ÿWPC ŠÓ[¶˜ð1þ0^ÿh‘÷¥ÐûjóN ÑëÏ3œûMœŒªˆ;d ¾ŽòÁÐwBTŽ˜51/\÷‚*Î">þ•yËP³ †'f2z£•S 2øØ®NÁ… %UÅßt€€Q å§‡½Ö`ÿÉ ù_;+·”ù:ÎÐüþpï;. 5ñbåK(œNŽïŸ¤JMöÀ·6`ñݤIqB.ªVì«òü‰é×xRµ ì£Å˜·»‰åð`ö’ þàO­`øc¾øœ>ÆÝ#$q, ˆ9|ù¯Ç–'{»È8ã<0ÐJXtÒÎyÖÿ/þõÎãnx§[ù³ •ú"“·f–³ú¥¥¶,1^M«çfR+9ëáasA0Ãa¼ìå1ŒbLÐÂwÁ|_$ì+È•V/§G÷§Uù_sŽ$Öú„(?Å0:.]ÚETóÀê~ŠÏMÚ7kµ‘•y®|ÖÐdùØ÷&â[Ü„ü.réö0@}3Wa¦¾âçï*ÅmM嚀LUÉ¡ÆÁž(&›Û¶î/¡+±ºkäŽêï\ù‚-Ã'Ÿ+níeö¥Š!P©7ÒԳΠݦv]{üjv ‹9u IÈÍÏð8¬mȶq<g« uÕÉ—×b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1÷NÿÿÿEb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0 » E)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularl;) Þ13Þe€¡ ˜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|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2ß%$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô#°ò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Fü»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Jd»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼~ÿ»» »ÔÑ8€$”XXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡ îeŽî» ¼~ÿÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#† ¼~ÿ»î îeŽ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€20,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡ X?£X» ¼~ÿÔÌò òÔ#† ¼~ÿ»X X?£ñ#ÔIn€re€ADOPTION€OF€M.J.€S.òòóóÔ‡ X?£X» ¼~ÿÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNos.€A5151„1,€A5153„3(1)€€€Walter€L.€Evans,€ChancellorÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W1999„00197„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€October€5,€2000Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼~ÿ»X X?£V#ÔÔ‡ X?£X» ¼~ÿÔÌÓŠÓò òó óÔ#† ¼~ÿ»X X?£¹#ÔòòÓ  ÓÔ€ X?£X. ¼~ÿÔÌHewitt€P.€Tomlin,€Jr.óó,€Sp.€J.,€dissenting.Ð P  ÐÌÌFor€the€several€reasons€hereafter€set€out,€I€respectfully€dissent€from€the€majority€opinion€of€myÐ d Ðcolleagues.€€It€is€my€firm€opinion€that€the€chancellor€below€committed€at€least€three€reversible€errors.€Ð P ÐFirst,€he€erred€in€dismissing€the€adoption€petition€of€the€Snyders€on€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð ì< ÐFor€the€reasons€I€shall€set€out€later,€the€Snydersðð€petition€for€adoption€should€have€been€allowed.€Ð Ø( ÐThe€adoption€petition€of€the€Snyders€is€specifically€exempted€from€the€custody€requirement€as€laterÐ Ä Ðset€forth€in€the€adoption€statutes.€Ð ° ЀÌà  àFurthermore,€in€my€opinion€a€review€of€this€€record€clearly€shows€that€the€evidenceÐ ˆØ Ðpreponderates€against€the€finding€of€the€chancellor€that€it€was€in€this€young€childððs€best€interest€toÐ tÄ Ðbe€adopted€by€the€petitioner€Langston,€an€open,€practicing€lesbian€who€at€that€time€had€an€ongoingÐ `° Ðsexual€relationship€of€several€years€with€another€lesbian,€who€also€resided€with€Langston€in€aÐ L œ Ðresidence€owned€by€the€two€of€them.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌà  àLastly,€the€chancellor€by€his€handling€of€this€case€showed€lack€of€familiarity€with€the€generalÐ #`" Ðlaw€in€cases€such€as€this€that€mandates€that€it€is€the€courtððs€obligation€to€see€to€it€that€the€childððs€bestÐ ü#L# Ðinterest€òòbe€paramount€at€all€timesóó.€Ð è$8 $ ÐÌò òA.€€Appellantsðð€standing€to€proceed€on€intervening€petition€for€adoptionÐ À&"& ÐÌà  àó óThe€majority€affirms€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Snyders€lacked€standing€to€proceed€on€Ð ˜(è#( Ðtheir€intervening€petition€for€adoption€because€they€failed€€to€satisfy€the€custody€requirement€of€theÐ „)Ô$) Ðadoption€statutes.€€This€custody€requirement€is€set€out€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„Ð p*À%* Ð116€(b)(5),€which€states€that€the€adoption€petition€must€state€ð ðthat€the€petitioners€have€physicalÐ \+¬&+ Ðcustody€of€the€child€or€that€they€meet€the€requirements€of€ðð36„1„111€(d)(6)€[regarding€validity€ofÐ H,˜', Ðsurrenders],€and€from€what€person€or€agency€such€custody€was€or€is€to€be€obtained.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ 4-„(-ý ÐAnn.€ðð€36„1„116€(b)(5)€(Supp.€1998).€€However,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„115€(b)Ð ° Ðspecifically€exempts€from€this€custody€requirement€those€filing€an€intervening€petition€to€adopt€aÐ œì Ðchild.€€ò òòòSee€óóó óTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„1„115€(b)€(1996).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAcknowledging€that€Section€36„1„115(b)€exempts€an€intervening€petitioner€from€the€custodyÐ `° Ðrequirement€at€the€time€the€petition€is€filed,€the€majority€finds€that€the€grandparents€had€standing€toÐ L œ Ðfile€an€intervening€petition€for€adoption.€€However,€despite€finding€that€the€grandparents€hadÐ 8 ˆ Ðstanding€to€òòfile€óóan€intervening€petition€for€adoption,€the€majority€finds€that€they€had€no€standing€toÐ $ t Ðòòproceedóó€with€their€petition€because€they€were€unable€to€meet€the€custody€requirement€of€the€adoptionÐ  ` Ðstatutes.€€The€majority€interprets€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„116€(f)(1)€ð ðto€mean€that,Ð ü L  Ðin€cases€where€an€intervening€adoption€petition€has€been€filed,€neither€the€original€petitioners€norÐ è 8  Ðthe€intervening€petitioners€will€be€granted€an€adoption€of€the€child€unless€the€trial€court€finds€thatÐ Ô$  Ðthe€petitioners€have€either€physical€custody€of€the€child€or€the€right€to€receive€custody€of€the€childÐ À  Ðpursuant€to€a€validly€executed€surrender.ðð€€Based€on€this€interpretation,€the€majority€concludes€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðð ðin€order€to€prevail€on€their€petition€to€adopt€the€child,€the€intervening€petitioners€must€meet€theÐ ˜è  Ðstatutesðð€custody€requirement€at€some€point€in€the€adoption€proceedings.ððÐ „Ô  Ðà  àÌà  àI€respectfully€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€interpretation€of€Section€36„1„116(f)(1),€andÐ \¬ Ðbelieve€it€to€be€erroneous.€€When€construing€a€statute,€the€courtððs€role€is€to€give€effect€to€legislativeÐ H˜ Ðintent.€€ò òòòSchering„Plough€Healthcare€Products,€Inc.€v.€State€Bd.€of€Equalizationó óóó,€999€S.W.2d€773,Ð 4„ Ð775€(Tenn.€1999).€€That€intent€can€best€be€ascertained€from€the€plain€and€ordinary€meaning€of€theÐ  p Ðlanguage€used,€without€ð ðforced€or€subtle€construction€that€would€limit€or€extend€the€meaning€of€theÐ  \ Ðlanguage.ðð€ò òòò€Id.€€óóó óWhenever€possible,€every€word€and€phrase€of€a€statute€is€to€be€given€meaning.€€ò òòòVossÐ øH Ðv.€Shelter€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€958€S.W.2d€342,€345€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).€€I€think€that€a€careful€readingÐ ä4 Ðof€the€statute,€with€attention€focused€on€each€phrase€and€the€placement€of€commas,€reveals€anÐ Ð  Ðentirely€different€meaning€from€that€found€by€the€majority.€€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„Ð ¼  Ð1„116(f)(1)€states:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àUpon€the€filing€of€the€petition,€the€court€shall€have€exclusive€jurisdiction€of€allÐ €Ð Ðmatters€pertaining€to€the€child,€including€the€establishment€of€paternity€of€a€childÐ l¼ Ðpursuant€to€chapter€2,€part€1€of€this€title,€except€for€allegations€of€delinquency,Ð X ¨ Ðunruliness€or€truancy€of€the€child€pursuant€to€title€37;€provided€that,€òòunless€a€partyÐ D!” Ðhas€filed€an€intervening€petition€to€an€existing€adoption€petition€concerning€a€childÐ 0"€  Ðwho€is€in€the€physical€custody€of€the€original€petitionersóó,€the€court€shall€have€noÐ #l! Ðjurisdiction€to€issue€any€orders€granting€custody€or€guardianship€of€the€child€to€theÐ $X" Ðpetitioners€or€to€the€intervening€petitioners€or€granting€an€adoption€of€the€child€to€theÐ ô$D # Ðpetitioners€or€to€the€intervening€petitioners€unless€the€petition€affirmatively€states,Ð à%0!$ Ðand€the€court€finds€in€its€order,€that€the€petitioners€have€physical€custody€of€the€childÐ Ì&"% Ðat€the€time€of€the€filing€of€the€petition,€entry€of€the€order€of€guardianship,€or€entry€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€order€of€adoption€or€unless€the€petitioners€otherwise€meet€the€requirements€of€ððÐ ¤(ô#' Ð36„1„111(d)(6).Ð)à$(Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð36„1„116€(f)(1)(Supp.1998)(emphasis€added).à È àÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àÌà  àAlthough€the€statute€is€awkwardly€worded,€I€am€of€the€opinion€that€by€the€plain€meaning€ofÐ œì Ðits€words,€the€statute€clearly€expresses€that€although€a€court€ordinarily€has€no€jurisdiction€to€grantÐ ˆØ Ðan€adoption€when€the€petitioner€cannot€show€either€that€he€has€custody€of€the€child€or€the€right€toÐ tÄ Ðreceive€custody€pursuant€to€a€valid€surrender,€an€exception€exists€in€the€case€of€an€interveningÐ `° Ðpetitioner,€where€the€child€sought€to€be€adopted€is€already€in€the€custody€of€the€original€petitioners.€Ð L œ ÐMoreover,€this€interpretation€is€consistent€with€the€language€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€SectionÐ 8 ˆ Ð36„1„115€(b),€which€states:Ð $ t ÐÌà8  à(b)€The€petitioners€must€have€physical€custody€or€must€demonstrate€to€the€court€thatÐ ü L  Ðthey€have€the€right€to€receive€custody€of€the€child€sought€to€be€adopted€as€providedÐ è 8  Ðin€ðð€36„1„111(d)(6)€at€the€time€the€petition€is€filed,€òòunless€they€are€filing€anÐ Ô$  Ðintervening€petition€seeking€to€adopt€the€childóó.ÐÀ Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„1„115(b)€(1996)(emphasis€added).Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€majority€asserts€as€support€for€its€interpretation€of€the€statute€the€custody€requirementÐ pÀ Ðof€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„116€(b)(5)€regarding€the€contents€of€a€petition€to€adopt.€Ð \¬ ÐHowever,€in€finding€that€the€Snyders€had€standing€to€file€an€intervening€petition€to€adopt€the€child,Ð H˜ Ðeven€though€they€were€unable€to€meet€the€custody€requirement€of€the€statute,€the€majority€has€inÐ 4„ Ðessence€acknowledged€that€the€custody€requirement€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€36„1„116€(b)(5)Ð  p Ðdoes€not€apply€to€an€intervening€petitioner.€€While€acknowledging€that€the€statuteððs€custodyÐ  \ Ðrequirement€does€not€apply€to€an€intervening€petition€to€adopt,€the€majority€nevertheless€concludesÐ øH Ðthat€the€adoption€statutes€require€that€the€intervening€petitioner,€in€order€to€prevail€in€his€adoptionÐ ä4 Ðpetition,€must€at€some€point€in€the€proceedings€show€that€he€either€has€custody€or€has€the€right€toÐ Ð  Ðreceive€custody.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àA€statute€should€be€construed,€when€possible,€so€that€its€component€parts€are€consistent€andÐ ”ä Ðreasonable.€€ò òòòState€v.€Odomóóó ó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€30€(Tenn.€1996);€ò òòòCohen€v.€Cohenóóó ó,€937€S.W.2d€823,€827Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€A€specific€statutory€provision€controls€over€a€more€general€one.€€ò òòòNiziol€v.€LockheedÐ l¼ ÐMartin€Energy€Sys.,€Inc.óóó ó,€8€S.W.3d€622,€624€(Tenn.€1999);€€ò òòòState€v.€Cauthernóóó ó,€967€S.W.2d€726,Ð X ¨ Ð735€(Tenn.€1998).€€Statutes€should€be€construed€in€the€light€of€reason.€€ò òòòVoss€v.€Shelter€Mut.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,Ð D!” Ð958€S.W.2d€342,€345€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  à€That€being€the€case,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„116€(b),€which€sets€forth€theÐ $X" Ðgeneral€requirements€for€ð ða€petition€to€adopt,ðð€gives€way€to€the€language€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ ô$D # ÐAnnotated€Sections€36„1„115€(b)€and€36„1„116€(f)(1),€which€specifically€state€that€an€interveningÐ à%0!$ Ðpetitioner€does€not€have€to€meet€the€custody€requirement€either€to€file€an€intervening€petition€toÐ Ì&"% Ðadopt,€or€to€be€granted€an€adoption€under€an€intervening€petition.€€ò òòòCompare€ó óóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„Ð ¸'#& Ð1„116€(b)(6)€ò òòòwith€óóó óTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€36„1„115€(b)€ò òòòand€óóó ó€36„1„116€(f)(1)€(1996€&€Supp.€1998).€€ThisÐ ¤(ô#' Ðis€the€only€construction€of€the€statutes€which€makes€sense,€and€which€gives€effect€to€the€statutes€asÐ )à$( Ða€whole.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àThe€majority€contends€that€its€interpretation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„Ð ° Ð116(f)(1)€is€further€bolstered€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€36„1„120(a)(4),€regarding€theÐ œì Ðcourtððs€final€order€of€adoption.€€This€section,€however,€supports€the€majorityððs€interpretation€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðstatute€only€if€the€majorityððs€interpretation€is€first€presumed€to€be€correct.€€Section€36„1„120€(a)(4)Ð tÄ Ðrequires€that€the€court€include€in€its€final€order€of€adoption€ð ð[t]he€date€when€the€petitioners€acquiredÐ `° Ðphysical€custody€of€the€child€and€from€what€person€or€agency€oròò€by€which€court€orderóó.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ L œ ÐAnn.€ðð€36„1„120€(a)(4)(1996)(emphasis€added).€€If€the€court,€under€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ 8 ˆ ÐSection€36„1„116€(f)(1),€has€the€authority€to€grant€an€adoption€and€issue€orders€of€custody€to€anÐ $ t Ðintervening€petitioner€in€cases€in€which€the€child€is€already€in€the€custody€of€the€original€petitioners,Ð  ` Ðthen€the€courtððs€final€order€of€adoption€and€custody€will€serve€as€the€court€order€by€which€theÐ ü L  Ðintervening€petitioners€receive€custody.à À àÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àI€am€of€the€opinion€€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€the€Snydersðð€petition€to€adopt€theÐ À  Ðchild.€€In€my€view,€the€trial€court€should€have€consolidated€both€partiesðð€petitions€to€adopt€in€oneÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial.€€In€its€determination€of€what€would€be€in€the€best€interests€of€the€child,€the€court€should€haveÐ ˜è  Ðcompared€the€two€prospective€adoptive€homes€that€were€available,€conducting€a€thorough€analysisÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€fitness€of€each€party,€including€each€partyððs€ability€to€provide€for€the€moral€growth€and€welfareÐ pÀ Ðof€this€young€child.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àTennessee€case€law€supports€the€use€of€a€comparative€fitness€type€of€analysis,€similar€to€thatÐ 4„ Ðused€in€custody€proceedings,€to€determine€the€best€interests€of€a€child€in€an€adoption€proceeding€inÐ  p Ðwhich€there€is€more€than€one€party€seeking€to€adopt€the€child.€ò òòò€ó óóóInòòò ò€Hale€v.€Breweróóó ó,€No.€03A01„9301„Ð  \ ÐCV„00054,€1993€WL€328061€at€*€1(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€18,€1993),€the€trial€court,€simultaneouslyÐ øH Ðconsidering€competing€petitions€to€adopt€filed€by€two€different€parties,€compared€the€two€prospectiveÐ ä4 Ðadoptive€parties€and€homes€in€seeking€to€determine€the€best€interests€of€the€children.€ò òòò€Id.€óóó óat€*€2.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðchildren€in€òòò òHaleó óóó€were€siblings,€orphaned€by€the€murder„suicide€of€their€mother€and€father.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðchildren€were€placed€in€the€custody€of€their€maternal€grandmother€and€her€husband.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€*€1.€Ð ¨ø ÐSubsequent€to€the€grandmotherððs€award€of€legal€custody,€the€childrenððs€paternal€aunt€and€herÐ ”ä Ðhusband€petitioned€to€adopt€the€children.€€òòò òId.€ó óóó€The€grandmother€counter„claimed€for€adoption.€€AfterÐ €Ð Ðcomparing€the€merits€of€each€home,€including€the€lifestyles€of€the€parties,€the€trial€court€granted€theÐ l¼ Ðauntððs€petition€to€adopt,€denying€the€€grandmotherððs€petition.€€òòò òId.€ó óóóat€*€2.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÐ X ¨ Ðaffirmed,€finding€that€evidence€presented€in€the€case,€which€included€proof€of€the€auntððs€stableÐ D!” Ðmarriage€and€the€grandmotherððs€history€of€adultery,€€did€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððsÐ 0"€  Ðdecision€that€placement€with€the€aunt€served€the€best€interests€of€the€children.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óÐ #l! ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€in€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€Hartóóó ó,€709€S.W.2d€582€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984),€both€the€trialÐ ô$D # Ðcourt€and€the€reviewing€court€on€appeal€engaged€in€a€comparison€of€two€parties€competing€forÐ à%0!$ Ðcustody€to€determine€if€the€proposed€adoption€was€in€the€childððs€best€interests.€€In€this€case,€theÐ Ì&"% Ðchildððs€biological€mother€had€executed€a€surrender€of€her€child€to€a€middle„aged€couple,€who€thenÐ ¸'#& Ðfiled€a€petition€to€adopt.€€The€childððs€great„grandparents,€who€had€previously€been€awarded€legalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcustody€of€the€child,€petitioned€to€intervene€in€the€adoption,€seeking€the€return€of€the€child€to€theirÐ )à$( Ðcustody.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€583.€€After€comparing€the€two€prospective€homes€available€to€the€child,€the€trial€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðgranted€the€coupleððs€petition€to€adopt.€€The€great„grandparents€appealed.€€In€affirming€the€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðcourtððs€decision,€the€Court€of€Appeals€clearly€engages€in€a€comparative€fitness€analysis€of€the€twoÐ ° Ðparties:€Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€proof€introduced€at€trial€on€this€issue€[regarding€the€best€interest€of€theÐ tÄ Ðchild]€indicated€that€both€families€could€provide€an€adequate€home€for€the€child.€Ð `° ÐThere€was€no€testimony€or€other€proof€that€the€appellees€or€the€appellants€had€everÐ L œ Ðneglected€children€or€were€likely€to€do€so€in€the€future.€€Further,€the€proof€did€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðindicate€that€any€of€the€parties€to€the€litigation€were€morally€unfit€to€raise€a€child.€Ð $ t ÐAnd€while€the€record€indicates€that€the€appellees€may€have€a€more€affluent€lifestyleÐ  ` Ðthan€the€appellants,€it€cannot€be€said€that€the€appellants€could€not€provide€adequateÐ ü L  Ðfinancial€support€for€Stephanie.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àHowever,€two€important€factors€support€the€decision€rendered€by€the€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourt.€€First,€the€appellees€are€a€middle€aged€couple.€€They€can€be€expected€to€remainÐ À  Ðin€good€health€until€the€child€is€emancipated.€€The€appellants€are€an€elderly€couple.€Ð ¬ü  ÐMr.€Guthrie€testified€that€he€was€seventy„three€years€old€at€the€hearing€of€this€matterÐ ˜è  Ð(more€than€a€year€ago).€€He€added€that€he€was€seven€years€older€than€his€wife.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àBut€perhaps€an€even€more€serious€impediment€to€the€appellantsðð€demands€isÐ pÀ Ðtheir€failure€to€initiate€an€adoption€proceeding€of€their€own.€€In€their€petition€toÐ \¬ Ðintervene,€the€appellants€sought€only€to€prevent€Stephanieððs€adoption€by€the€appelleesÐ H˜ Ðand€to€regain€custody€of€the€child.€€Regardless€of€the€reason€for€the€appellantsðð€failureÐ 4„ Ðto€seek€an€adoption,€we€believe€it€is€preferable€that€a€permanent€home€be€found€forÐ  p ÐStephanie.€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòId.€óóó óat€585.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court,€before€approving€a€proposed€adoption,€has€the€duty€to€find€not€only€that€theÐ ¼  Ðprospective€parents€are€fit,€but€also€that€the€adoption€is€in€the€best€interests€of€the€child.€€òòò òIn€reÐ ¨ø ÐAdoption€of€Singletonóóó ó,€1985€WL€3544,€at€*€1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€8,€1985).€€In€seeking€toÐ ”ä Ðdetermine€whether€the€best€interests€of€the€child€will€be€served€by€the€adoption,€the€trial€court€isÐ €Ð Ðspecifically€charged€with€the€ð ðduty€of€protecting€the€child€and€those€interests€and€òòto€bring€thoseÐ l¼ Ðinterests€fully€before€the€courtóó.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€(citing€2€Am.€Jur.€2d,€òòAdoptionóó,€ðð€58)òòò òóóó ó€(emphasis€added).€€I€doÐ X ¨ Ðnot€think€that€a€true€best€interests€analysis€for€this€child€could€be€conducted€without€the€trial€courtððsÐ D!” Ðconsideration€of€the€alternative€home€that€was€available.€€By€failing€to€consider€the€grandparentsððÐ 0"€  Ðcompeting€claim€on€this€child,€the€trial€court€ignored€vital€information€that€was€pertinent€to€aÐ #l! Ðdetermination€of€this€childððs€best€interests.€€ò òòòSee€Hale€v.€Breweróóó ó,€No.€03A01„9301„CV„00054,€1993Ð $X" ÐWL€328061€at€*€1(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Aug.€18,€1993);òòò ò€In€re€Adoption€of€Hartóóó ó,€709€S.W.2d€582€(Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCt.€App.€1984).€€Therefore,€I€would€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€LangstonÐ à%0!$ Ðon€the€Snydersðð€intervening€petition€to€adopt,€and€remand€for€a€full€hearing€to€determine€whether€theÐ Ì&"% Ðbest€interests€of€the€child€is€best€served€by€placing€him€with€his€grandparents.ò òòòÐ ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÌB.€The€Best€Interests€of€the€ChildÐ D,”'+ Їó óóóà  àAssuming,€òòarguendoóó,€however,€that€the€majorityððs€interpretation€of€the€pertinent€statutes€isÐ ° Ðcorrect,€and€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€dismissing€the€Snydersðð€intervening€petition€to€adoptÐ œì Ðbased€on€their€failure€to€meet€the€statutesðð€custody€requirement,€I€would€still€reverse€the€trial€courtÐ ˆØ Ðon€the€basis€that€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€support€a€finding€that€adoption€into€aÐ tÄ Ðlesbian€household,€under€the€circumstances€presented€by€the€proof,€is€in€the€best€interests€of€thisÐ `° Ðchild.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€an€adoption€proceeding€òòthe€welfare€and€best€interests€of€the€child€is€always€of€paramountÐ $ t Ðimportanceóó.€€òòò òSonet€v.€Unknown€Father€of€J.€D.€H.ó óóó,€797€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€ò òòòIn€reÐ  ` ÐAdoption€of€Hartóóó ó,€709€S.W.2d€69,€71„72€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1984).€€In€the€event€of€a€conflict€betweenÐ ü L  Ðthe€interests€of€the€child€and€the€interests€of€an€adult,€the€childððs€best€interests€is€to€take€precedence.€Ð è 8  Ðò òòòSee€óóó óTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„1„101(d)€(Supp.€1999).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àFrom€the€evidence€presented€at€trial,€there€can€be€little€doubt€that€adoption€by€Langston€willÐ ¬ü  Ðresult€in€this€child€being€reared€in€a€lesbian€ð ðfamily.ðð€€Langston€testified€that€she€and€herÐ ˜è  Ðð ðroommate,ðð€Angela€Craig€(ð ðMs.€Craigðð)€were€ð ðclose€committed€friendsðð€who€€intended€ð ðto€liveÐ „Ô  Ðtogether€forever.ðð€€Langston€admitted€that€she€and€Ms.€Craig€had€lived€together€for€the€past€sevenÐ pÀ Ðand€a€half€years.€€She€acknowledged€that€she€and€Ms.€Craig€co„owned€a€home€together,€and€that€Ms.Ð \¬ ÐCraigððs€name€was€on€the€deed€to€the€house.€€Langston€further€testified€that€she€wanted€to€have€theÐ H˜ Ðname€ð ðCraigðð€added€as€part€of€the€childððs€name,€because€ð ðit€was€very€important€to€me€€that€I€haveÐ 4„ Ðthe€name€of€somebody€that€I€cared€about€and€thought€a€lot€about€to€be€in€there.ððÐ  p ÐÌà  àMs.€Craig€testified€that€she€and€Langston€had€been€involved€in€a€romantic,€sexualÐ øH Ðrelationship€until€April€or€May€of€1998.€€Ms.€Craig€candidly€admitted€that€their€sexual€activity€hadÐ ä4 Ðceased€because€of€Langstonððs€desire€to€adopt€a€child.€€This€elimination€of€sexual€activity€from€theirÐ Ð  Ðlives€coincidentally€took€place€about€the€time€that€Langston€filed€her€petition€to€adopt.€€Ms.€CraigÐ ¼  Ðsaid,€however,€that€she€and€Langston€were€presently€ð ðevaluating€that€relationship.ðð€€€Ms.€Craig€wasÐ ¨ø Ðunwilling€to€rule€out€the€possibility€that€they€might€resume€their€sexual€activity€at€some€point,Ð ”ä Ðstating,€ð ðI€canððt€predict€what€is€going€to€happen€in€the€future.ðð€€She€said€that€if€they€were€to€resumeÐ €Ð Ðtheir€sexual€activity€they€would€not€be€sexual€in€front€of€their€€children.€€Notably,€however,€she€didÐ l¼ Ðòònot€óósay€that€they€would€not€be€demonstrative€towards€each€other€in€front€of€the€children,€stating€thatÐ X ¨ Ðð ð[the€child]€will€know€that€we€are€very€good€friends€and€friends€are€loving€€towards€one€another.€Ð D!” ÐNow,€sexual€and€loving€are€two€different€things.ððÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àMs.€Craig€admitted€that€she€had€played€an€ð ðactive€roleðð€in€the€adoption.€€She€acknowledgedÐ $X" Ðthat€she€had€contacted€attorneys€on€Langstonððs€behalf,€accompanied€the€birth€mother€on€her€visitsÐ ô$D # Ðto€the€doctor,€been€present€at€the€hospital€when€the€child€was€born,€and€been€€present€at€the€restaurantÐ à%0!$ Ðwhen€the€birth€mother€delivered€the€child€to€Langston.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àBoth€Langston€and€Ms.€Craig€stated€that€they€did€not€date€men.€€When€asked€if€sheÐ ¤(ô#' Ðanticipated€ever€marrying,€Ms.€Craig€replied:€ð ð[N]othing€is€beyond€consideration.€€As€I€said,€we€areÐ )à$( Ðin€the€process€of€evaluating€that€relationship€that€I€have€testified€to€and€that,€quite€honestly,€I€haveÐ |*Ì%) Ðno€shame€about€from€the€past.ðð€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€clear€picture€that€emerges€from€the€trial€is€that€Langston€and€Ms.€Craig€are€lesbians,€andÐ ° Ðthat€they€have€been€living€in€a€sexual,€pseudo„marriage€relationship€with€each€other€for€a€numberÐ œì Ðof€years.€€According€to€Langston,€the€two€women€were€very€close€friends,€and€intended€to€liveÐ ˆØ Ðtogether€forever.€€Ms.€Craig€pushed€Langston€to€adopt€this€child,€and€played€an€active€role€in€theÐ tÄ Ðentire€adoption€process.€€Ms.€Craig€cares€for€the€child€when€Langston€is€at€work.€€The€womenððsÐ `° Ðsexual€relationship,€by€Ms.€Craigððs€account,€ended€only€in€April€or€May€of€1998,€at€approximatelyÐ L œ Ðthe€same€time€that€the€birth€mother€delivered€the€child€to€Langston.€€At€the€time€of€the€trial,€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðwomen€were€reevaluating€their€decision€to€cease€their€sexual€activity,€and€Ms.€Craig€admitted€thatÐ $ t Ðthere€was€a€possibility€that€they€would€resume€having€sex€with€one€another€in€the€future.€€Ms.€CraigÐ  ` Ðstated€that€she€felt€no€shame€about€their€sexual€relationship.€€The€only€reasonable€inference€that€canÐ ü L  Ðbe€drawn€from€these€facts€is€that€the€child,€if€allowed€to€remain€with€Langston,€will€be€raised€in€aÐ è 8  Ðhousehold€consisting€of€open,€practicing€lesbians€who€will€co„parent€the€boy.€€In€my€view,€such€anÐ Ô$  Ðarrangement€cannot€be€and€is€not€in€the€best€interests€of€any€child.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àAlthough€this€court€has€not€had€previous€occasion€to€address€the€issue€of€a€homosexualÐ ˜è  Ðadoption,€this€court€has€addressed€the€homosexuality€of€one€desiring€to€be€a€custodial€parent,€in€aÐ „Ô  Ðpost„divorce€custody€dispute.€€ò òòòCollins€v.€Collinsóóó ó,€1988€WL€30173,€at€*€3€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Mar.€30,Ð pÀ Ð1988).€€In€ò òòòCollinsóóó ó€the€trial€court€granted€the€fatherððs€petition€to€have€custody€of€the€partiesðð€nine„Ð \¬ Ðyear„old€daughter€changed€from€the€mother€to€himself,€based€on€the€motherððs€post„divorce€lesbianÐ H˜ Ðlifestyle.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€*€1.€€On€appeal,€the€mother€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€basing€its€award€ofÐ 4„ Ðcustody€solely€on€her€homosexuality,€without€proof€of€the€harmful€effects€that€lifestyle€had€on€theÐ  p Ðchild.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€*€2.€òòò ò€óóó óWe€affirmed,€finding€that,€although€there€was€no€proof€that€the€child€had€as€yetÐ  \ Ðbeen€harmed€by€her€motherððs€lifestyle,€€she€faced€possible€social€ostracism€and€contempt€if€sheÐ øH Ðremained€with€the€mother:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àà ` àBoth€parties€obviously€love€their€daughter.€€Mother€has€done€a€good€job€inÐ ¼  Ðraising€her€to€be€a€normal,€well„adjusted€child,€and€there€has€been€no€proof€that€theÐ ¨ø ÐMotherððs€lifestyle€has€adversely€affected€the€childððs€growth€or€development.€Ð ”ä ÐHowever,€if€the€child€remains€with€her€mother,€she€faces€a€life€that€requires€her€toÐ €Ð Ðkeep€the€secret€of€her€motherððs€lifestyle,€or€face€possible€social€ostracism€andÐ l¼ Ðcontempt.€€This€adds€tremendous€pressure€to€a€young€childððs€life.€€When€the€welfareÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€child€is€at€stake,€the€Court€is€not€required€to€wait€until€obvious€damage€is€done.€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòId.€óóó óat€*€3.€€The€òòò òCollinsó óóó€Court€did€not,€however,€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€order€of€custody€based€on€theÐ #l! Ðmotherððs€homosexual€lifestyle€alone.€€Instead,€the€ò òòòCollins€ó óóóCourt€engaged€in€a€comparative€fitnessÐ $X" Ðanalysis,€finding€that€the€mother€was€not€unfit,€but€that€the€father€was€comparatively€more€fit,€dueÐ ô$D # Ðin€large€part€to€his€stable€marriage€and€heterosexual€lifestyle.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€This€writer€€felt€constrained€toÐ à%0!$ Ðwrite€a€separate€concurring€opinion€in€the€òòò òCollins€ó óóócase€precisely€because€the€majority€failed€toÐ Ì&"% Ðsquarely€address€the€issue€of€the€fitness€of€an€active€homosexual€to€be€a€custodial€parent.€€IÐ ¸'#& Ðanticipated€cases€such€as€the€one€presently€before€this€court,€in€which€courts€of€this€state€would€ð ðbeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfaced€with€the€issue€of€the€homosexuality€of€a€custodial€parent€or€one€desiring€to€be€a€custodialÐ )à$( Ðparent.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóó€at€*€4€(Tomlin,€P.J.,€€concurring).€€As€I€stated€in€ò òòòCollinsóóó ó:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` àThe€courts€of€this€state€have€a€duty€to€perpetuate€the€values€and€moralsÐ ° Ðassociated€with€the€family€and€conventional€marriage,€inasmuch€as€homosexualityÐ œì Ðis€and€should€be€treated€as€errant€and€deviant€social€behavior.€€I€would€have€thisÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€declare€under€this€or€a€similar€set€of€facts€that€a€practicing€homosexual€parentÐ tÄ Ðbe€disqualified€from€obtaining€legal€custody€of€oneððs€minor€child€or€children.€€WhileÐ `° Ða€child€the€age€of€partiesðð€daughter€is€too€young€to€emulate€her€motherððs€conduct,€toÐ L œ Ðhold€otherwise€would€be€adopting€a€ð ðwait€and€seeðð€attitude€and€would€endanger€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðchildððs€moral€development.€It€is€too€great€a€risk€to€postpone€taking€action€toÐ $ t Ðsafeguard€the€moral€well€being€of€children€until€one€sees€tangible€manifestations€ofÐ  ` Ðharm€to€their€characters.€Ðü L Ð Ð  ÐÌò òòòId.€óóó óat€*€11.Ð Ô$  ÐÌÓÓÓÓà  àA€majority€of€other€jurisdictions€do€not€support€the€adoption€of€children€by€open€Ð ¬ü  Ðhomosexuals.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€Karla€J.€Starr,òò€óóNote,€òòAdoption€by€Homosexuals:€A€Look€at€Differing€State€CourtÐ ˜è  ÐOpinionsóó,€40€Ariz.€L.€Rev.€1497,€1498€(1998);€ò òòòSee€also€ó óóóDavid€L.€Chamber€and€Nancy€D.€Polikoff,Ð „Ô  ÐòòFamily€Law€and€Gay€and€Lesbian€Family€Issues€in€the€Twentieth€Centuryóó,€33€Fam.€L.€Q.€523,€540Ð pÀ Ð(1999).€€Florida€has€a€statutory€prohibition€against€homosexuals€adopting.€€ò òòòSee€óóó óFl.€St.€Ann.€ððÐ \¬ Ð63.042(1997).€€New€Hampshireððs€statutes,€until€last€year,€provided€an€absolute€bar€againstÐ H˜ Ðhomosexuals€adopting€or€acting€as€foster€parents.€€ò òòòSee€ó óóóN.H.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€170„B:2€to€B:4,€170„Ð 4„ ÐF:2€to€F:6€(1994)(repealed€1999).€€It€has€only€been€in€the€past€decade€that€some€jurisdictions€haveÐ  p Ðbegun€to€allow€an€openly€gay€or€lesbian€individual€to€adopt.€€Notably,€however,€by€far€the€majorityÐ  \ Ðof€these€cases€involve€so€called€ð ðsecond€parent€adoptions,ðð€in€which€the€homosexual€partner€of€theÐ øH Ðchildððs€biological€parent€seeks€to€adopt€the€biological€parentððs€€child.€ò òòò€See,€eg.,€In€re€Adoption€ofÐ ä4 ÐT.K.J.€&€K.A.K.ó óóó,€931€P.2d€448€(Colo.€Ct.€App.€1996);€ò òòòIn€re€Christine€G.óóó ó,€644€N.Y.S.2d€1016€(App.Ð Ð  ÐDiv.€1996);€ò òòòIn€re€M.M.D.€v.€B.H.M.óóó ó,€662€A.2d€837€(D.C.€1995);€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€of€Two€ChildrenÐ ¼  Ðby€H.N.R.óóó ó,€666€A.2d€535€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1995);€ò òòòIn€re€K.M.€&€D.M.óóó ó,€653€N.E.2d€888€(Ill.Ð ¨ø ÐApp.€Ct.€1995);€ò òòòIn€re€Jacobó óóó,€636€N.Y.S.2d€716€(N.Y.€1995);€ò òòòAdoption€of€Tammyó óóó,€619€N.E.€2d€315Ð ”ä Ð(Mass.€1993).€€Cases€which€allow€homosexual€ð ðstrangerðð€adoptions€are€rare,€and€primarily€involveÐ €Ð Ðspecial€needs€or€handicapped€children€who€usually€have€no€other€viable€options€for€adoption.€€ò òòòSeeÐ l¼ ÐIn€re€Adoption€of€Jessica€N.ó óóó,€609€N.Y.S.2d€209,€209€(App.€Div.€1994)(allowing€lesbian€to€adoptÐ X ¨ Ðchild€with€birth€defects€she€had€cared€for€since€child€was€four€months€old);€ò òòòIn€re€Adoption€ofÐ D!” ÐCharles€B.óóó ó,€552€N.E.2d€884,€890€(Ohio€1990)(permitting€homosexual€man€to€adopt€emotionallyÐ 0"€  Ðdisturbed,€brain„damaged€child€with€leukemia€whom€he€had€counseled€for€several€years);€ò òòòIn€reÐ #l! ÐCommitment€of€J.N.ó óóó,€601€N.Y.S.2d€215,€216,€218€(allowing€lesbian€foster€mother€to€adopt€childÐ $X" Ðborn€with€birth€defects€and€addiction€to€cocaine).ÓzÓÐ ô$D # ÐÓÓà  àAn€examination€of€custody€cases,€which,€like€adoptions,€are€determined€on€a€case€by€caseÐ Ì&"% Ðbasis€under€the€ð ðbest€interests€of€the€childðð€standard,€reveals€the€generally€negative€view€that€otherÐ ¸'#& Ðjurisdictions€have€taken€of€homosexual€parenting,€and€its€effects€upon€children.€€In€a€1985€caseÐ ¤(ô#' Ðinvolving€a€custody€dispute€between€a€heterosexual€mother€and€homosexual€father,€the€VirginiaÐ )à$( ÐSupreme€Court€found€that€the€fatherððs€openly€gay€lifestyle€rendered€him€unfit€to€have€custody.€€òòò òRoeÐ |*Ì%) Ðv.€Roeó óóó,€324€S.E.2d€691,€693.€€(Va.€1985).€€The€òòò òRoeó óóó€Court€stated:€Ð h+¸&* ЇÓT…ÓÓÓà8  à[W]e€have€no€hesitancy€in€saying€that€the€conditions€under€which€this€child€must€liveÐ ° Ðdaily€[in€an€openly€homosexual€household]€are€not€only€unlawful€but€also€impose€anÐ œì Ðintolerable€burden€upon€her€by€reason€of€the€social€condemnation€attached€to€them,Ð ˆØ Ðwhich€will€inevitably€afflict€her€relationships€with€her€peers€and€with€the€communityÐ tÄ Ðat€large.€The€fatherððs€unfitness€is€manifested€by€his€willingness€to€impose€this€burdenÐ `° Ðupon€her€in€exchange€for€his€own€gratification.ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐÌÓGˆÓò òòòId.€óóó óat€728€(citations€omitted).Ð $ t ÐÓÓà  àThe€Virginia€Supreme€Court€reaffirmed€that€position€in€òòò òBottoms€v.€Bottomsóóó ó,€457€S.E.2d€102Ð ü L  Ð(Va.€1995),€a€custody€dispute€between€a€childððs€lesbian€mother€and€his€grandmother.€€The€trial€courtÐ è 8  Ðfound€that€it€was€in€the€childððs€best€interest€to€be€placed€with€his€grandmother.€€The€Virginia€CourtÐ Ô$  Ðof€Appeals€reversed.€€The€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€in€turn,€was€reversed€by€the€VirginiaÐ À  ÐSupreme€Court,€which€reinstated€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€custody€to€the€grandmother.€€In€affirmingÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€trial€courtððs€decision,€the€Virginia€Supreme€Court€noted€that€the€factors€to€be€considered€inÐ ˜è  Ðdetermining€the€unfitness€of€a€parent€ð ðinclude€the€nature€of€the€home€environment€and€moral€climateÐ „Ô  Ðin€which€the€child€is€to€be€raised.ðð€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€107.€€The€Court€found€that€the€motherððs€open€lesbianÐ pÀ Ðrelationship€could€not€be€ignored€in€the€determination€of€the€childððs€custody:€Ð \¬ ÐÌÓ‹ÓÓÓà8  àà ` àAnd,€we€shall€not€overlook€the€motherððs€relationship€with€[her€lesbian€lover],Ð 4„ Ðand€the€environment€in€which€the€child€would€be€raised€if€custody€is€awarded€to€theÐ  p Ðmother.€€We€have€previously€said€that€living€daily€under€the€conditions€stemmingÐ  \ Ðfrom€active€lesbianism€practiced€in€the€home€may€impose€a€burden€upon€the€child€byÐ øH Ðreason€of€the€ð ðsocial€condemnationðð€attached€to€such€an€arrangement,€which€willÐ ä4 Ðinevitably€afflict€the€childððs€relationships€with€its€ð ðpeers€and€with€the€community€atÐ Ð  Ðlarge.ðð€ò òòòRoe€v.€Roeóóó ó,€228€Va.€722,€728,€324€S.E.2d€691,€694€(1985).€€We€do€not€retreatÐ ¼  Ðfrom€that€statement;€such€a€result€is€likely€under€these€facts.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ˜Óò òòòId.€ó óóóat€108.Ð €Ð ÐÓÓà  àInòòò ò€Ex€parte€J.M.F.€ó óóó,€730€So.2d€1190€(€Ala.€1998),€the€Supreme€Court€of€Alabama€affirmedÐ X ¨ Ða€trial€courtððs€change€of€custody€from€a€mother€to€a€father,€based€in€part€on€the€motherððs€active€andÐ D!” Ðopen€lesbian€lifestyle.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€1191.€€The€mother€was€originally€awarded€custody€of€the€partiesðð€youngÐ 0"€  Ðdaughter€when€the€parties€divorced.€€Soon€after€the€divorce,€the€mother€entered€into€a€lesbianÐ #l! Ðrelationship€with€another€woman,€who€shared€the€home€with€the€mother€and€child.€€€The€fatherÐ $X" Ðsubsequently€remarried.€€The€father€petitioned€for€custody€when€he€learned€that€the€mother€and€herÐ ô$D # Ðlover€were€not€concealing€their€relationship€from€the€child,€but€instead€were€openly€displaying€theirÐ à%0!$ Ðlesbian€lifestyle,€presenting€themselves€to€the€child€and€others€as€ð ðlife€partnersðð€in€a€relationshipÐ Ì&"% Ðsimilar€to€that€of€a€married€couple.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€1192.€The€trial€court,€based€on€the€fatherððs€remarriage€andÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€motherððs€openly€lesbian€lifestyle,€granted€the€fatherððs€petition.€€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐThe€Alabama€Supreme€Court€reinstated€the€trial€courtððs€award€of€custody€to€the€father.€€AlthoughÐ )à$( Ðthe€Court€did€not€base€its€decision€solely€on€the€openly€homosexual€lifestyle€of€the€mother,€itÐ |*Ì%) Ðacknowledged€that€such€a€lifestyle€could€have€detrimental€effects€on€a€child:Ð h+¸&* ЇÓP“ÓÓÓà8  àWhile€the€evidence€shows€that€the€mother€loves€the€child€and€has€provided€her€withÐ ° Ðgood€care,€it€also€shows€that€she€has€chosen€to€expose€the€child€continuously€to€aÐ œì Ðlifestyle€that€is€ð ðneither€legal€in€this€state,€nor€moral€in€the€eyes€of€most€of€itsÐ ˆØ Ðcitizens.ðð€ò òòòEx€parte€D.W.W.óóó ó,€717€So.2d€793,€796€(Ala.€1998).€€The€record€containsÐ tÄ Ðevidence€from€which€the€trial€court€could€have€concluded€that€ð ð[a]€child€raised€byÐ `° Ðtwo€women€or€two€men€is€deprived€of€€extremely€valuable€developmental€experienceÐ L œ Ðand€the€opportunity€for€optimal€individual€growth€and€interpersonal€developmentððÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€that€ð ðthe€degree€of€harm€to€children€from€the€homosexual€conduct€of€a€parent€isÐ $ t Ðuncertain€.€.€.and€the€range€of€potential€harm€is€enormous.ððÐ `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àLynn€D.€Wardle,€The€Potential€Impact€of€Homosexual€Parenting€on€Children,€1997Ð ü L  ÐU.€Ill.€L.€Rev.€833,€895€(1997).€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÓ¸™ÓÓÓÌò òòòId.€óóó óat€1196.Ð À  ÐÌÓÓÓÓà  àThese€and€other€similar€cases€indicate€that€a€parentððs€homosexual€lifestyle€is€a€factor€thatÐ ˜è  Ðshould€be€considered€in€the€determination€of€the€best€interests€of€a€child€subject€to€a€custody€dispute.€Ð „Ô  Ðò òòòSee,€eg.,€Weigand€v.€Houghtonó óóó,€730€So.2d€581,€586€(Miss.€1999)€(finding€that€homosexuality€ofÐ pÀ Ðfather,€having€bearing€on€his€moral€fitness,€was€relevant€to€determination€of€child€custody);€òòò òJ.A.D.Ð \¬ Ðv.€F.J.D.ó óóó€,978€S.W.2d€336,€339€(Mo.€1998)(òòen€bancóó)(holding€that€it€was€not€error€to€consider€impactÐ H˜ Ðof€parentððs€homosexuality€on€children€in€custody€determination);€ò òòòPulliam€v.€Smithó óóó,501€S.E.2d€898,Ð 4„ Ð904€(N.C.€1998)€(finding€that€open€nature€of€fatherððs€homosexuality,€which€included€hand„holdingÐ  p Ðand€kissing€lover€in€presence€of€children,€likely€to€create€emotional€difficulties€for€children).€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àA€most€enlightening€and€judicially€balanced€law€review€article,€entitled€ð ðThe€PotentialÐ ä4 ÐImpact€of€Homosexual€Parenting€on€Childrenðð€by€Professor€Lynn€D.€Wardle,€is€found€in€the€1997Ð Ð  ÐUniversity€of€Illinois€Law€Review.€€Lynn€D.€Wardle,€òòThe€Potential€Impact€of€Homosexual€ParentingÐ ¼  Ðon€Childrenóó,€1997€U.€Ill.€L.€Rev.€833€(1997).€€As€have€the€authorities€cited€herein,€Professor€WardleÐ ¨ø Ðnotes€that€ð ðthe€core€concern€in€parental€relationship€cases€must€be€the€welfare€of€children.ðð€òòò òId.€ó óóóatÐ ”ä Ð843.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWardle€examined€a€study€dealing€with€the€impact€of€being€raised€by€lesbian€or€gay€parents,Ð X ¨ Ða€study€touted€by€those€favoring€the€parental€rights€of€homosexuals.€€Wardle€noted€that€ð ðstudiesÐ D!” Ðindicate€that€children€raised€by€parents€engaged€in€homosexual€relationships€are€at€a€substantiallyÐ 0"€  Ðgreater€risk€(at€least€3.5€to€7€times€heightened€risk)€of€being€drawn€into€homosexual€behaviorÐ #l! Ðthemselves.ðð€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€850.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWardle€also€cites€some€of€the€indicia€of€the€needs€for€and€advantages€of€dual„genderÐ à%0!$ Ðparenting.€€He€writes:Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà8  àChildren€raised€by€homosexual€couples€do€not€have€both€a€father€and€a€mother.€€IfÐ ¤(ô#' ÐHeather€is€being€raised€by€two€mommies€only,€she€is€being€deprived€of€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âexperience€of€being€raised€by€a€daddy.€€Both€the€common€experience€of€humanityÐ |*Ì%) Ðand€recent€research€suggest€that€a€daddy€and€a€mommy€together€provide€by€far€theÐ ° Ðbest€environment€in€which€a€child€may€be€raised.ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòò òId.€ó óóóat€858.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àLastly,€Professor€Wardle€provides€some€interesting€data€concerning€four€independentÐ L œ ÐScandinavian€nations„„Denmark,€Norway,€Sweden€and€Iceland„„and€how€each€one€has€dealt€withÐ 8 ˆ Ðsame„sex€domestic€partnerships€as€well€as€child€rearing€rights.€€In€Iceland,€same„sex€couples€mayÐ $ t Ðenter€into€same„sex€relationships,€but€are€excluded€from€adoption€and€artificial€insemination.€€InÐ  ` ÐDenmark€the€same„sex€couple€may€not€adopt€a€child.€€In€Sweden,€same„sex€domestic€partnershipsÐ ü L  Ðare€excluded€from€adoption,€joint€custody,€and€fertilization€in€vitro.€€In€Norway,€same„sex€registeredÐ è 8  Ðpartnerships€may€not€adopt.€€As€observed€by€Professor€Wardle:€ð ðà8 @ò àThese€nations€take€great€care€toÐ Ô$  Ðprevent€adults€from€subjecting€children€to€some€potentially€detrimental€effects€and€consequences€ofÐ À  Ðadult€sexual€preferences.ðð€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€891.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àIf€the€homosexuality€of€a€parent€is€relevant€to€the€best€interests€of€a€child€in€a€custody€disputeÐ „Ô  Ðbetween€biological€parents,€thenòò€a€fortiorióó€the€homosexuality€of€a€prospective€adoptive€parent€mustÐ pÀ Ðcertainly€be€relevant€to€a€€determination€of€the€best€interests€of€a€child€in€an€adoption€proceeding.€Ð \¬ ÐThis€is€especially€true€in€a€case€such€as€the€one€at€bar,€where€the€homosexual€adoptive€parent€is€notÐ H˜ Ðin€any€way€biologically€related€to€the€child.€€This€child€was€not€born€to€a€homosexual€parent.€€ByÐ 4„ Ðgranting€Langstonððs€adoption€petition,€the€trial€court€is€forcing€this€innocent€child,€who€is€unable€toÐ  p Ðspeak€on€his€own€behalf,€into€a€ð ðfamilyðð€which€most€of€society€still€views€as€immoral€and€unnatural.€Ð  \ ÐAnne€McGinnis€(ð ðMcGinnisðð),€the€licensed€clinical€social€worker€hired€by€Langston€to€prepare€aÐ øH Ðhome€study€report€for€the€trial€court,€testified€that€she€had€been€aware€of€the€nature€of€Langston€andÐ ä4 ÐMs.€Craigððs€relationship€at€the€time€that€she€prepared€the€report.€€However,€she€intentionally€did€notÐ Ð  Ðinclude€that€information€in€her€report€to€the€court,€because€she€did€not€believe€it€was€relevant€toÐ ¼  ÐLangstonððs€fitness€as€a€parent.€€McGinnis€stated€that,€in€her€opinion,€it€would€matter€only€if€theÐ ¨ø Ðsexual€activity€were€conducted€in€the€presence€of€the€child€because€ð ðwhat€they€do€in€their€private€lifeÐ ”ä Ðand€their€sexual€behavior€is€not€impacting€on€this€child.€€This€child€does€not€see€it.ððÓœžÓÐ €Ð ÐÓÓà  àThis€is€a€hopelessly€unrealistic€view.€€Although€the€child€may€be€too€young€at€present€toÐ X ¨ Ðunderstand€and€appreciate€the€deviant€lifestyle€of€Langston€and€Ms.€Craig,€it€will€undoubtedly€haveÐ D!” Ðan€effect€on€him€as€he€grows€and€matures,€regardless€of€whether€the€women€are€ð ðsexualðð€in€hisÐ 0"€  Ðpresence,€or€merely€ð ðlovingðð€towards€one€another.€€We€cannot€ignore€the€greater€society€in€whichÐ #l! Ðthis€child€will€live.€€His€classmates,€or€at€least€some,€€will€almost€certainly€taunt€him.€€€Parents€ofÐ $X" Ðother€children€may€refuse€to€allow€their€children€to€visit€or€play€in€his€home.€€He€will€be€subjectedÐ ô$D # Ðto€stares€and€whispers,€at€the€very€least,€when€he€goes€out€into€public€with€his€two€ð ðmothers.ðð€€AboveÐ à%0!$ Ðand€beyond€all€the€social€pressures,€however,€is€the€fact€that€he€will€be€reared€to€believe€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðhomosexuality€and€a€homosexual€partnership€is€an€acceptable€alternative€to€heterosexuality€andÐ ¸'#& Ðmarriage.€€I€would€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€decree€of€adoption,€and€dismiss€Langstonððs€petition€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðadoption.€€Upon€remand€the€trial€court€is€respectfully€directed€to€reinstate€the€Snydersðð€petition€andÐ )à$( Ðto€conduct€a€hearing€on€same€in€accordance€with€the€applicable€law.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àFortunately,€cases€of€this€type€come€along€at€rare€intervals.€€The€young„„very€young„„childÐ ° Ðwho€is€the€subject€of€these€adoption€proceedings€has€NO€ONE€representing€or€specificallyÐ œì Ðcommitted€to€looking€out€for€his€interests.€€As€a€small€baby€he€was€surrendered€by€his€naturalÐ ˆØ Ðmother,€for€some€or€no€consideration,€to€a€lesbian€who€wished€to€adopt€him.€€The€identity€of€hisÐ tÄ Ðfather€was€unknown.€€His€mother€was€finished€with€him.€€If€there€ever€was€a€case€that€called€for€theÐ `° Ðappointment€of€a€guardian€òòad€litemóó,€this€was€it.€€The€trial€court€made€no€such€appointment,€nor€didÐ L œ Ðit€inquire€of€the€need€for€one.€€Upon€remand€the€chancellor€should€call€on€all€his€resources€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðdetermine€what€is€in€this€little€childððs€best€interests.Ð $ t ÐÌÌà  àÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ô$  ÐÓõ´Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.