...sexual orientation is not a relevant consideration in the determination
of a person or couple’s capacity to care for a child
(Tobin and McNair, 2009: 111). Despite this, however, Section 1 of the Children Act, 1989, refers to the ‘paramountcy principle’ in relation to the welfare of children. In this respect, therefore, the rights of the adoptive parents, including their right to be a parent, should be secondary to those of the child. This is contradictory to the views of many, however, who believe that:
the children’s ‘right to be cared for’ involves the extension of
the ‘right to care’ to those who have been excluded so far.
(Pratesi, lecture notes 20/11/2009).
Despite research which suggests no negative effects for children of being placed with gay or lesbian adopters (Fairtlough, 2008), and, indeed, much research which highlights positive outcomes (Fitzgerald, 1999; Leung et al, 2005), attitudes of the public and an unrelenting media often serve to fuel certain misconceptions regarding homosexual parents, leading to widespread prejudice, discrimination and sometimes outrage which it is difficult to allay. Myths surrounding homosexuality and the subsequent reluctance for children to be placed with gay and lesbian parents include those which link homosexuality with paedophilia (Mallon, 1999, cited in Mallon and Betts, 2005), despite the fact that most paedophiles are heterosexual males (Finkelhor, 1986, cited in Triseliotis et al, 1997)); which suggest that children placed with gay and lesbian parents will themselves become homosexual, either through coercion, persuasion or environmental exposure (Clarke, 2001) and those which suggest that this would be an ‘immoral’ or unnatural environment for children to grow up in (Triseliotis et al, 1997) and therefore a transgression of the traditional family, such as is prescribed in the bible for instance (this would include many Catholic agencies). The immorality or otherwise of leaving children in the care system with no sense of permanence, however, does not appear to be quite as high on the agenda for public discussion and is often therefore left to the professionals to debate. The assessment process (and in particularly the assessing social workers) are therefore of critical importance for the acceptance of gay and lesbian adopters and their future success with having a child matched with them, and as such, the power issues within practice here are enormous.
Indeed, if legislation does not prevent same sex adoption, yet figures are still extremely low, then it is arguably prejudice within the profession which does this (Triseliotis et al, 1997) and which therefore perhaps encourages gay men and lesbians to ‘...adopt as single parents, making no mention of sexual orientation’ (ibid: 221). Often it is the relationship with the assessing social worker and the view of the adopting agency that is the deciding factor in whether the applicant is open and honest about their sexuality, despite the fact that sexuality is discussed as part of the assessment process. Although this is wholly understandable in terms of standing the best possible chance of being successfully approved and, it could be argued that adoption agencies should make it much easier to be honest about sexuality, it could also be argued in a similar vein that dishonesty or a lack of openness in a relationship with an assessing social worker is not a good quality in itself. The debate here is whether it is ever acceptable to withhold information in order to be approved, as well as whether it should ever be necessary to feel the need to do this. It is argued that some social workers “know” that the person is gay or lesbian but choose to collude with the concealment in order to make the assessment and approval process easier on themselves, (Hicks and McDermott, 1999; Ryan et al., 2004). Presumably, they are aware of the difficulties that would be encountered at panel yet are also aware of the shortage of adopters along with the high numbers of children awaiting placement. It is also argued that in cases where applicants have ‘come out’, the social worker may choose which panel to go before for approval, knowing that some may be more accepting than others. This highlights a complete lack of consistency in terms of policy and procedure and an underlying insult to the basic value base of social work in terms of acceptance of diversity. This also makes placement evaluation and meaningful statistics somewhat difficult to compile on gay and lesbian adopters as they are often ‘not out’ when assessed and approved as prospective adopters (Triseliotis et al, 1997).
The inconsistency within social work practice which is evidenced within the assessment of lesbian and gay adopters is explained in a number of ways by different researchers. Hicks, (2008) for example, examines the role that theory plays within the approval process, and how social workers value ‘gender role model theory’ and ‘socialization theory’ in terms of child development, possibly using them as a means of screening out prospective gay and lesbian adopters. Here, Hicks argues that assessing social workers consider the best interests of the child perhaps too often to be met solely within a family which offers balanced gender role models. As social work practice is advocated to be grounded in evidence based practice, and indeed should be, then here is a dichotomy which must be addressed.
Fostering and adoption are regarded to be higher on the agenda for lesbians and gay men than for heterosexual couples and this is often considered as their first choice in how to become parents, (Mallon and Betts, 2005), either because they have limited options otherwise or because they feel a desire to offer a loving home to children in need of such who are already in the world. Indeed, for many gay couples,
..the idea of offering a home and a family to children already
needing that love and care is valued against the option of bringing
more children into the world.
(Hicks and McDermott, 1999: 150).
If this is looked at critically, however, one could say that gay and lesbian prospective adopters use their limited options to their advantage in this sense, by stating this in order to appear more approvable. For instance, if they were biologically able to produce children, would they be any more likely than heterosexual couples to consider adoption before having their own birth children? Perhaps the whole process of trying for a baby is too difficult to contemplate via artificial means and therefore this is ‘dressed up’ in a desire to offer an already needy child a loving home. It isn’t doubted that this is the intention, although it must be considered that the motivation is not wholly truthful. Again, however, it is not argued here that this is necessarily wrong, as there is no doubt that many heterosexual couples also give motivational reasons with varying degrees of truthfulness when being assessed as prospective adoptive parents.
However, despite the fact that they are likely to choose this route as their first choice, (for whatever reason), gay and lesbian adopters are considered as a last resort when it comes to being chosen as a match for a child (Hicks, 1996) and are therefore viewed by proponents of gay and lesbian adoption as a somewhat under-used resource. When children are placed with them, these children are often the most ‘difficult to place’ children, in terms of age, disability or severe behavioural problems. According to Parmar (1989)
...there has been a long tradition of placing disabled children
with lesbians and gay men, an unacknowledged ‘policy’... a
discriminatory practice which reinforces the idea that ‘second-class
children’ should go to ‘second-class’ carers
(cited in Hicks and McDermott, 1999: 164).
The idea that this could serve the child’s best interests offers a paradox. If those children with the highest levels of need (and often extremely complex needs) are placed with carers who are felt to be a ‘last resort’, then how can this be in the best interests of the child?
Many gay men and lesbians come to adoption knowing this to be the case, often through their own work within the caring professions, and often with good insight into the policies and procedures involved (Hicks and McDermott, 1999). In this sense they are perhaps better equipped to deal with the struggle through the assessment and approval process. This may also be an indication of the extent of this ‘struggle’, if a high proportion of those who apply to adopt only do so because they consider themselves to be fore-armed.
According to Taylor (2008: online),
The Adoption and Children Act 2002...was supposed to herald an era
of inclusive families, widen the pool of potential adopters and reduce
the number of children waiting to be matched with new parents.
In contrast to this expectation, Taylor comments on an ‘unspoken hierarchy of adoption’, whereby lesbian and gay prospective adopters are placed at the bottom. Yet despite the difficulties that gay and lesbian adopters face, according to the Director of BAAF, Jeffrey Coleman, research is already beginning to show just how successful these placements can be. This must not be taken uncritically however, as given the short period of time since the law has changed to allow for gay and lesbians to adopt as couples, this research cannot be based on any longitudinal adoption studies, and it is perhaps this longevity which must be considered before comments regarding ‘successes’ can be made. However, given the research to date regarding successful parenting, at least some optimism must surely be justified.
In summary, it is still apparent that ‘...the current inclusion of lesbians and gay men in mainstream children’s services remains both tentative and contradictory’ (Cosis Brown and Cocker, 2008). Perhaps, despite changes in legislation and policy over recent years, the family headed by gay or lesbian carers is still viewed as ‘pretend’ (Local Government Act, 1988) and with changes being at surface level only, and any depth in terms of consistent social work practice and general public acceptance still very much to come. Indeed, equality in the eyes of the law does not necessarily bring about change within practice, as legislation alone cannot alter prejudices (Dugmore and Cocker, 2008)
Therefore, legislation, although acting for the protection of gay rights, does not go far enough in terms of their ‘right’ to parent. The emphasis within Children’s Services, however, is justifiably focused on the rights of the child, and in this sense, the ‘rights’ of the parents (regardless of sexuality) are secondary and perhaps even unimportant. To ensure that the ‘rights’ perspective remains unimportant and secondary to the child’s best interests, (and therefore cannot be used as ammunition by proponents of the gay movement), more evidence is required as to the benefits of lesbian and gay adoption before this is more widely accepted. Evidence of positive outcomes could then in turn lead to a more solid stance that adoption by gay men and lesbians can, more often than not, be ‘in the child’s best interests’.
REFERENCES
Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) London: OPSI
BAAF (2008) ‘Local authority raises the bar in gay adoption’ [Online] 11th August [Accessed on 18 December 2009)
Barnardo’s (no date) ‘Fostering and Adoption’ [Online] [Accessed on 8th January 2010]
Children Act, 1989 (c. 41) London: OPSI
Children and Adoption Act 2006 (c. 20) London: OPSI
Civil Partnership Act, 2004 (c. 33) London: OPSI
Clarke, V. (2001) ‘What about the Children?: Arguments Against Lesbian and Gay Parenting’. Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 24, no. 5, pp555-570
Cosis Brown, H. and Cocker, C. (2008) ‘Lesbian and Gay Fostering and Adoption: Out of the Closet into the Mainstream?’ Adoption and Fostering, Vol. 32, no. 4, pp19-30
Delmonte, H. and McCann, D. (2005) ‘Lesbian and Gay Parenting: Babes in Arms or Babes in the Woods?’ Sexual and Relationship Therapy, Vol. 20, no. 3, pp333-347
Department for Children, Schools and Families. (1990). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background. [Online] [Accessed on 14 December 2009]
http://
Dey, I. (2005) ‘Adapting Adoption: A Case of Closet Politics’. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Vol. 19, pp289-309
Dugmore, P. and Cocker, C. (2008) ‘Legal, Social and Attitudinal Changes: An Exploration of Lesbian and Gay Issues in a Training Programme for Social Workers in Fostering and Adoption.’ Social Work Education, Vol. 27, no.2, pp159-168
Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, 2003 London: TSO
Fairtlough, A. (2008) ‘Growing up with a Lesbian or Gay Parent: Young People’s Perspectives’. Health and Social Care in the Community, Vol. 16, no. 5, pp521-528
Fitzgerald, B. (1999) ‘Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: A Review of the Literature’. Marriage and Family Review, Vol. 29, no. 1, pp57-75
Hicks, S. (1996) ‘The Last Resort?: Lesbian and Gay Experiences of the Social Work Assessment Process in Fostering and Adoption’. Practice, Vol. 8, no. 2, pp15-24
Hicks, S. and McDermott, J. (eds.) Lesbian and Gay Fostering and Adoption: Extraordinary Yet Ordinary. (1999) London: Jessica Kingsley
Hicks, S. (2008) ‘Gender Role Models...Who needs ‘em?!’ Qualitative Social Work, Vol. 7, no. 43, pp43-59
Hicks, S. (2008) ‘Thinking Through Sexuality’. Journal of Social Work, Vol. 8, pp65-82
Leung, P., Erich, S. and Kanenberg, H. (2005) ‘A comparison of family functioning in gay / lesbian, heterosexual and special needs adoptions.’ Children and youth Services Review, Vol. 27, pp1031-1044
Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) London: OPSI
Mallon, G. and Betts, B. (2005) Recruiting, Assessing and Supporting Lesbian and Gay Carers and Adopters. London: BAAF
Pratessi, A. (2009) The Right To Care: Informal Care, Emotional Dynamics and Social Change. Presesntation at Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, 20 November
Ray, V. and Gregory, R. (2001) ‘School Experiences of the Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents’. Family Matters, Vol. 59, pp28-34
Ryan, S., Pearlmutter, S. and Groza, V. (2004) ‘Coming out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents’. Social Work, Vol. 49, no. 1, pp85-95
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2000 (c. 44) London: OPSI
Sullivan, R. and Baques, A. (1999) ‘Familism and the Adoption Option for Lesbian and Gay Parents’. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp79-94
Taylor, A. (2008) ‘Vulnerable children still waiting too long for placements.’ [Online] [Accessed on 14th December 2009]
Telingator, C. and Patterson, C. (2008) ‘Children and Adolescents of Lesbian and Gay Parents’.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 47, no. 12, pp1364-1368
Tobin, J. And McNair, R. (2009) ‘Public International Law and the Regulation of Private Spaces: Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child Impose an Obligation on States to Allow Gay and Lesbian Couples to Adopt?’ International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Vol.23, pp110-131
Triseliotis, J., Shireman, J. And Hundleby, M. (1997) Adoption: Theory, Policy and Practice. London: Cassell
