Child Advocacy Groups Urge Florida Appeals Court To Strike Gay Adoption Ban
Groups File Briefs In ACLU Lawsuit
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
MIAMI – The most respected Florida and national children’s health, welfare and legal advocacy groups filed seven friend-of-the-court briefs before a Florida appeals court Monday urging the court to strike down a Florida law barring lesbians and gay men from adopting. The briefs were filed in support of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit that resulted in a Florida juvenile court judge striking down the law and granting the adoptions of two brothers to a gay man who has been raising the boys with his partner for more than four years.
“The Florida law banning lesbians and gay men from adopting cripples efforts to find families for the approximately 3,500 foster children the State reported were in need of homes and leaves some children without the security of adoption and having a ‘forever family,’” said Leslie Cooper, a senior staff lawyer with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “It’s not surprising that so many prominent children’s advocates are stepping up to let the court know just how harmful this law is to children.”
On November 25, 2008, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman granted the adoptions of two brothers, ages four and eight, to Martin Gill of North Miami, after a four-day trial that highlighted scientific evidence that gay and straight people make equally good parents. Gill and his partner have been foster parents to the two boys for more than four years, and the boys are thriving under their care.
The decision overturned Florida’s 31-year-old law banning gays and lesbians from adopting that was enacted in response to an anti-gay campaign led by Anita Bryant. The state immediately appealed the decision, and the case is now pending before Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal. The ACLU’s brief on behalf of Gill and the brief of the children’s counsel were filed on June 15, 2009.
Because the court file is sealed, copies of briefs in the case cannot be provided without an order of the court. The friend-of-the-court briefs were filed by children’s advocates from across the nation, including:
Children’s Health and Welfare Groups
- The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA)
- American Psychological Association
- North American Council on Adoptable Children
- Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
- Center for Adoption Policy
- Foster Care Alumni of America
- National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
- Florida Chapter of the NASW
- Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Legal Advocates for Children
- National Center for Adoption Law and Policy
- Juvenile Law Center
- Lawyers for Children America
- National Center for Youth Law
- Southern Poverty Law Center
- Family Law Section of the Florida Bar
- Foster Children’s Project of the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County
- University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law Center on Children and Families Children & Youth Law Clinic of the University of Miami School of Law
- Florida State University College of Law Public Interest Law Center
- Florida International University Juvenile Justice Clinic
- The Barry University School of Law Children and Families Clinic
- The Nova Southeastern University Law Center Children and Families Clinic
- Child Advocacy Clinic at Hofstra School of Law
- Ohio State University School of Law
- Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center
- Loyola Chicago School of Law
- Children’s Law Center of Minnesota
- Justice for Children Project
- Support Center for Child Advocates
- Civitas Child Law Clinic
- Children and Family Justice Center of the Bluhm Legal Clinic of Northwestern University School of Law
A date has not yet been set for oral argument before the Third District Court of Appeal. For more information on the case, including a video of Martin Gill explaining how this law has harmed his family, visit /gill
Martin Gill is represented by Co-Director James Esseks and senior staff attorney Leslie Cooper of the ACLU LGBT Project and LGBT Project Director Robert Rosenwald and staff attorney Shelbi Day of the ACLU of Florida. The children are represented by Hilarie Bass, Elliot Scherker, Elaine Walter and Brigid Cech Samole of Greenberg Traurig, and Charles Auslander, an attorney and former District Administrator for Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF).
LGBTQ Rights
In re: Gill
LGBTQ Rights
In re: Gill
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.