A Global Approach to Legal Education – Semester exchange programs deadline Oct. 13
The Levin College of Law offers numerous opportunities for semester study abroad. We encourage all students to consider these programs, as lawyers today have increasing global responsibilities for both domestic and foreign clients. Students can transfer up to 16 credits from the 10 one-semester exchange programs, including the two newest exchanges in Israel. Program eligibility is based on completion of first year and good academic standing. Grades are pass/fail and are not factored in to GPA. Students pay tuition only to UF and are responsible for all travel, housing and other costs. Financial aid may be used for study abroad. It does not cost anything to apply and be considered. Just fill out the UF Law application for the exchange programs; if accepted, we will forward your information to our partner institution and there will be some additional paperwork for them. Then, the only application fee is the $250 UF International Center (UFIC) fee, which you can pay after you know you are accepted. Links to our partner institutions and the application for the exchange programs can be found here. To discuss any of these programs, please contact Michelle Ocepek in the Office of Student Affairs in HOL 164 or e-mail her at ocepek@law.ufl.edu or call 352-273-0620.

Credit-hour requirement change for International & Comparative Law Certificate program
Along with the certificate programs in Family Law, Intellectual Property and Estates & Trusts, the International & Comparative Law Certificate program will no longer require that students complete eight additional hours beyond the normal hours needed for graduation as part of the program requirements. All other International & Comparative Law Certificate program requirements remain in effect. This change is effective immediately for current and future students enrolled in the certificate program, and is based on authorization from the faculty that occurred in the Sept. 8 faculty meeting.

Second- and third-year student scholarships available
Available scholarships for second- and third-year law students are now available and listed along with eligibility requirements on the Financial Aid Bulletin Board on the concourse and on our website. Students currently receiving a law school scholarship are not eligible to apply. Applications can be obtained from the Office of Student Affairs, HOL 164, in a rack by the front door, and must be returned by 5 p.m., Friday, Oct. 8. Awards will be made by the end of the fall semester.

Criminal Law Association welcomes new E-board
The Criminal Law Association would like to welcome new E-board members: Natalie Shorrock, President; Tatum Brown, Vice President; Maria Thompson, Treasurer; Sherley Jean, Secretary; Holly Marini, Public Relations; Sarah Casey, LCC Rep Nominee; Anthony Jones, 1L Rep. We look forward to kicking off the semester as soon as possible, so look out for events and meetings.

Find out about Environmental and Land Use Law opportunities
The Environmental and Land Use Law Program offers students many opportunities to learn about this exciting area of law and develop relevant skills, by earning a Certificate in Environmental and Land Use Law, or enrolling in any of the wide array of course offerings, including the Conservation Clinic, summer externships and the Summer Study Abroad in Costa Rica. A one year post-J.D. LL.M. is also offered through the program. In addition, students can gain experience and knowledge, broaden their networks, and get to know fellow students and faculty by participating in the Environmental and Land Use Law Society (GreenLAW), the Environmental Moot Court Team and the Public Interest Environmental Conference. This year, the program will also offer several fellowships for students involved with the program. To learn more about these opportunities, students should attend the ELULP informational meeting Tuesday, Oct. 12, from 12–12:50 p.m. in HOL 345. If you want to learn more now, please visit our website, or contact Lena Hinson at elulp@law.ufl.edu if you have specific questions or want to set up an appointment with Program Director Alyson Flournoy.

Enrollment deadline for Environmental and Land Use Law Certificate Program
Students interested in enrolling in the Environmental and Land Use Law Certificate Program for this semester are encouraged to do so before Monday, Oct. 18. Through the Environmental & Land Use Law Certificate Program, students can graduate from law school with a valuable credential that indicates both concentration and accomplishment in these two fields. If you have recently enrolled, or plan to do so, please contact Lena Hinson at hinson@law.ufl.edu to set up an appointment with Program Director Alyson Flournoy to discuss your course of study for Spring 2011. For more information on the ELUL Certificate Program, please click here. Enrollment forms are available online or in HOL 319. Students enrolled in the certificate program will receive e-mail notification regarding priority pre-registration for core courses.

Anti-Defamation League Fellowship in Boca Raton
The 2011 Yegelwel Fellowship provides a $4,000 stipend to a UF Law student to participate in a Summer Fellowship Program at the Anti-Defamation League Florida Regional Office in Boca Raton. A generous gift from UF Law alumnus Evan Yegelwel, who graduated in 1980, has made this Fellowship possible. Yegelwel is a partner in the Jacksonville law firm of Terrell Hogan Ellis Yegelwel, PA.
Fellowship duties: The fellowship will last eight to 10 weeks, with the student committing to a minimum of 35 hours per week. The fellow will be supervised by the ADL Southern Area Counsel. Previous fellows conducted legal and legislative research on a broad variety of subjects including freedom of speech and association, religious freedom and separation of church and state, and employment and public accommodations discrimination. The fellow also handled constituent discrimination complaints and participated in ADL meetings, functions and events.
Eligibility:The Yegelwel Fellowship is limited to UF Law students who have successfully completed the first-year required curriculum, including Constitutional Law, and who are in good academic standing prior to beginning the fellowship. “Successful” completion of the first-year required curriculum means earning a passing grade in each course and maintaining an overall GPA of at least 3.0. First-year students are encouraged to apply for the fellowship, subject to verification of successful completion of their first-year courses prior to the start of the fellowship term. The student must also pass a background check. To apply, please submit the following: (1) a personal statement of 500 words or less outlining any past experiences or qualifications that indicate your interest in and commitment to public service; (2) a resume; (3) two references (including names, addresses and phone numbers); (4) an official transcript and (5) a letter verifying good academic standing. Please submit a hard copy of these items to Patricia Hancock in HOL 340. Deadline to apply is Nov. 1. Questions? Come to the Yegelwel Fellowship Open House. Past Fellows will discuss their experiences and answer questions about applying for the Fellowship, Wednesday, Oct. 13, at noon in HOL 350. Open to 1Ls, 2Ls and 3Ls. Pizza and refreshments will be served. For more information, please contact Melissa Bamba (CSRRR Assistant Director) at 352-273-0614 or bamba@law.ufl.edu.

Attila Andrade Jr.

Visiting ProfessorAndrade has conceived a new formula according to which moral damages and abstract pain can be calculated in law suit cases. His formula is explained in volume II of his book “Comments on Brazil’s New Civil Code” published by Companhia Editora Forense in 2003. His purpose is to avoid judge’s uncertainties and ambiguities in issuing money judgments for these kinds of law suits.

Bob Dekle

Legal Skills Professor“Robbery suspects face life” (Sept. 29, 2010, The News-Press)

Two men connected with the robbery of a McDonald’s restaurant in Fort Myers could face life in prison. The ordeal resulted in the death of one police dog and one robbery suspect. The charges will not be in connection with the dog’s death, however, because the dog’s shooter was already shot and killed by the police.

From the article:
“University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle said even though prosecutors haven’t charged Amaya and Fermin with Rosco’s death, it wasn’t a foreseeable crime and one that was furthered of the armed robbery.”

“‘It is an area of the law where reasonable people can disagree about what is foreseeable,’ Dekle said.”

Teresa Drake

Director, Intimate Partner Violence Assistance Clinic (IPVAC)
Drake lectured at the Advanced Institute for the Prosecution of Domestic Violence, sponsored and produced by the Office of Violence Against Women, Aequitas and The Battered Women’s Justice Project in August in Washington, D.C. Her topic was interviewing victims of domestic violence.

Drake spoke at The Battered Women’s Justice Project conference “Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Children” in Providence, R.I., last month. Her topic was interviewing and preparing children to testify.

Joseph Jackson

Legal Skills ProfessorTV interview (Sept. 24, 2010, WCJB TV-20), link not available at this time

Jackson commented on the recent 3rd District Court of Appeal ruling, which overturned Florida’s ban on gay adoptions. Jackson was the primary author of an amicus brief submitted to the court regarding the case.

Martin J. McMahon Jr.

Stephen C. O’Connell Professor of LawMcMahon presented “Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation” with University of Houston Law Center Professor Ira Shepard at the 45th annual Southern Federal Tax Institute last month in Atlanta.

McMahon presented “Litigating The Application Of Anti-Tax Avoidance Statutes: Learning From The Canada Experience” with the Honorable Patrick Boyle, Richard Sapinski, Nathalie Goyette, and Henry Schneiderman at the Court Procedure and Practice Committee Program, American Bar Association, Tax Section, Fall Meeting, in Toronto last month.

McMahon also presented “How Canada’s Experience with the General Anti-Abuse Rule Might Inform US How to Live with the Codified Economic Substance Doctrine” with the Honorable Donald Bowman, former Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada at the Joint Meeting of Partnerships & LLCs and Real Estate Committees, American Bar Association, Tax Section, Fall Meeting in Toronto last month.

Diane Mazur

Professor
“Gay activists look to the courts to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’” (Sept. 22, 2010, The Washington Post)

While the debate over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy continued to unfold in Federal courts, Mazur discussed arguments in favor of repealing the law.

From the article:
“Gay rights groups said the government has no obligation to appeal. Diane H. Mazur, legal co-director of the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara that is devoted to repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ cited a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas sodomy law because it restricted a person’s right to sexual privacy.”

“‘Judge Phillips recognized that “don’t ask, don’t tell” can no longer be justified under current constitutional doctrine, and President Obama is not required to argue otherwise,’ Mazur said. ‘He need not defend laws that are based on old, discredited constitutional assumptions.’”

“Witt decision offers preview of post-’don’t’ ask, don’t tell’ world” (Sept. 27, 2010, San Diego Gay and Lesbian News)

Mazur commented on the recent U.S. District Court ruling in Washington in favor of Air Force Major Margaret Witt regarding the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

From the article:
“Diane Mazur, Palm Center legal co-director and University of Florida law professor, also responded to Judge Leighton’s written opinion in Witt.”

“‘Witt and Log Cabin were the first challenges requiring the government to produce evidence that “don’t ask, don’t tell” improved military readiness, and in both cases the government was unable to do so,’ Mazur said. ‘The government pointed to an earlier case upholding the policy, Cook v. Gates, but there the court barred the plaintiffs from introducing evidence that “don’t ask, don’t tell” harms the military and excused the government from producing any evidence at all. Once the policy is put to a test of fact, it fails.’”

Kenneth Nunn

Professor“Panel hears from the wrongly convicted” (Oct. 1, 2010, The Florida Bar News)”

As a member of the new Innocence Commission in Florida – which examines the causes behind wrongful convictions to avoid future wrongful convictions – Nunn weighed in on a debate over the wording of the commission’s mission statement. The phrase in question was: “exoneration cases in Florida based on DNA testing.” The sentence was eventually removed altogether.

From the article:
“University of Florida College of Law Professor Kenneth Nunn added: ‘We are not saying these are individuals who are angels of the Lord, shall we say. But we are saying they are entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence that all American citizens are entitled to,’ because they have not been proven guilty. Exoneration, Nunn said, ‘is the correct legal term for the status of affairs we are talking about.’”

“Professor Nunn offered a friendly amendment to replace ‘exoneration’ with ‘cases in Florida where convictions have been reversed based on DNA testing.’”

Elizabeth Rowe

Associate ProfessorRowe’s article “Contributory Negligence, Technology, and Trade Secrets,” originally published in the George Mason Law Review in 2009, has been republished in the Defense Law Journal.

“UF takes on high schools to protect logo” (Sept. 21, 2010, The Gainesville Sun)

In an effort to protect its logo and identity, the University of Florida and the licensing company that represents the school is cracking down on several schools around the country who are using similar logos as the Gators.

From the article:
“Under trademark law, universities essentially have a legal obligation to police the use of their marks, said Elizabeth Rowe, associate professor of law and director of the program in intellectual property law at UF. Failing to do so could mean giving up the right to stop unauthorized uses, she said.”

“The issue is becoming more significant as college football becomes increasingly lucrative, she said. But she said the issue is somewhat different when dealing with high schools that might send students to the universities.”

“‘With sports you have the argument, “We’re using the mark to support you,”‘ she said.”

Michael Seigel

ProfessorUpon invitation by Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Patrick Leahy, Seigel testified as an expert witness last week in Washington, D.C. regarding honest services mail and wire fraud in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Skilling v. United States.

Seigel presented a lecture titled, “Ethical Lessons Learned from the Duke Lacrosse (Non)Rape Case,” to the faculty of the Saint Louis University School of Law on Sept. 16.

Michael Allan Wolf

Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law“Florida voters enter battle on growth” (Sept. 27, 2010, The New York Times)

Wolf commented on the debate in Florida surrounding Amendment 4 on the November ballot, which would allow citizens to vote on state-mandated plans regarding land development and growth in counties and municipalities.

From the article:
“‘Most planning advocates would love to have the structure we have in Florida, but most Floridians know that the structure doesn’t work,’ said Michael Allan Wolf, a University of Florida law professor. ‘Amendment 4 suggests that, on the ground, this system is really broken.’”

Eric Grosch is a medical doctor pursuing a legal degree to help clear physicians of bad-faith peer review.

He was born the day the Western Allies landed in Africa in World War II.

He’s a licensed medical doctor and refers to himself as the law school’s only “emeritus” law student.

His name is Eric Grosch, 3L, and he’s a man with a mission.

His mission consists of helping doctors who have been wrongfully blacklisted for instances that were the will of God or by other doctors acting in bad faith.

“I’ve seen a lot of injustice in medicine and as a physician can’t do much about it,” Grosch said. “As an attorney, I can enlist and harness the authority of the court to possibly do good things.”

But before he wanted to become an attorney and before he became a doctor, he was a communications officer in the U.S. Navy.

The year was 1965 and he had just graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles with his bachelor’s degree in engineering.

“For me and my generation, it was the frying pan or the fire: Volunteer for ROTC or AFROTC or NROTC and become an officer, or get drafted as an enlisted man,” Grosch said.

He chose the former and joined the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps (NROTC) while working on his undergraduate degree.

He said he enjoyed very little of his military experience. He served from June 1965 to 1967. He considered his term an “interruption of the natural arc” of his life. He had been stationed on a destroyer in Norfolk, Va., and then the Navy transferred him across the Pacific Ocean to Guam. Since the Navy had funded his way across the Pacific, he decided to continue westward on a world tour after he stopped serving.

He toured Asia, the Middle East and Europe until March 1968.

“I’m the opposite of Forrest Gump,” Grosch said. “I wasn’t anywhere near this country when some of its important historic events happened.”

Grosch was hitchhiking in Germany when Watergate happened and Grosch didn’t land in Brooklyn, N.Y., until three days after Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated.

“You may have read about such events in history books,” he said. “It was probably twenty or more years before you were born, right? That’s the way things are with most of my classmates too. They and I are from widely separated generations.”

For the most part, having younger classmates and professors doesn’t bother Grosch because he’s used to the age difference.

“When you get to be my age, nearly everybody’s younger,” he said.

After Grosch returned from his world tour, he worked as an engineer on defense-contracts in southern California. However, the contracts began to go to companies in the northeast, so many engineers in southern California lost their jobs.

Faced with this crisis, Grosch decided to take advantage of the G.I. Bill and use his Vietnam-veteran status to go back to school. He began attending California State University, Northridge in 1970.

It was when he took a class for students to learn how to teach science that he decided to become a doctor. Grosch had to try his partner’s project, which was to dissect a fetal pig preserved in formalin.

“I’d always been squeamish about blood and guts, so I didn’t think I could handle it,” Grosch said.

It turns out it wasn’t as bad as he had imagined.

“I went through the whole exercise and thereby overcame my squeamishness,” Grosch said. “That was the last obstacle that was inhibiting me from a notion I’d had for years to become a physician.”

Grosch said he was so elated that he got a speeding ticket on the way home. He then found a World Health Organization manual of all the medical schools in the world and contacted some of them about the possibility of gaining admission.

After attempts in other countries, Grosch applied to the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland.

At first, RCSI did not admit him, but they did grant him an entrance-examination option.

The RCSI examination was given in two places in the world: South Africa and Dublin, Ireland. Grosch went to Dublin by boat and train, across England, to take it.

“I landed there at the peak of the grass-pollen season and I was sneezing up a storm,” he said.

About a month later, Grosch learned how he fared on the exam that he sniffed, wheezed and coughed his way through.

“To my astonishment, I learned that I had scored No. 1 in the entire field [which included about 500-700 people],” he said.

He was admitted into the Royal College of Surgeons in 1973, where the curriculum takes six years to complete, and graduated in 1979.

The injustices in medicine that Grosch has witnessed over the past 30 years include bad-faith peer review – a practice of unscientific, biased medical review against otherwise qualified doctors – and other evaluation procedures such as board certification, which Grosch said he views as a wholly-owned subsidiary of bad-faith peer review.

“The field of medicine is very competitive, even cut-throat,” Grosch said. In the case of bad-faith peer review, “a group of doctors bands together and targets a ‘colleague,’ who they think is taking patients away from them or who just tried to improve conditions for patients at the hospital and run him out of town on a rail.”

Grosch said he plans to help doctors who have been subjected to bad-faith peer review by bringing cases to court and setting precedents that will “annihilate medical peer review as we know it,” he said.

Grosch wrote an article about board certification in 2006 that was used as the basis of another article that appeared in the April 2010 issue of Physicians Practice magazine.

“It is ironic that doctors have the most profound and extensive training in science, technology, ethics and professionalism of any walk of life,” Grosch said, “yet lawyers, with three years of professional education, claim to keep doctors honest through malpractice litigation. With all due respect to lawyers, something seems wrong with that picture,” he said, referring to the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act of 1986. The act requires doctors who have been investigated and suspended for more than 30 days to be put on the National Practitioner Data Bank.

“More like a national blacklist,” Grosch said, whose name is thankfully not on it. “Once you’re put on that list, you may not be able to practice anywhere in the country. Most of [the list] is based off bad-faith peer review. It’s a plague on the land.”

Grosch said that the most highly trained doctors, such as surgeons, are often in the highest-risk practices and huge damage awards against them distort the liability risk picture for the rest. Grosch has firsthand experience of a patient who suffered an adverse outcome.

In December 1988, a 73-year-old woman died under Grosch’s care. He said she had been a chronic smoker up until age 63, and had a lifelong birth defect that left her with only one coronary artery, instead of two, to control her entire heart system.

They suspended Grosch’s privileges and subjected him to bad-faith peer review until April 1989. The state of Florida followed suit and filed an administrative complaint against him claiming violation of the medical practice act. He won both cases, but since then, prospective employers often consider the hospital’s and the state’s unsuccessful claims “red flags.”

“What good is due process if exoneration does not dispel doubt, so that a mere accusation is enough to ‘justify’ rejecting a candidate?” Grosch said.

According to Grosch, the doctors with no black marks against them are the ones with little to no experience.

The autopsy showed that the blood supply to the patient’s heart was blocked from a combination of the birth defect and further coronary arterial occlusion that she had acquired from her diet and smoking. Previous doctors overdosed her on Thyroxine, a hormone that increases the body’s demand for oxygen. The combination of increased oxygen demand and diminished to absent blood supply to her heart caused cardiac arrest. She had arrested once and was resuscitated before she came under Grosch’s care. She arrested a second time, and Grosch could not resuscitate her.

“I didn’t know it then, but afterward, I found an article that showed that nobody who has had cardiac arrest more than once in a hospital admission leaves the hospital alive,” Grosch said.

She was a patient, like many, who are beyond the help of medical science.

“The body of medical knowledge is a work in progress. The practicing physician must often make clinical decisions based on incomplete information,” he said, “yet medical peer reviewers, engaged in witch hunts against targeted scrutinees, pretend to believe that everything in medicine is cut and dried.”

As he waits to embark on his legal journey to medical reform, Grosch continues to research, practice medicine and perform songs for a crowd. He has been playing the saxophone, trumpet and singing for more than 51 years.

“Delivering an adequate performance in music, as in court, requires practice, practice, practice,” he said. “It’s the difference between success and failure.”

Dean Robert Jerry addresses concerns of market placement with his presentation on the current state. (Photo by Joey Springer)

Dean Robert Jerry addressed concerns about the difficult placement market with 2L and 3L students on Wednesday, Sept. 29.

After outlining the general state of the U.S. economy to “put things in perspective,” Jerry shared a little bit of good news: There were recently 1,000 new jobs in legal markets. While this is a very small uptake, the legal economy and national economy have always closely tracked each other in history, he said.

Jerry expects that the legal market won’t be totally back until 2013. Many things have shaken up the legal world, and he anticipates some of the changes will stick around. As clients are scrambling to make ends meet, they are demanding that firms change billing practices to fit their budget. Dual associate tracts will likely to become a permanent part of the landscape, making it harder than ever to achieve partner status.

He advised students to think about their career rather than their job. Sometimes it is smart to take a job that will help you in the long run, such as a state attorney position in a less desirable, more rural area, because you will gain experience that will help you later, he said.

“It is a difficult market, but not an impossible market,” he concluded.

Jeffrey J. Ventrella presents a speech regarding the federal government's treatment of religion. (Photo by Joey Springer)

When considering how the federal government should treat religion, it is important to look at the historical context behind the Constitution to truly understand the intent of the nation’s founders, said the senior vice president of a legal alliance dedicated to defending religious freedom at the University of Florida Levin College of Law Advocacy Center last week.

Jeffery J. Ventrella’s presentation, “What’s God got to do with it?: The Prima Facie Propriety of Public Religious Expression,” was sponsored by the UF Federalist Society and The John Templeton Foundation.

Ventrella explored the topic of the public expression of religion, examining the historical context of the Constitution and the intent of those who framed the religion clause of the First Amendment. The discussion also focused on displays of the Ten Commandments in public venues.

“The question I want to begin with is, ‘Is it obviously the case that displaying the Decalogue is unconstitutional?’” Ventrella said.

He continued by asking whether the Constitution is neutral toward religion, negative toward religion or if it nurtures the public expression of religion.

“I think if we look at the text of the Constitution within its own context historically, we’ll find that there’s a prima facie propriety of public religious expression,” he said.

Ventrella pointed out that there are four separate references to a God or a supreme being in the Declaration of Independence – a key founding document and one to which the Constitution refers.

Additionally, the source material for the Constitution is derived partially from Christian texts, he said. Nine percent of the ideas, quotations and allusions are taken from the Apostle Paul’s teachings; more than Montesquieu or John Locke.

Ventrella explored other instances where the federal government and religion crossed paths, including the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, which stated that as part of the qualifications for a territory to become a state, they must establish publicly funded schools “that teach religion, morality and knowledge,” he said.

He also explained that the “No Religious Test Clause” in the Constitution was not intended to necessarily keep religious views out of government, but rather it was meant to allow people from different Christian sects to work together without their particular denominations causing conflict.

The “Sundays Excepted” clause in the Constitution also seems to acknowledge the influence and importance of religion for those in federal government by not working on the Christian Sabbath. The clause states that the president has 10 days, excluding Sunday, to review legislation.

“The Capitol building, treasury building, war building were places that the federal government permitted religious worship on Sundays,” Ventrella said, which would have made it difficult for much work to be accomplished on that day anyway.

“Separation of church and state? Well, either someone didn’t get it then or someone doesn’t get it now,” he said.

Ventrella then turned to more recent developments, examining two Supreme Court rulings regarding the public display of the Ten Commandments; one ruled in favor and one ruled against displaying the documents in public venues.

“Which one comports with the text and which one comports with the context?” he asked.

In the case of McCreary County v. ACLI of Kentucky, the public display of the Ten Commandments was determined to be unconstitutional. Ventrella said the ruling was based primarily on the court’s determination that there was religious intent behind the display.

“Does the mere reference of acknowledgment to religion comprise establishment?” Ventrella asked. “I don’t think so. I think there’s a key distinction that was missed by the court. I think when a nation forms and decides that rights exist and then it seeks to distinguish itself from other nations, why can’t it state the world view or principles or assumptions that the founders believed whether true or not?”

Conversely, in Van Orden v. Perry, the court ruled that publicly displaying the Ten Commandments did not violate the Constitution because the overall display conveyed a religious and secular message.

Besides Van Orden having a limited legislative history and the fact that the display was financed and donated by a private group, a big deciding factor was the court’s finding that the display was a passive monument, Ventrella said.

Next, Ventrella discussed the importance of remembering that a person’s rights do not come from the state. He warned against that type of thinking, which can lead down a dangerous road toward a totalitarian or communist state. The state exists to protect our rights, which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, he said.

“Do we want to airbrush away the history, tradition and other things? Or do we want to live in ignorance like they did in the Soviet Union, or do we say ‘no, this comports with our history and traditions’?” Ventrella asked.

“So what’s God got to do with it?” Ventrella asked in closing, “I would say everything if you’re going to answer this question correctly.”

Stephen C. O’Connell Chair and UF Professor of Law Lyrissa Lidsky gave a brief commentary following Ventrella’s discussion.

Lidsky agreed with Ventrella that the nation’s founders did not view symbolic support for Protestantism as being in conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

She also addressed the concept of government neutrality on religion, acknowledging that neutrality can be defined in different ways, but she settled on a definition by University of Virginia Law Professor Doug Laycock, which holds that there should be no coercion or persuasion for or against any particular religion by the government.

“On a personal note, I think that when the government starts sponsoring religion and even sponsoring Christianity, it sends a message to all of us who aren’t Christians that we aren’t full members of society,” Lidsky said. “It’s a predominantly Christian culture, but when the government sponsors religion, it says anyone who is not Christian is a permanent outsider in that culture, and I do think that violates the text of the First Amendment as written. Whatever neutrality means, I think it means that.”

Lauren Fasig, Martin Gill, Shelbi Day and Joseph Jackson sat on the gay adoption panel Wednesday, Sept. 29. (Photo by Joey Springer)

“At the center of this case, and every other case, is a person.”

Shelbi Day, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented a gay man and his partner in a case challenging an adoption ban for gay people, said those words at a recent panel discussion on gay adoption Wednesday, Sept. 29, just one week after the Third District of Appeal struck down a state law barring gay people from adopting.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Florida called the decision a victory for thousands of children in Florida waiting to be adopted.

University of Florida Levin College of Law Center on Children and Families authored one of several amicus briefs in the case, an effort led by Joseph Jackson, UF legal skills professor and associate director of the Center. The brief involved the collaboration of many faculty members within the Center, including former Director Barbara Woodhouse.

Day and Jackson, along with Martin Gill, the foster parent who challenged the Florida statute banning gay adoption and CCF Director of Research Lauren Fasig, an expert in child development, sat on the panel in front of more than 100 attendees.

The standing-room-only event revealed the struggles Gill and his partner have faced the past seven years since receiving their license to foster children in 2003, the elation they felt in November 2008 when the Circuit Court granted Gill’s adoption petition, and the hardships they endured after having that decision stayed by the State’s appeal.

In December 2004, Florida’s Department of Children and Families asked Gill and his partner to foster two boys – a 4-month-old and a 4-year old – suffering from neglect. At the time, Gill and his partner planned to move to Georgia, and felt it would be unfair to uproot the children – who at the time had future plans to live with relatives – so, they said no.

It was right before Christmas, and DCF tugged on the couple’s heartstrings to give the children a home for the holidays. They gave in.

Upon arrival, the children were sick with ringworm, but Gill was told their medication was in the bag that the DCF brought over. Not only had the medication expired, it was unopened and had not been refrigerated in over a month, which was necessary for it to remain effective, he said. The older child slumped against the wall and stared at the floor. Gill knew they had their work cut out for them.

Nearly a year after Gill and his partner fostered the brothers and nursed them to health, DCF sought permanency planning for them. Plans to live with relatives fell through, and a 33-year-old law banning adoption by gay men and lesbians stood in the way of allowing Gill and his partner to legally adopt the boys they had cared for. Currently, Florida is the only state barring gays from adopting.

But when Gill met with DCF to discuss permanency planning, they told him they wanted to advertise the children separately, since the younger one had a better chance of adoption and the older child had some developmental disabilities, Gill said. The couple was floored.

“That child was his brother’s keeper,” Gill said. “It was the only continuity he had for his entire life.”

Gill said the older child was quite a caregiver for such a young child – he even knew how to feed the baby, burp him and change his diaper. He couldn’t bear the thought of these children being separated, and soon sought legal help from ACLU to challenge the adoption ban.

After a four-day trial in November 2008, Judge Cindy S. Lederman issued a 52-page opinion declaring the ban unconstitutional, on the grounds that it violated the equal protection rights of the children and their prospective parents, and granted Gill’s adoption request.

But the couple’s elation waned only 15 minutes later, when the state appealed the ruling and denied Gill and his partner from adopting.

“These are two heroic men who have really gone to battle [for these boys],” said Day, who said the couple has risked a lot to fight for these children.

The District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision on Sept. 22 was a gratifying feeling for Gill, his partner, his lawyers and all gay-rights advocates after nearly 13 months of waiting for an opinion. Judge Vance E. Salter emphasized in his concurring opinion the importance of the couple in the lives of the brothers, and referred to them as a family. He noted that this case involved “five persons and associated relationships, not just the adoptive parent and the two children… The continued use of the legal system to attempt to unwind these relationships is simply inexplicable.”

During the initial stages of the case, Gill’s legal team had to identify experts from a variety of fields to rebut all possible arguments the state might put forward to justify the ban. Psychologists, HIV/AIDS experts and even experts on pedophilia and sexual orientation, were called to testify, and confirmed that gay people and straight people make equally good parents. In addition, the children were evaluated by a child development expert, who testified that removing them from Gill’s home and/or separating them from one another would cause them to regress socially and educationally and lead to serious and permanent harm.

A focus of the Center’s brief was to explain to the court the serious harms children suffer when they are repeatedly moved around in the foster care system, Jackson said. Attachment to a caregiver is essential for a child to turn into a grown-up human being, and a child’s ability to form those attachments is undermined when the child bounces around in foster care.

Lauren Fasig cited research that showed that a parent’s sexual identity and/or sexual orientation has little or no effect on that of the child, and that children of gay parents are just as fit for life as those of heterosexual parents.

“To say one group could be parents and others can’t isn’t justified,” Jackson said. “There is no conceivable set of facts that justify that law.”

The state has 30 days to appeal this decision to the Florida Supreme Court. If it does not, then the decision will be binding on Florida trial courts state-wide. However, opponents of the decision could seek to overturn the decision through a ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution.

“If it gets to the point of vote, it’s about getting the word out and educating people,” Day said.