From U. S. News:
A 1977 Florida state law that bans gay individuals from adopting has received its biggest challenge thus far: Foster father Frank Martin Gill won his suit to adopt two brothers he has been fostering since 2004.
In her decision this morning, Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that there was no "rational basis" to prevent the children from being adopted. The case, which marks the first time that a gay adoption case has been taken before a trial court in Florida, seems likely to go before the Florida Supreme Court, which could overturn the ban.
Although several states have de facto bans against gay couples adopting and an unknown number of conservative-leaning courts make it virtually impossible, Florida is the only state that prohibits gay individuals from adopting. But it allows them to be foster parents. That means that when Gill wanted to adopt the two boys he'd fostered for four years, ages 4 and 8, he couldn't, leaving the brothers as official wards of the state.
This is excellent news. Of course, there will be appeals, and we don't know what the result will be in the end, but for now we can rejoice with Frank Gill and the boys.
Here's the article on the clash of the experts during the trial from the Miami Herald.
Yes, wonderful news, we take our wonderful news anyway we can get it these days.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this.
Great news!! Removing children from a home they have lived in, cared for and loved is devastating to child not to mention the parents. Our prayers will be with Frank Gill and the boys.
ReplyDeleteBlessed Be!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good news. I feel like a light is beginning to dawn... I hope I'm not disappointed.
ReplyDeleteOh, hurrah! Let's continue hoping.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this great? I heard it on NPR this afternoon and I thought of all my online friends who would be more than thrilled! So am I.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting development indeed.
ReplyDelete"Rational basis" is the most lenient standard of review that courts apply, and it almost always results in a win for the government. As long as the attorneys for the state can present some rationale, no matter how weak, for the law, the courts are supposed to uphold it.
What this suggests - and there are some similar cases - is that courts are actually saying that there has to be a valid reason of some sort. They will not accept just anything.
Ther are children being taken care of by people that love them and obviously in this case will fight for them. What is so hard to see here, why does it have to be so difficult? COngratulations. One fight of many, but a win no matter what!
ReplyDeleteWith adoptions, the focus should be on the people who want to adopt and whether they will provide a stable and loving home. It seems that the judge concurs and that whole classes of people may not be excluded from the adoption process. It shouldn't be so hard.
ReplyDeleteShit!
ReplyDeleteoops...I didn't mean to offend,...but I read this after I posted on your other thread.
If in your HEART, you didn't already know about HIM, then why have you wasted our time?!?
I know, I'm a BITCH,..but I also can feel,.......more than most.
Brilliant! I hope there's more of this! Wonderful news and inspiring after all that proposition 8 crap.
ReplyDeleteDavid G., I don't understand your comment, love.
ReplyDelete