the Petitioner-Roe home are beneficial; and (4) separation would cause emotional trauma to John, James and Tom Roe, Jr.

The Court also heard testimony from Ronald Gilbert, the children’s Guardian Ad Litem since June 2005. Mr. Gilbert, who has served as Guardian Ad Litem to over 100 children, visits the Petitioner-Roe household monthly to observe the children and the family. Based on Mr. Gilbert’s observations, the children are in excellent health, well behaved, performing well in school and bonded to Petitioner, Roe and Tom Roe, Jr. During his visits, the Guardian regularly sees the three children playing and hugging one another like brothers. Based on his interactions and observations of other foster parents, Mr. Gilbert believes Petitioner and Roe are model parents. In fact, he testified that in all of his 100 cases as a Guardian Ad Litem, the Petitioner home is one of the most caring and nurturing placements he has encountered. He further opines that adoption is the preferred form of permanency over permanent guardianship because John and James deserve parents. According to the Guardian, the children would suffer mentally and physically if separated from Petitioner, Roe and Tom Roe, Jr. The Guardian Ad Litem’s official recommendation is to allow the Petitioner to adopt the children and states it is in the manifest best interest of the children.

The Guardian Ad Litem Program presented the testimony of Yves Francois, Adoption Supervisor for the Center for Family and Child Enrichment. Mr. Francois was assigned to this case in December 2005. He testified as to his personal knowledge of the minor children and the Petitioner and his knowledge of the policies and procedures for adoption in Florida. Mr. Francois confirmed that no one else has applied to adopt the minor children, and there is an adoption hold placed on the minor children until a final determination is made on Petitioner’s petition to adopt, as is customary. The witness explained that a “permanency plan” attempts to place the children in a stable home environment until the age of majority. By definition, permanency is achieved when a child is reunified with his/her parents, placed with a permanent guardian or family member or adopted. Mr. Francois stressed that, when adopted, a child gains parents and shares legal rights with those parents. The witness reports that when it became evident that John and James were in a termination of parental rights case, their permanency plan
became, and remains, adoption.

In October 2006, Mr. Francois performed a home study in connection with Petitioner’s petition for adoption. According to Mr. Francois, although all aspects of the home study were positive, CFCE could not recommend adoption only because of the statutory exclusion of homosexuals as adoptive parents. Lastly, Mr. Francois stated that if the children are not adopted by Petitioner, rather than allowing the children to remain in foster care until they reach the age of majority, CFCE would recruit other prospective adoptive parents, which, due to the age of the children, may result in separation of the siblings.

[More to come, later.]