September 1, 2009 Letters Letters Gay Adoption I want to thank my fellow members of The Florida Bar who wrote such restrained, thoughtful, and dignified letters published in the August 1 News in response to George Metcalfe’s prior advertisement chastising the Family Law Section’s decision to file an amicus brief in support of repealing Florida’s ban on allowing gay individuals to adopt.Every time I sat down to write a response, I found that I could not keep my reply to under 350 words, nor was I having much success in omitting personal attacks. With five out of the six published letters disagreeing with Mr. Metcalfe, my faith continues that hatred and ignorance will not be tolerated in this Bar.W.E. Chip Gaylor VeniceThe issue of adoption is central to our society and deserves open debate. Taking one position does not make an individual “intolerant” or “ignorant.”Such name-calling and hate speech should have no place in this discussion.In regard to the issue of adoption, the question is “what is in the best interests of the child” not the parent adopting and their interests or social agenda.Research repeatedly shows that a child’s development is best served when he/she has daily access to the complementary ways a mother and father parent. The two sexes are different for a reason and such differences lay a firmer foundation for the child to operate in society and better prepare the child to parent themselves when the time comes.It is clearly in the best interest, and I underscore “best” interest, to have the child adopted in a home with a mother and father. Anything less is not offering the child what is our “best” as a society. September 1, 2009 Letters
John P. Joseph St. PetersburgIs there not even one gay person in Florida capable of being a good parent?“If the law supposed that,” said Mr. Bumble,. . . “the law is an ass.” (Dickens, Pickwick Papers, [1836-37]).Florida law bans the adoption of children by anyone who is gay. In effect, it says that regardless of ability to be a good parent there can be no adoption. It supposes that not one person in Florida, who happens to be gay, can be a good parent.There is, as it ought to be, only one legitimate state concern in any adoption proceeding. And that is that the child be placed in a safe, loving, and permanent home.Florida’s bizarre “law” was passed more than 30 years ago during the anti-gay hysteria of Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign. The ban on gay adoption was borne out of prejudice, plain and simple. It had no scientific predicate.Yet this application of the prejudicial ban ties the hands of family law judges, who must exclude gay people, no matter how good they might be as prospective parents.Florida stands alone in these United States by absolutely prohibiting the adoption of children by its gay citizens.Every reputable child welfare agency has spoken out against this ban including: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Council of Adoptable Children, the Child Welfare League of America, and the National Association of Social Workers.Polling shows the majority of Floridians believe it is time to deny enforceability to this ridiculous law.A Miami circuit judge recently ruled, rightly and humanely so, that the gay foster parent of these children be given full legal custody of these children that he has nurtured for several years. But in its wisdom, or lack of same, the State of Florida has taken an appeal from that decision.Because it would serve the best interest of these children, the Family Law Section has obtained permission to intervene in that pending appeal on the side of children and against this supposed law.The “expert,” hired by the state to legitimize this supposed law, not only spouted long discredited junk science, he even suggested the state ban Native Americans from adopting because “research” shows they are at a much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse.We have in Florida approximately 5,000 children in need of permanent, loving homes. Those kids should not be denied judicially well-qualified parents, straight or gay.It is time that this adoption ban be denied enforcement and recognized for what it really is, a “law” that sanctions prejudice and interferes with serving the best interest of the child.Burton Young North Miami Beach Conflict Counsel Every time I hear about the high costs of court-appointed attorneys in conflict cases, I get that old Enron feeling again. There would be plenty of money if the system wasn’t being treated like a cash cow by about 15 attorneys in each circuit.There has arisen the farce of death-qualified conflict lawyers. If you can try a complex car crash, you can try a death penalty case. I have done a score of first-degree murder cases, mostly court-appointed. Nobody got the needle, and I never submitted a bill for more than $3,500. I watch as some poor devil spends three years in the county jail, mostly for the reason that his lawyer can come by once a week and earn $500 dollars.The result of all this paper lawyering is that inspirational genius is suffocated and some guy guilty or not rides the Amtrak Orange Blossom Special in reverse. However, lucky for him, his lawyer followed the conflict cook book. It is an odd system indeed where some kid out of law school working for the public defender does as good a job as the conflict lawyer representing the co-defendant while the P.D. earns $40,000 (a year) and the conflict earns $75,000 for one case.The entire rationale for conflict attorneys arose sometime around the witch trials. Disqualifiying a P.D. because some other P.D. represented the co-defendant for a reefer charge 10 years ago makes as much sense as having a death row with 391 people on it. Both situations cost a lot of money, accomplish nothing, and keep about 500 lawyers riding around in BMWs.Charles B. Tiffany Kissimmee Educating Lawyers I am writing in response to the “Law Schools: Time to Get Practical” article that appeared in the August 1 News. While the symposium members’ concerns are well-taken, the article overlooks that law firms and veteran practitioners must take an interest in their young lawyers.Personal experience has reinforced my belief that no amount of law school clinics or coursework can replace the constructive critique and mentoring of a veteran practitioner or judge. That said, law schools can take steps to make their curriculums more relevant, such as requiring a course in statutory construction and interpretation.The practice of law is a profession. Too often, however, associates are considered transient and fungible, and do not receive necessary mentoring and feedback. Trials are a scarce commodity, particularly at larger law firms, and when they arise, partners tend to hoard the trial work. This is likely due to risk aversion and the scarcity of trials themselves. Associates, who often times did most of the preliminary work, are left out in the cold. This extends frequently to even the most routine motion practice, as well. As any associate at a large firm can attest, when a notice of hearing is received, a nervous and cacophonous scramble often ensues. In that scramble, the associate might work late hours, but is often sidelined at the hearing or trial itself.The bench should also evaluate its role. Judges should consider asking senior lawyers to bring their associate to court if that associate played a key role in researching and drafting a court filing (after all, associates are lawyers). If so, courts should be more willing to question the associate or allow the associate to handle part of the argument. Senior lawyers, facing the prospect that the court might question the associate about a particular matter, will have to better incorporate and prepare their associates. At the same time, the court provides cover for senior lawyers, because they can inform their client that they have no choice but to prepare the associate for court.Ultimately, everyone — not just law schools — should reevaluate how they can contribute to the development of young lawyers.Armando Rosquete MiamiI’m not a fan of the News, but as a member of The Florida Bar, it comes, like it or not.In my 56 years of practice, I’ve seen The Florida Bar go steadily downhill, and if it is ever to recover, law professors need to gear their teaching to the top 10 percent of the students, no matter what color they are. If the schools keep teaching to the lower students, we are going downhill on a greased slide.Daniel J. Le Fevre Winter Park Former Judges I read with interest the Advertising Committee’s recent opinion holding that retired judges can no longer advertise this fact or refer to themselves as “judges” even if it states “former,” as it may confuse the public. Former Supreme Court Justice Charles Wells apparently took issue with this ruling.A number of years ago, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the Bar’s amendment to the rules forbidding attorneys from advertising they’re “juris doctors,” as The Florida Bar thought it would confuse the public into thinking we were “medical doctors.” So I guess if juris doctors can’t tell the public that, then judges shouldn’t be able to either.But I wonder if any of this nonsense is necessary, because if this is true, then the “unintelligent” public, which the Bar continually envisions doesn’t know that President Clinton, Bush, etc., are no longer president of the United States, because they’re still referred to as “president” every night on the news.I don’t think the public is that stupid. It concerns me that the apparent low opinion of the intelligence level of the average citizen held by the Bar may contribute to the low opinion that the public holds toward lawyers. We still use them on juries, so let’s give them some credit for being able to think through the above issues without “us” having to protect them.Larry D. Beltz St. Petersburg ( Editor’s Note: The proposed opinion says a former judge can advertise that he or she formerly was a judge, but cannot refer to him/herself by use of the title “judge.” E.g., a former judge couldn’t refer to him/herself as “Judge Smith, former” or “Judge Smith, retired circuit judge,” but could state truthfully that he or she is a former judge.)
read more