Lofton v. Department Of Children And Family Service

358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Since 1977, Florida's adoption law has contained a codified prohibition on adoption by any 'homosexual' person. P is a registered pediatric nurse who has raised from infancy three Florida foster children, each of whom tested positive for HIV at birth. John Doe was born on 29 April 1991. Testing positive at birth for HIV and cocaine, Doe immediately entered the Florida foster care system. Doe was placed in the care of P. At eighteen months, Doe sero-reverted and has since tested HIV negative. In September of 1994, P filed an application to adopt Doe but refused to answer the application's inquiry about his sexual preference and also failed to disclose Roger Croteau, his cohabitating partner. His application was rejected pursuant to the homosexual adoption provision. William E. Adams, Jr., a professor of law who had participated in one of the previous legal challenges to Fla. Stat. § 63.042(3), wrote to the ACLU and informed it that P and Croteau would make 'excellent test plaintiffs.' Two years later, in light of the length of Doe's stay in D's household, D offered P the compromise of becoming Doe's legal guardian. This arrangement would have allowed Doe to leave the foster care system and D supervision. However, because it would have cost P over $300 a month in lost foster care subsidies and would have jeopardized Doe's Medicaid coverage, P declined the guardianship option unless it was an interim stage toward adoption. Other plaintiffs in similar situations include Douglas E. Houghton, Jr., and Wayne Lame Smith and Daniel Skahen. Ps filed suit and asked the district court to declare Fla. Stat. § 63.042(3) unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. Ps also sought class certification on behalf of two purported classes: all similarly situated adults and all similarly situated children. The district court denied the request for class certification and granted summary judgment in favor of D on all counts, thereby upholding the statute. Ps appealed. Ps allege violations of familial privacy, intimate association, and family integrity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas recognized a fundamental right to private sexual intimacy and that the Florida statute, by disallowing adoption by individuals who engage in homosexual activity, impermissibly burdens the exercise of this right. Third, appellants allege that, by categorically prohibiting only homosexual persons from adopting children, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.