Under the radar

FORT WORTH, Texas—One of America’s leading adoption institutions is violating the trust of its Christian supporters by hopping on the LGBT bandwagon. Officers of the Gladney Center for Adoption have told its board of directors and staff that they are now accepting homosexual parents as clients but have held off making a public announcement.

Gladney is changing even though it faces no legal pressure to do so. Last May the Texas Legislature passed conscience protection legislation that explicitly allows adoption agencies to choose not to provide services to clients whose lifestyles violate an agency’s beliefs. Troy Cumings, a Bethany Christian Services board member who helped author the new Texas law, says it protects all Texas child welfare services providers.

Gladney President Frank Garrott informed the board on Oct. 16 that he and his staff would process the application of a homosexual couple, marking a first for the 130-year-old agency. Because Gladney did not have a policy stating that it would work only with heterosexual clients, a board vote was not necessary. The board could have overruled Garrott, but did not.

David Simpson, an adoptive father, resigned from Gladney’s board of directors following Garrott’s announcement and the board’s acquiescence. “I believe in the work Gladney is doing,” he said, “but I can’t serve on the board of an organization that doesn’t reflect Biblical values.” At least three Gladney employees—chief financial officer Scott Brown and legal assistants Sherri Davison and Karrie Keller—also disagreed with the decision and resigned.

Simpson said Garrott and Board Chairman Christopher Dezzi had been pushing to open the agency’s doors to homosexuals for at least two years, but he was still unsure as to the reason for the move: “A lot of Gladney’s budget comes from donations, on top of adoption expenses. I talked to Frank and I said, ‘There are so many more cons to this than pros, why are you doing it?’ and he never gave me an answer beyond, ‘Well, we just feel like this is the right thing to do.’”

Garrott and Dezzi did not respond to WORLD’s repeated inquiries.

Simpson said the decision was not necessary to gain homes for babies who would otherwise enter foster care: There is “no shortage of adoptive parents” in the Gladney pipeline, and birth moms typically want mother-and-father homes for their unborn babies.

The decision raises plenty of questions: Why would an adoption agency esteemed within Christian circles for its support of birth mothers voluntarily decide to place children with homosexual parents? Was some outside group applying pressure to the agency? Was the move financially motivated?

GLADNEY'S DECISION IS LIKELY TO ALIENATE agency stakeholders, including pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), donors, and adoptive parents.

Mary Jayne Fogerty, executive director of Thrive Women’s Clinic in Dallas, recalls Garrott asking her several years ago how her group would respond if Gladney began serving same-sex couples: “I told him we wouldn’t be able to refer to Gladney. We don’t feel like that’s in the best interest of the child. To have a mother and father would be a better choice.” She’s troubled that Gladney did not tell her about the change, saying this is “information we need to know.”

Thrive Women’s Clinic gives expectant mothers referrals to three agencies, and the mother chooses her course of action. Now, Fogerty says, Gladney referrals will be off the table at Thrive—and likely at other PRCs as well: “I can’t see Christian pregnancy centers—and that’s going to be most of them—making referrals to Gladney anymore, once they learn about this. Our world has become desensitized to same-sex marriage, but this goes against the Bible and against our beliefs.”

Kyleen Wright, president of Texans for Life, says Gladney once relied on print advertisements to recruit birth mothers but has cultivated relationships with PRCs over the past two decades, encouraging the pregnancy centers to recommend Gladney for expectant mothers who choose adoption: “It’s been a critical partnership for both Gladney and the [PRCs]—but these pregnancy centers are faith-based and aligned with evangelical or traditional Catholic churches.”

Lifeline Children’s Services, an orphan care and adoption outlet with a strong presence in the Southeast, was recently licensed to operate in Texas. Herbie Newell, Lifeline’s president and executive director, said he has received several phone calls from North Texas agencies that have gotten wind of the changes at Gladney and no longer can refer clients to Gladney in good conscience.

Zac and Whitney Thompson, a Fort Worth couple, began their adoption through Gladney in July 2017. Now, $35,000 into the process, they are facing a crisis of conscience: “We’re actively mourning [Gladney’s decision] personally by asking, ‘What do we do? Are we supposed to change adoption agencies? … Gladney currently holds the key to the door that our baby is behind. And that is the hardest thing. We are not willing to run away from that child or abandon the child that is behind those doors.”

Zeb Pent, a former Gladney donor and spokesman for the conservative watchdog group Stand for Fort Worth, said, “For more than a century, Gladney has been known as a refuge of true compassion in our city. This needless attempt to redefine compassion violates the trust of the community that built it and the vulnerable children entrusted to it.”

‘Are we supposed to change adoption agencies? … Gladney currently holds the key to the door that our baby is behind.’ —Zac and Whitney Thompson

Though started by a Methodist minister in 1887, Gladney is not a Christian agency. Still, much of its funding comes from Christian groups and individuals, due to the agency’s support of birth mothers both before and after the birth of a child. Gladney may expect to receive more financial support from gay interests, but Gladney’s core donor base of evangelical conservatives is likely to drop off.

None of Gladney’s leaders returned multiple WORLD phone calls, but Jennifer Lanter, Gladney’s vice president of communications, did send a written message citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision in defense of its move to serve same-sex couples: “Legal rulings involving same-sex marriages and adoptions are going to improve the exhaustive and important matters that affect the thousands of children in state foster care.”

SO WHY DID GLADNEY QUIETLY ADOPT A NEW POLICY? Resigning board member Simpson said most Gladney board members do not profess to be Christians, so they are under the influence of a pro-gay culture. Paul Pennington, president of Hope for Orphans, an organization that provides adoption resources to churches, said the change goes with a flow of eroding values: “There’s a pervasive conflict in our culture that is playing out on many playing fields, and one of them is among fatherless children.”

Personal connections apparently played a role. Garrott’s younger son, Sam, has been openly gay for several years and describes himself on social media as an “aspiring activist.” Two or more witnesses independently told me that Garrott told employees the change meant gay people—like his son—would be able to adopt from a leading agency and that the homosexual couple now in the Gladney pipeline came to Gladney as a referral from Board Chairman Christopher Dezzi.

Gladney has tried to keep its decision secret. An employee who resigned in October says Garrott first told her she could stay on through the end of the year. But after a co-worker overheard the woman talking to a colleague outside of Gladney about the decision to serve same-sex clientele, Gladney’s human resources department became involved. Because she had told the agency’s outside legal counsel about the change, she said HR gave her two options: be escorted out of the building that day or leave more than a month before her previously agreed-upon final workday.

Garrott did not return calls asking about that accusation of reneging. The ex-employee—WORLD gave her anonymity since involvement in controversy would drastically affect her getting a job in Fort Worth’s tightly knit social services community—noted about Gladney’s leaders: “They had their own way they wanted to talk about this to the world. They said this first couple, it’s two men, and it’s kind of like our charter case. They want to get through this one, figure out the loopholes, and see how it’s going to work.”

Garrott in December resigned from Gladney, saying the decision was his and it was “time to move on to the next chapter of my life.” Former Chief Operating Officer Mark Melson is stepping in as president and CEO: Several former insiders, including board member Simpson, expect him to continue the new policy.

Meanwhile, some birth moms, prospective adoptive parents, volunteers, PRC leaders, and donors continue to contribute to Gladney in various ways, unaware of its new course.