WPC 1l*-{_]vҷ؛ ř;\ǥڀh+u$!.QB7S7O2(Wa %?bڨD/?_(<Y}KZrpjzEg|4q..~6`Re3:!ܝ;@A=yB>]MX},fM\Y$xwY3rüii` 0"PiXZ1MJ | uENͼ9 A4t 1A֊)esM֯-TskOq_d3 ;74~xaN+%p4DJh/h{I2[6؄K$_N Zf(Y,Q'4io'\X M,-h b'K}3ԇ dmJI'܉‘vE?n9ݕ;r ~T3.`=d\Ql2 Q;n mm@b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  U NNEb 0     B 0 D5 D- 0K ASd 0} 0D! AeHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0E) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularl;)~11r C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8] d d 8         0  . d(|3$ !.8] d d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8] d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8\d d8     _  x82dXXdd 8  @ IxINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#xI #Ԉ &   APRIL20,2000Session L XXx #xXX#Inre:ADOPTIONOFM.J.S.XXx  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  ^ @@Nos.A51511;A51533(1);TheHonorableWalterL.Evans,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.W199900197_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober5,2000   AV) ` dE<` A         #xXV#XX.xAlanE.Highers,J.,ConcurringSeparately <   IconcurinthemajorityopinionauthoredbyJudgeFarmer.Iwriteseparately,however, P becauseIamconcernedthatthedissentingopinionhasoverstatedtheissuepresentedinthiscase < andhasbaseditsargumententirelyuponpremisesunwarrantedunderTennesseeLaw. (   Theissueinthiscaseisnotwhetherthemembersofthiscourtapprovethehomosexual  lifestyleortheadoptionofchildrenbyhomosexuals,butratherwhethertheadoptionofthischild  bythisprospectiveparentisinthechildsbestinterest.Asinanyadoptioncase,thedeterminative  issuewasandremainswhatisinthechildsbestinterest. t   Inthepresentcase,theChancellorwasfacedwiththeseriousanddifficultdecisionof L  whetherornotitwasinthischildsbestinteresttobeadoptedbyDebraSueLangston.Ratherthan 8!  ignoringtheevidenceregardingMs.LangstonsrelationshipwithAngelaCraig,theChancellor $"t! appearedconcernedaboutthisevidenceandhespecificallyinquiredintothedetailsofthe #`" relationship.Despitethisinquiry,noevidencewaspresentedshowingthatMs.Langstons #L# propensitieswouldhaveanynegativeeffectsonthischild.Itisimportanttonotethatthisisamatter $8 $ ofproofandisnotthetypeofevidenceofwhichweortheChancellorcantakejudicialnotice. See  %$!% Maradiev.Maradie,680So.2d538,541542(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996);Doev.Doe,284S.E.2d &"& 799,805(Va.1981). '"'   Statesgenerallyhavefollowedeitherthenexustestortheperseruleinassessingthebest )$) interestsofthechild. See KarlaJ.Starr,Note,AdoptionbyHomosexuals:ALookatDifferingState p*%* CourtOpinions,40Ariz.L.Rev.1497,1501(1998).Inthenexustest,thecourtconsidersfitness, \+&+  character,andconduct,includingsexualbehavior,onthepartoftheprospectiveparentandexamines H,', whetheranyofthesefactorswillhaveanadverseeffectonthechild.Underthisanalysis,proofis  requiredtoestablishthevariouselementsthatrelatetobestinterests.     Theperserulediveststhetrialcourtofanydiscretioninthecaseofspecificindividualsso t thattheyareconsideredunfitperseregardlessoftheirindividualcircumstances. See ,e.g.Fla.Stat. ` Ann.63.042(3),statingthat [n]opersoneligibletoadoptunderthisstatutemayadoptifthatperson L  isahomosexual.Thisistheapproachpostulatedbythedissentinthecasesubjudice.Itmustfail, 8  however,because(1)Tennesseeisnotapersejurisdiction;and,(2)therecordinthiscaseisdevoid $ t ofproofestablishinganexusorcasualconnectionbetweenMs.Langstonsstatusandharmtothe  ` subjectchild.  L    TherealityinthiscaseisthatMs.Langstonwastheadoptiveparentchosenbythebirth $  mothertoraiseherchild.Bythetimeoftrial,thechildhadbeeninMs.Langstonscustodyforover   onehalfofhislife,andheknewMs.Langstonashismother.TheevidencewasundisputedthatMs.   Langstonwasalovingparentwhohadthefinancialmeanstoprovideforthischild.Regardlessof   anypersonalbeliefsthatmembersofthiscourtmayharboraboutMs.Langstonslifestyle,therecord   simplycontainsnoevidenceastowhateffects,ifany,thesefactorsmayhaveonthechildinthe p future. \   Irecognizethatstatelegislaturesandcourtshavereacheddifferentconclusionsontheissue 4 ofadoptionbyhomosexuals.Iamnotconvinced,however,thatamajorityofotherjurisdictions  p haveexpressedblanketdisapprovalofadoptionbyhomosexualsasthedissentsuggests.Someof  \ theactivityinthisareainrecentyears,forinstance,hasconsistedmerelyofproposedlegislationthat H didnotpass.Underthenexusanalysis,theconductandbehavioroftheprospectiveadoptiveparent 4 willalwaysberelevant.Courtswillalwayshavethedutytoexaminesuchevidenceasmaybe   introducedrelatingtoanyharmfuloradverseeffectthatsuchconductmayhaveuponthebest   interestsofthechild.Butintheabsenceofsuchproof,ashere,courtsmaynotpresumewhatthe  proofdoesnotshow.    LikeJudgeTomlin,Iamgreatlyconcernedaboutthefutureofthisyoungchild.Basedon l theevidencebeforehim,however,IdonotseehowtheChancellorcouldhavereachedadifferent X  conclusionwithouttakingjudicialnoticeofevidencethatisnotintherecord.LiketheChancellor, D! thiscourtsconsiderationofthebestinterestsofthechildisnecessarilylimitedbywhatiscontained 0"  intherecord.Basedontheevidencepresented,Iconcurwiththemajorityopinionaffirmingthe #l! Chancellorsfinaldecreeofadoption. $X"  #xXX#  XXx   `     h     ___________________________________ |*%)    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE