Deboer v. Snyder – Day 3 Update

Gary Gates testified for Plaintiffs.  Gary J. Gates is a recognized expert on the demography of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population.  He co-authored The Gay and Lesbian Atlas and publishes extensively on the demographic, geographic, and economic characteristics of the LGBT population.  Many national and international media outlets regularly feature his work.  He holds a PhD in Public Policy from the Heinz College of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University along with a Master of Divinity degree from St. Vincent College and a BS in Computer Science from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. (Bio taken from the Williams Institute website)

His testimony included statistics regarding number of same sex couples and individuals in the United States and in Michigan.  He also included statistics regarding parenting and adoption trends among LGBT individuals and couples.

He testified that the number of self-identified lesbian, gay and bi-sexual individuals has grown exponentially over the last 20 years.  From 1990 to 2000, the number doubled, and it doubled again from 2000 to 2010.  In 2010 there were over 14,000 LGBT people in Michigan.  Studies show that over that same period of time, social acceptance of LGBT individuals increased at the same rate.  This coupled with the fact that there are a greater percentage of younger people willing to self-identify (6.4% for ages 18-29) than older people (2.6% for people age 50-64 and only 1.9% for those over 65 years old) is indicative of social acceptance being a predominate factor in people being willing to self-identify as LGBT.

He testified as to the number of LGBT people raising children.  There are 3 million LGBT Americans who have ever had a child.  There are 220,000 children under age 18 that are being raised by same sex couples. According to the 2010 census, there are 2,650 same sex couples in Michigan raising over 5300 children.

In a survey of women who indicated their sexual orientation, lesbian and bi-sexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to be willing to adopt (46% LB women compared to 32% heterosexual women).  From that same group, the answers limited to lesbian participants showed a 51% willingness to consider adoption as opposed to 36% of the heterosexual participants.

Of the children being raised as an adopted child in a national survey, 14% were being raised by same sex couples and 3% were being raised by opposite sex couples.  In Michigan, those numbers are 11% being raised by same sex couples and 4% being raised by opposite sex couples.  Nationally, LGBT folks are two times as likely to raise foster children.  Under a 2012 census survey, same sex couples raising adoption children in a state where there is no marriage ban is 18% and in a state where a marriage ban is in place is 7%.

In a Pugh Research study, more than 50% of LGBT people already have one or more children or want to have children.

In 2012, 82,500 same sex couples were married in the US.  In 2013, 92,000 same sex couples were married in the US.  60% of same sex couples either are married or want to be married. The survey results showed that the top three reasons for wanting to marry, love, companionship and lifetime commitment, were relatively equal between the LGBT group and the heterosexual group.  The fourth category showed a marked increase in the LGBT group and showed that this group is more concerned with the legal rights and benefits of marriage than the heterosexual group.

In first year each of several recognition states allowed marriage, 30% or more of the same sex couples in that state got married.  After 3 years of legalization, more than 50% were married in Connecticut.  An amazing 1/3 of all same sex couples in Utah married within the 17 days between the Federal decision overturning their ban, and the point at which the decision was stayed by the US Supreme Court.

Married same sex couples are more likely to have health insurance for both adults and the children of the couple as well.  There are tax benefits for the family under a legal marriage, and there are higher average household earnings as compared to unmarried same sex couples.

He concludes that there are a significant number of same sex couples in the US and in Michigan.  There are an increasing number who are willing to self-identify.  Same sex couples want to have children and want to be married.  Lesbian and bi-sexual women in particular are more willing to adopt.  And, more children are adopted when barriers are removed.

On Cross Examination:  The AG questioned Dr. Gates about the survey samples and questioned, at length, about the problems inherent with the census survey; i.e., people answering incorrectly because they get confused or make mistakes.  There was also discussion about data cleansing procedures with the survey data, including inconsistencies in a household’s answer and the limitation of concepts that can be measured because of the way the questions are worded.  Dr. Gates explained that the Census Bureau has gone back to the 1990, 2000 and 2010 raw data and has re-evaluated and re-calculated results as a result of concerns with the way they had initially dealt with what were perceived to be obvious errors such as a household that reports two adults of the same gender and then indicated they were married on the 1990 census.  Initially, it was presumed that the gender of one adult had been mis-reported, and the survey “corrected” to show the proper gender.  These same kinds of answers in 2000 were “corrected” to show that the same gender couple reporting they were married was changed to “unmarried partners living together”.  More recently, they went back to review those corrected surveys and adjust the answers on the basis of the first name of the individual to see if that name is more often associated with a male or female.  This has been published as the “preferred” census data.

The AG asked Dr. Gates if one reason that heterosexual women were less likely to consider adoption is because “heterosexual women can have their own children”.  The question drew an immediate objection and was sustained by the Judge, although he said that Dr. Gates could give his personal view of that question.  Dr. Gates simply answered “No”.

The AG questioned Dr. Gates about his travel expenses and time being paid for by the Williams Institute, a known LGBT research foundation.  He said yes.  She asked if he had published a book called the Gay and Lesbian Atlas, and he said yes.  She asked if it was true that the publication had been funded by the Williams Institute, and he said no, it was actually the Urban Institute while he was employed there.  They asked if he had in fact donated to the campaign for marriage equality in DC and in California, and he said that he had.  They asked if he had contributed to HRC, and he responded yes, but it had been a long time ago.  When asked, he admitted that he had written amicus briefs on same sex marriage on behalf of the Williams Institute.

On Re-Direct – There was more discussion about the census.  Dr. Gates testified that in fact the United States relies and acts upon information in the census data, and the Michigan relies on and acts upon the information in the census data, as all state do.  He state that if the percentages are skewed as a result of the way the survey questions are drafted, that it has been corrected for, and that his analyses represent conservative interpretations of that data.

The Court then took care of a couple of housekeeping matters, including indicating that tomorrow (Friday, 2/28/14) will be the last of Plaintiff’s witnesses.  Court will start at 9am and will be done at least by 2 pm.  Monday next week will start with the defense presentation by the Oakland County Clerk and then move to the defense witnesses of the State.  The reports of Dr. Chauncy and Leslee Fitch will be available at the Court’s public website in lieu of their testimony.

Deboer v. Snyder – Day 2 Update 2

The third stipulation was more substantively much more significant.  This was a stipulation as to certain underlying facts.  The parties stipulated to the fact that: both April and Jayne were licensed foster parents; they had been in a relationship for 8 years; that the home is stable and loving; that each of them had adoption at least one child; that it is a problem that they are not both legal parents of all the children, especially when a child had an urgent medical need; that the lack of legal status keeps the children from accessing the health insurance of the non-legal parent; that if the non-legal parent dies, the other would have no legal right to visitation or custody; that the children do not have inheritance or Social Security rights from either non-legal parent; and that this causes stress and anxiety in the family and causes risk and instability to the children.   These are all of the things that the State agrees are true.

The next witness was Professor Vivek Sankoran of the University of Michigan Child Advocacy Law Clinic.  Prof. Sankoran has an impressive and long list of experience, appointments and publications.  He was appointed twice by Gov. Snyder (a defendant in this case) to the Michigan Child Abuse and Prevention Board, is appointed to represent clients by the Michigan Supreme Court, trains other attorneys to be a certified child welfare specialist, is a consultant for the National Center for State Court, and was awared the Parent Attorney of the Year by the Michigan Foster Care Review Board in 2011 (the award was presented by Maura Corrigan, former Michigan Supreme Court Justice and current director of the Department of Human Services for Michigan).  The AG objected to qualifying him as an expert in the field of foster and adoption processes in Michigan, the economics of the foster system, and the Michigan guardianship code for minors.  The judge overruled that objection, but questioned the relevancy of the testimony to the issues of the trial.  He allowed the testimony and said he would sort out later what is relevant and what is not.

Prof Sankoran testified, interspersed with several objection by the AG and encouragement from the Judge to move along the testimony, and was able to impress on the Judge that estate planning documents are not sufficient to protect the relationship between the child and the non-legal parent, and that the children are being left in Michigan’s foster care system while adoptive parents go to other states to adopt in order to have equal parental rights.  Ultimately concluded that the laws as they are currently written are hurting children, including the children who age out of foster care without ever finding a permanent home, and that allowing both parents to adopt would better protect the children of the couple and would increase adoptions from foster care in Michigan and would save the state a significant amount of money each year. 

Court adjourned at 12:30 and will resume Thursday at 9am with the testimony of expert for the plaintiffs, Gary Gates.  Tomorrow is expected to be another short day.

Deboer v. Snyder – Day 2 Update 1

Day 2 of the Deboer v. Snyder trial was short.  Dr. Rosenfeld finished up his direct testimony and was cross examined by the Attorney General’s office.  In the cross exam, the AG pulled several isolated quotes from Dr. Rosenfeld’s deposition testimony and attempted to get him to admit that he made statements that, without the context of the testimony, appeared to support the position of the State.  Dr. Rosenfeld was very skilled at identifying these attempts to skew the meaning of his testimony and was able to state that, while the quote was atttributed to him, the context of the quote gave the information meaning.  Since this is a bench trial, as opposed to a jury trial, it will be up to the Judge to determine the meaning of the testimony.

The State and the Plaintiffs then entered three stipulations on the record.  Stipulations are a way of formally agreeing to certain facts or proceedures that are not in dispute between the parties.  THis process saves the Court time and the parties the extra expense of bringing witnesses in to testify as to matters that are not disputed.  The parties stipulated as to the authenticity of two reports that were a part of the Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits and a stipulation to the proceedure of allowing the expert to testify through their written report without having to come to the Court to testify.  One of the reports is from a historian. George Chauncy, and the other is from Leslee Fritz who authored the Michigan Dept. of Civil Rights Report on LGBT Inclusion.  The State objected the relevancy of the reports, but was willing to stipulate that the author did not have to come and testify to authenticate the report.

Deboer v. Snyder Day 1 Update 11

Rosenfeld testimony – Marriage and divorce rates among OS couples?  Data shows expected divorce rate Asian 17% after 10 yres, 32 white, 44 black women.  Earlier married is at greater risk.  Teen marriage is at substantial risk of divorce.  40% rate for high school education.  10% for college grad. Women coming into the marrige with children are less likely to divorce than women who don’t bring children into marriage.

Testimony ended due to time.  Re-convene tomorrow at 9am with Rosenfeld’s testimony.

Deboer v. Snyder- Day 1 Update 10

Rosenfeld on the Regenerus study – He states that the report was not about children raised by same sex couples.  Few of the 75 subects ever lived with the same sex couples.  Many of them went through many transitions in family structure.  The “same sex” couples identified were relationships dating back to the 70s, 80s and 90s.  He found that the negative results identified in the study were as a result of the number of family transitions the child went through.  Children crave stability and instability in the family is potentially harmful to the child.  He compared children from this group to children raised by intact opposite sex married couples.  All of the negative outcomes are predicted by family transitions and none of them are associated with lesbian or gay parents.

Gave case scenarios:  Female.  birth lived with opposite sex married birth parents, at 3 years old dad moved out, 6 yeares old grandparents moved in, they moved out and dad moved back in at age 12, he moved out at age 14,  at time of study 18 and female lived with lesbian mother.  This was catagorized in the Regnerus’ data as being raised by a same sex partner.

Case 2: lived with bio mother at birth, at 1 bio dad moved in, at age 11 dad moved out, at 13 same sex partner moved in, at 15 moved in with bio dad.  Transitions, turmoil around time that partner lived there.  Can’t separate out impact of same sex parenting from the impact of other events.

Deboer v. Snyder- Day 1 Update 9

Dr. Rosenfeld’s discussion about the available studies.  Some studies add in groups that are not helpful to the analysis.  Doing the anaylsis with the information in cannot be corrected by taking it out later.  It is already skewed.

Using the census, the problem is that you don’t know how the children reported in the census ended up in the family.  adopted children, foster children and step children carry baggage into the family.  Want to distinguish between the effect of being raised by SS couple from the effects of being adopted, foster and step-children.

Difference between the groups that we can’t observe, and therefore it is best to keep them out of the study to get the purest results on this issue.  Can’t add them in and then take them out and get the same results.

If you add in step-children, it doesn’t really make a difference in the results.  It is the adoptive and foster children who make the most difference in the outcome.  Canadian study does not measure results of being raised in the same household.  It is based on whether or not the children were all living in the same household five years ago.  Not the makeup of the household, or what was going on for the children prior to the five year timeframe.

The data is a cross-sectional census and does not cover enough of the child’s trajectory to figure out what was happening with the child.  There is very little information about who they were living with or the circumstances, therefore you cannot draw any conclusions about being raised by same sex couples.

Deboer v. Synder- Day 1 Update 8

On cross exam of Dr. Brodzinsky, the AG’s office questioned him as to why he believes his research methods are better than those used by the experts relied on by the AG.  He also tried to show that the Donaldson Institute was receiving substantial donations from LGBT friendly organizations.  These contributions total about $200k over several years, and the Institute’s budget is approx $1M per year.

 

Next expert witness for the Plaintiffs is Michael Rosenfeld, professor of sociology at Berkley.  He reviewed demographic studies on early educational outcomes for children of opposite sex married couples, children of same sex couples and children who were adopted and in foster case.

 

He concludes and shows is his graphic charts that children of same sex couples are not disparately impacted by their parentage when compared to the children of opposite sex couples.  And actually did a little bit better.  Sample group is about 5% of the US population.  “No significant difference”.   Children in foster care fared significantly worse in the competence interval study.

 

His study was critiqued by Professor Allen in an article published in Demography.  and claimed he reached a vastly different report.  Dr. Rosenfeld was able to  create his own results.  He was not able to reproduce the results of Prof Allen and can not explain why or how those results were reached.  Prof Allen’s results are unexplainable and in his opinin has “exaggerated the results by about 50x”.

Deboer v. Snyder – Day 1 Update 7

Dr. Brodzinsky distinguished the studies relied on by the AG.  Testified that there was a great deal of criticism of the Regernus study.  An internal audit was instituted and a report published.  This is an extremely rare process.  Usually, if you know there is a flaw in a previous study, then subsequent researchers will try to correct for that.  Sometimes a study is so mis-represetative of the field, another researcher can write a reply article.  What is extratordinarily rare is what happen here.  In Dr. B’s career, he has never seen this happen. Study published in Children Australia.  Not a known professional journal.  His study showed that the children of same sex couples do poorer.  Again, all participants were from failed opposite sex relationships, single parents, and other situations where predictors of maladjustment would otherwise be a factor. Douglas Allen – Based on Canadian census.  Purports to show that young adults – 8-24 year olds have higher graduation rates than those raised by same sex couples.  The only factor was where the children were within last 5 years prior to the study (cross-sectional study).  Conducted mid to late 80s.  Given that time period, very few children were planned children of the same sex couple.  Extrapolates to show that the children were likely the children of failed opposite sex marriages.   No data was gathered before five years prior to the child entering the study. there is no information as to where the children were living or what they were experiencing prior to that time.

Deboer v. Snyder- Day 1 Update 6

Dr. Brodzinsky testified that the study advanced by Mark Regnarus by the AG’s office did not evaluate children raised by same sex couples but rather identified their subjects by asking if a parent had ever been involved in a same sex relationship.  Many of these children were the product of an opposite sex marriage that broke up, and many spent little or no time in the same sex household because they were already older when the relationship occurred.  These subjects are not the same as children that were planned by and raised by a stable same sex couple.  The group used in the Regnarus study was compared to a second group that consisted of intact opposite sex parent families that did not experience break ups or loss of an adult in the household or other predictors of mal-adjustment.

Deboer v. Snyder- Day 1 Update 5

Dr. Brodzinsky talked about the research methodology.  Cross-sectional (snapshot type view of the subject) vs. Longitudinal (a study over a set period of time usually decades).  Conveience sample (sampling of subjects in the community by going directly and asking to participate) or population study (pulling from census or other demographics studies)  He stated that population studies are not as meaningful if you are trying to examine details of the person’s life (adjustment predicters, makeup of the household, problems in school, etc) as opposed to demographic infomation (how many people report raising children in a same sex parent household).

He distinguished the studies by the experts advanced by the AG’s office juxtaposed with the studies he was relying on and explained why some of the studies were not reliable to advance an opinion as to the specific quetions of whether or not children raised by same sex parents fare better, worse or the same as children raised by opposite sex couples.