Lofton v. Secretary of the Dept. of Children & Family Services No. 01-16723 (11th Cir. 01/28/2004) (Casemaker cite--federal library)
FACTS:
Florida law prohibited adoption by any "homosexual" person. 1977 Fla. Laws, ch. 77-140, § 1, Fla. Stat. § 63.042(3) (2002). "Homosexual" meant applicants "known to engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity," thus drawing "a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity." Florida law let unmarried people adopt, many of whom had adopted children out of the foster care system. Homosexual foster parents (Loften) challenged the statute on equal protection grounds, arguing that homosexuals were similarly situated to unmarried persons regarding Florida's interest in promoting married-couple adoption. [FN1] Neither party disputed that no fundamental right to adopt--or to be adopted--existed. Neither party disputed the Florida's preference for marital adoptive families was a legitimate state interest. No court has found homosexuals to be a suspect class. Thus the rational-basis test applied.
BACKGROUND LAW:
ISSUE:
"Could the Florida legislature have reasonably believed that prohibiting adoption into homosexual environments would further its interest in placing adoptive children in homes that will provide them with optimal developmental conditions." Citing Panama City Med. Diagnostic Ltd. v. Williams, 13 F.3d 1541, 1545 (11th Cir. 1994)
HOLDING/REASONING:
Yes(1) Florida need not show that homosexuals pose a greater threat than other unmarried adults who are allowed to adopt. Rather, the question was one of rationality.
(2) "It is not irrational to think that heterosexual singles have a markedly greater probability of eventually establishing a married household and, thus, providing their adopted children with a stable, dual-gender parenting environment."
(3) It was rational to believe that heterosexual singles are better positioned than homosexual individuals to educate and guide their adopted children regarding their sexual development. Because most adopted children will develop heterosexual preferences, those children will need education and guidance after puberty about relating to the opposite sex. It therefore serves the child's best interests to have parents who can personally relate to the child's problems and assist the child in transitioning to heterosexual adulthood. [FN 2]
(4) Because adopted children often have developmental problems arising from adoption, having a stable heterosexual household during and after puberty might be more important for adopted children than for other children.
(5) Whether the Florida legislature was misguided was a question of legislative policy, not constitutional law. "The legislature is the proper forum for this debate"
FN 1: This brief omitted Loften's due process challenge, which failed mainly because Loften could not establish threats to already existing "family integrity" or "private sexual intimacy."
FN 2: Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied in July 2004. There the majority rephrased to the dissent that: "[T]he mainstream of contemporary American family life consists of heterosexual individuals. Can it be seriously contended that an arguably rational basis does not exist for placing adoptive children in the mainstream of American family life?"
