Thanksgiving will always be an extra special day in our family. Just before , a Florida family court judge and allowed me to adopt two foster kids that my partner and I have been raising for almost five years now. Even though the state quickly appealed the decision, it didn't dampen our spirits that Thanksgiving one bit. Having the judge say what I already knew in my heart — that we were the best parents for these two boys — gave us hope that justice would ultimately prevail.
While I still have that hope, my confidence was shaken during the oral arguments before the Third District Court of Appeal in August. During the final exchange between one of the Judges and the lawyer for the state, the state made it clear that if the court allows the ban to stand,
Since the state urged us to take the boys into our care in 2004, this was the first time the state made it clear that it would take our kids away from the only real home they’ve ever had.
While this would obviously be devastating for them, there is a very real risk that if I can’t adopt them, they would never be adopted by anyone. While there is a huge waiting list to adopt any white baby in good health, there are a number of factors which make adoption for my boys much more difficult. They have been classified by the state as having "special needs." They are African American, which sadly makes them much harder to place. They were both exposed to drugs before birth, and were victims of neglect.
Caseworkers have told us repeatedly that even though they are biological brothers, it is unlikely that they could be placed together. The younger of the two, who is 5, would be a better candidate for adoption. So if they split them up and offer him by himself, his chances of getting adopted would be better. The older of the two is now 9, and along with his developmental problems, they have told me he is not likely to be adopted. At his age, he could languish in foster care and be passed around from home to home. Having suffered one separation already, he might never bond with his new parents. It took him a year and a half to bond with us.
Needless to say, the state attorney’s response scared me, and it still does.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
After the arguments, my ACLU attorney Rob Rosenwald introduced me to the press by saying how courageous I am. "Courageous," I thought to myself. At that moment "terrified" would have been a better descriptor. I don't know if I have ever been that scared for the two little kids we have nurtured, cared for and loved for almost five years. These boys came to us traumatized and neglected and now they are happy, healthy and thoroughly bonded to all of us.
Until that day, I had convinced myself that the state would see the way the kids were thriving under our care and wouldn’t think of taking them from us. For the first time, it really hit me just how harmful this law really is.
How do you go home to your kids (and try to keep a semblance of normality) knowing they could be ripped out of our home at any time, not only split from their parents and their older brother, but from their aunts and uncles, grandmas, friends, their school, their teachers and their dog and cat.
But what affects me the most is that they could be split up, taking away the one thread of continuity that they have always known — each other.
And knowing they could be taken away, how do I go on?
Well first with faith — faith that justice will prevail, faith in our legal system, faith in humanity, and faith that our prayers will be heard.
Second, I go forward taking things one day at a time, knowing that the love that we have for our two young foster sons will somehow carry us through. I am truly thankful for each day that we have together as a family. With each day of loving, caring and nurturing these two amazing children, I hope and pray that they continue to thrive regardless of what the state has in store for them.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.