The case, decided by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, involved licensed foster parent Frank Martin Gill who wanted to adopt two boys placed with him after the Florida Department of Children and Families removed them from their home for neglect.  Gill and his partner had been raising the boys for six years.  The full opinion can be read here.  Florida Department of Children and Families vs. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G.

The court was clear in its ruling.

The question in the case is whether the adoption should have been denied because F.G. is a homosexual.  Under Florida law, a homosexual person is allowed
to be a foster parent.  F.G. has successfully served as a foster parent for the 4 children since 2004.  However, Florida law states, “No person eligible to adopt under this statute [the Florida Adoption Act] may adopt if that person is a homosexual.” § 63.042(3), Fla. Stat. (2006).   According to the judgment, “Florida is the only remaining state to expressly ban all gay adoptions without exception.”  Judgment at 38.  Judge Cindy Lederman, after lengthy hearings, concluded that there is no rational basis for the statute. We agree and affirm the final judgment of adoption.   Florida Department of Children and Families at pp. 3-4.

The Florida Supreme Court will likely have the last word.   Florida’s Constitution allows a party to appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida when a district court of appeal declares a state statute invalid.  Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

The Court of Appeals stated, “New York will recognize parentage created by a civil union in Vermont.  Our determination that Debra H. is M.R.’s parent allows her to seek visitation and custody at a best-interest hearing.  There, she will have to establish facts demonstrating a relationship with M.R. that warrants an award in her favor.”  Debra H. v. Janice R., 2010 NY Slip Op 03755.

Debra H. may now go forward in the trial court to seek custody and visitation with her son, as well as to provide him with financial support.  A trial judge will ultimately rule on what is in the best interest of the child.

According to the case, Janice R. is the biological mother of M.R., a six-year old boy conceived through artificial insemination and born in December 2003.  Janice R. and Debra H. met in 2002 and entered into a civil union in Vermont in November 2003.  Janice R. repeatedly refused to let Debra H. become M.R.’s legal parent through adoption.  When they separated three years later, Janice R. allowed Debra H. to have supervised visits with M.R. as well as daily phone contact.  In the spring of 2008 Janice R. began reducing the visits.  By early May 2008, Janice R. completely severed communication between Debra H. and M.R.  Almost immediately Debra H. went to court seeking joint legal and physical custody of M.R.

The Court of Appeals decision addresses only the rights of couples who marry or enter civil unions.  It does not address the rights of parents in non-legal relationships.