[Previous entries here, here, and here.]
Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad, it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic. Qualities indicative of good parenting include attentiveness, involvement in a child’s educational development, the ability to sooth, offer comfort, advice and a secure base for a child, the provision of resources and maintaining a warm, harmonious environment. The most important factor in ensuring a well adjusted child is the quality of parenting.
Similarly, a child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. More importantly, sexual orientation, solely, should not interfere with a child’s right to enjoy the accoutrements of a legal family. John and James, due to no fault of their own, were removed from an environment perilous to their physical, emotional and educational well being. Their biological parents relinquished them to the State, which in turn placed them into an environment that allowed them, eventually, to heal, and now flourish.
The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. Many well renowned, regarded and respected professionals have reduced methodologically sound longitudinal and cross-sectional studies into hundreds of reports. Some of the longitudinal studies have tracked children for six, ten and fourteen years. The starting ages of the children in the longitudinal studies has varied from birth, six to ten years old and followed them throughout childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. The studies and reports are published in many well respected peer reviewed journals including the Journal of Child Development, the Journal of Family Psychology, the Journal of Child Psychology, and the Journal of Child Psychiatry. Each of the studies and hundreds of reports also withstood the rigorous peer review process and were tested statistically, rationally and methodologically by seasoned professionals prior to publication.
In addition to the volume, the body of research is broad; comparing children raised by lesbian couples to children raised by married heterosexual couples; children raised by lesbian parents from birth to children raised by heterosexual married couples from birth; children raised by single homosexuals to children raised by single heterosexuals; and children adopted by homosexual parents to those raised by homosexual biological parents, to name a few. These 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.
The Guardian Ad Litem, the adoption agency and the assessing professionals agree that Petitioner and his domestic partner’s ability to parent is excellent. The quality of parenting, the level of bonding and attachment and the thriving relationship of the children with Petitioner, Roe and Tom Junior is uncontroverted by all parties to this litigation. This Court has presided over John and James case since its inception. This Court has presided over 58 hearings in their case and has had the opportunity to observe the children, Petitioner, and the growing relationship between them. It is clear to this Court that Petitioner is an exceptional parent to John and James who have healed in his care and are now thriving. Accordingly, Petitioner, John and James should be permitted to permanently and legally share the emotional, psychological, and familial bonds of parentage. Nevertheless, based on the law of this state, only a finding that the statute is unconstitutional will permit this Court to grant the petition.
[An excerpt from the conclusions of law:]
The equal protection argument of the Petitioner has been considered by other courts. In D.H.R.S. v. Cox, 627 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), two gay petitioners sought to adopt a child. Per Fla. Stat. §63.042(3), the application was denied. The men filed a state action to declare the statute unconstitutional on right of privacy, substantive due process, and equal protection grounds. Relying solely on copies of various law review articles, reports, editorials, and discussions appearing in magazines and journals submitted by the parties, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the petitioners as to the three constitutional arguments.
On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal overruled the trial court’s findings holding there was virtually no evidence in the record to support a constitutional attack. The Florida Supreme Court agreed that the record below lacked factual evidence to determine whether the statute could sustain an attack as to its constitutional validity on equal protection grounds34 and remanded the matter to the trial court for further fact-finding. The petitioners, however, did not pursue the case.
With regard to the evidence presented in Cox, the lack of “major scientific articles,” the credentials and expertise of the authors, the quality and objectivity of the publishing journal, and the only “glimmers of answers” provided for by the available research caused pause for the reviewing court. Id. at 1213. The court further provided, “It may be that the legislature should revisit this issue in light of the research that has taken place in the last fifteen years, but we cannot say that the limited research reflected in this record compels the judiciary to override the legislature's reasoning.” Id. at 1220 (emphasis added). The research reflected in the record in this case is far from limited and compels a different result.
Section 63.042(3) was also challenged at the federal level in Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Children and Family Srvcs., 358 F. 3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004). There, homosexual foster parents attacked the constitutionality of the statute on various right to privacy theories and equal protection claims.35 The Lofton court, nearly five years ago, acknowledged the question to be determined was not whether the research and experts “support” the legislative prohibition, “but whether that evidence is so well established and so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational for the Florida legislature to believe that the interest of its children are best served by not permitting homosexual adoption.” Id. at 825. At that time, the Lofton court also reasoned, "Openly homosexual households represent a very recent phenomenon, and sufficient time has not yet passed to permit any scientific study of how children raised in those households fare as adults. Scientific attempts to study homosexual parenting in general are still in their nascent stages and so far have yielded inconclusive and conflicting results. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the question of the effects of homosexual parenting on childhood development is one on which even experts of good faith reasonably disagree. Given this state of affairs, it is not irrational for the Florida legislature to credit one side of the debate over the other." Id. at 826. As to the respective equal protection arguments, the failure to present any evidence in Cox 15 years ago and the weight of the evidence presented in Lofton nearly five year ago are both cited as the grounds for the courts’ inability to find the statute unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. However, today, based on the developments in the fields of social science, psychology, human sexuality, social work and medicine, the existence of additional studies, the re-analysis and peer review of prior studies, the endorsements by the major psychological, psychiatry, child welfare and social work associations, and the now, consensus based on widely accepted results of respected studies by qualified experts, the issue of whether Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the equal protection of homosexuals and children adoptable by homosexuals, is again ripe for consideration.
[The court eventually conluded:]
This Court finds Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the Petitioner and the Children’s equal protection rights guaranteed by Article I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution without satisfying a rational basis.
[The court's entire opinion is here.]
[Here is a picture of the petitioner and the two brothers:]
