Case Name: James W. COX, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-04-27
Citations: 656 So. 2d 902
Docket Number: No. 82967
Parties: James W. COX, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent.
Judges: GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 656
Pages: 902–905

Head Matter:
James W. COX, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent.
No. 82967.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 27, 1995.
Rehearing Denied July 5, 1995.
Nina E. Vinik, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Miami, Doris A. Bunnell of Doris A. Bunnell, P.A., Braden-ton, and Mare E. Elovitz and William B. Rubenstein of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for petitioner.
Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Dist. Legal Counsel, Fort Myers, and Linda K. Harris, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, State of Florida, Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for respondent.
Ira J. Kurzban of Kurzban, Kurzban & Weinger, P.A., Miami, amici curiae for Florida Psychological Ass’n, Nat. Ass’n of Social Workers, Inc., and Fourteen Concerned Academics.
William E. Adams, Jr. and Rosemary Wilder, Fort Lauderdale, Beatrice Dohrn, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York City, and Paula Brantner and Elizabeth A. Hendrickson, National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, CA, amici curiae for Gay and Lesbian Lawyers Ass’n, Florida Academy of Public Interest Lawyers, Inc., Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Nat. Organization for Women (Florida Chapter), and Nat. Center for Lesbian Rights.
John M. Ratliff and Christina A. Zawisza, Children First Project, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., Miami, and Lawrence W. Gordon of Caruana, Gordon, Langan and Eisenberg, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for Children First: a Joint Project in Law, Medicine and Edue.; and The Youth Law Center.
Kenneth L. Connor, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for The Rutherford Institute.
Robert M. Brake, Eileen M. Brake and William Sanchez, Coral Gables, and Thomas Horkan, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Florida Catholic Conference.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Cox, 627 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), which expressly declared valid section 63.042(3), Florida Statutes (1991), and expressly construed several provisions of the Florida Declaration of Rights. Art. I, Fla. Const. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Petitioner James W. Cox is a gay male who, along with a partner, sought to adopt a special needs child. A special needs child is one considered difficult to place for adoption because of factors that may include racial background, physical or mental disability, or the fact that the child is older. At the time Cox and his partner applied for pre-adoption parenting classes, they informed the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) that they were gay. HRS then denied them the opportunity to attend based on the homosexual exclusion contained in section 63.042(3) and informed them that any application could not be considered due to their sexuality.
Cox filed suit for declaratory and injunc-tive relief, arguing that the statute violated equal protection, due process, and the right to privacy as guaranteed by the Florida Constitution. Cox argued that the statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied. Later, the parties to the suit entered into a stipulation waiving an evidentiary hearing and allowing the case to proceed to resolution with the parties simply submitting briefs and their own packets of research materials to the trial court.
On March 13, 1993, the trial court entered its summary judgment striking section 63.042(3) on its face and enjoining HRS from enforcing the statute. The trial court concluded that the statute violated the Florida Constitution. HRS appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal on March 31, 1993.
The district court reversed, holding that the trial court did not have a sufficient record to support a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on any issue. Further, the district court determined that HRS was entitled to a summary judgment on the issue of right to privacy, and that section 63.042(3), Florida Statutes (1991), was not unconstitutionally vague. The court also held that section 63.042(3) was not violative of due process protections afforded under the United States Constitution, amendment XIV, and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution. Finally, the court held that section 63.042(3) did not violate the equal protection guarantees provided in the United States Constitution, amendment XIV, and article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution. We approve the decision of the district court except that portion which does not remand the equal protection issue to the trial court for further proceedings.
The record is insufficient to determine that this statute can be sustained against an attack as to its constitutional validity on the rational-basis standard for equal protection under article I, section 2 of the Florida Constitution. A more complete record is necessary in order to determine this issue. See Vildibill v. Johnson, 492 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1986). Upon remand, the proceeding is limited to a factual completion of the record as to this single constitutional issue and a decision as to this issue based upon the completed record.
The decision of the district court is thus approved in part and quashed in part, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings in accord with this decision.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., concur.
KOGAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs.