gd

Click here to watch the video.

In New South Wales same-sex couples are not allowed to adopt, but a private member’s bill is seeking to change that.

Independent MP Clover Moore recently introduced the bill, which will be debated when parliament returns from its winter break in late August.
Adoption by same-sex couples can be an emotive issue, inciting a broad range of opinions in the community.

Laws governing adoption by same-sex couples vary from state to state with little uniformity.
The policy coordinator with the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Senthorn Raj, says the country’s same-sex adoption laws range widely.

There are very few states and territories in Australia that permit same-sex-couple adoption.
Western Australia and the ACT permit same-sex couples eligibility to adopt.

Tasmania permits a second-parent adoption mechanism for same-sex couples, which applies to step-parents.

Other states and territories currently do not have any mechanism permitting same-sex couples eligibility to adopt.

Raj says there is a misconception in the community that same-sex couples are primarily seeking to adopt unknown children.

He points out very few children are adopted domestically in Australia or overseas.
Instead, he argues, the real issue is about children already living with same-sex parents.
Across Australia there are over 4,300 children who live in same-sex families, but those children are being denied the legal recognition of both their parents.

This compromises the legal entitlements and rights a child is able to access around superannuation, workers compensation, custody and contact with their parent after a relationship breakdown.

Jenni Millbank, of the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology in Sydney, also argues law reform is primarily about children in existing relationships.

For same-sex couples the major issue with adoption is that if they foster or look after a child or children over a long period of time, as a couple they are not then eligible to adopt those children and give them a more secure environment.

They are also excluded from step-parent adoptions.

This means that a same-sex couple where one biological parent has died or there is no other legal parent, in the case of a lesbian couple who have had a child or in the case of assisted conception, for example, the family cannot formalise a parenting arrangement that is already in place.

Millbank says law-reform processes and parliamentary committees are important in letting everyone have a say on issues like same-sex adoption.

She says that generally they show you cannot make an absolute finding, based on sexual orientation or family structure, about what is good or bad for children.

Instead, Millbank argues, you need to look at individual people and couples and their parenting styles and the way they interact with children and make a finding about whether those specific adults are right for that specific child.

Political party Family First opposes adoption by same-sex couples, saying the number of children already living with same-sex parents does not justify law reform in the area.

Dennis Hood, a member in the upper house of the South Australian parliament for Family First, is opposed to legalising same-sex adoption.

Hood argues that the very small number affected by the arguments Millbank outlines does not justify a change in legislation.

He says one of the implications of a change parenting laws that allows homosexual couples to adopt children is that it would mean a change in the whole terminology of what parenting is.
Hood says parents may no longer be referred to as mother and father. They would become co-parents because, in some cases, the actual biological parent of the child is no longer included on the birth certificate.

Different groups have called on the Federal Government to take over adoption laws so they are more consistent.

But Hood claims legal reform would set a precedent he does not think Australia needs.
He argues that children have been brought up, where possible, by a mother and father for thousands of years. To change that role may be beneficial for the small minority of parents, but questions whether it is beneficial for the children themselves.

When it comes to fostering children, many agencies, especially, with religious affiliations, can reject some carers based on exemptions granted by the Anti-Discrimination Act.

While exemptions vary from state to state, it is not unusual for faith-affiliated groups to reject same-sex couples’ applications based on those exemptions.

Barnardos Australia is a foster-care agency based in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory that openly recruits same-sex couples.

Chief Executive Officer Louise Voigt says the main priority for Barnardos is not the carers’ sexuality, but their ability to take care of traumatised children.

She says that with same-sex couples it can be difficult because they are not approved as adoptive families. They have a number of (same-sex) carers who are highly successful and they do not want to move those children, who have strong attachments but still need the security of adoption.

Voigt says she would like to see legal reform because it would allow many of Barnardos carers to permanently adopt the children they care for.

She says that, with around one in three children eventually adopted, permanency is always in the child’s best interests.

[Source: Original Article]

Victorian activists plan to make same-sex adoption an election issue in the lead-up to the state poll.

With NSW expected to vote in favour of same-sex adoption in August, Rainbow Families Council convenor Felicity Marlowe said a Victorian campaign would be ramped up in the coming weeks.

“Adoption is the main thing we’re campaigning on during the election, but it’s not just adoption, we want the remaining recommendations in the Law Reform Commission report to be implemented,” she told Southern Star.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission recommended same-sex adoption in its 2002 Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption report.

The Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) Bill passed in 2008 as a result of that report.

While allowing lesbians access to IVF and the inclusion of non-biological lesbian mothers on birth certificates was seen as a significant step forward, same-sex adoption failed to gain traction in the suite of reforms.

The Rainbow Families Council will talk to its membership and other rainbow family organisations including Gay Dads Victoria before structuring a campaign.

Marlowe said it was likely the campaign would also push for more inclusive policies and practices for diverse families in the early childhood development sector.

Rainbow Families Council member and gay dad Rodney Chiang-Cruise said allowing known parent adoption for same-sex couples would have a huge impact on gay dads, often left in legal limbo.

“If we look at what our ultimate aim is, it is to be recognised as legal parents and the best way to do that is known or second-parent adoption,” he said.

“That would make a huge practical difference and a very important symbolic difference to those children on a day-to-day basis.”

Chiang-Cruise said the issue for gay surrogate fathers was complicated as they are in the difficult legal position of only being classified as donors to their children.

“There was a sense that gay dads got nothing out of [the ART reforms], but there was little to offer us in a sense, because lesbians were coming from a position of carrying the child which makes her a mother, whereas gay men are always donors, whether they have a child through surrogacy or they co-parent,” he said.

“The real issue for surrogate dads comes down to getting something better than a parenting order or a consent order from the Family Court which gives you parenting rights, but doesn’t make you technically a parent.”

The Rainbow Families Council is seeking help from the Public Interest Law Clearing House to prepare a research paper on the current legal standing of gay parents.

[Source: Original Article]

In light of the recent Adoption legislative proposals in New South Wales relating to same sex adoption, I thought it was time to revisit what is happening (or not as the case may be) in Victoria.

In 2007 the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) released a report called "Assisted Reproductive Technology – Adoption: Final Report". The Report stated:

“Adoption of babies is now rare. Same-sex couples are currently unable to adopt children in Victoria. The commission believes that it is important that the widest possible pool of people is available to help these children. Research shows that a parent’s sexuality is not a predictor of harm to children”.

The summary report is available here and as you will note of all the recommendations, Adoption was the only one that was not acted on by the State Government of Victoria.  Adoption is important to Same Sex couples in Victoria.  Whether you have done surrogacy overseas and want access to second parent or known adoption or whether you want to be able to adopt an unknown child, this reform is important to you.

A State Election is fast approaching in Victoria and the Rainbow Families Council is looking at stepping at lobbying on this issue.  People who are interested in assisting in helping out the lobbying campaign are encouraged to contact Rainbow Families Council to lend a hand.

Same-sex couples may have the right to adopt in NSW before year’s end.

The ALP, Liberals and Nationals have all granted their members a conscience vote on MP Clover Moore’s Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill, which is likely to be debated in August.

The bill has the support of the Greens in the Legislative Council.

“Both the NSW Liberals and the Nationals will have a conscience vote on this Bill,” a spokesman for Opposition leader Barry O’Farrell said.

“This is a matter for individual MPs to determine their own position and to vote according to their view. In our party’s tradition such votes are seen as a strength that reflect the different opinions that exist in the community on these issues.”

Premier Kristina Keneally told Southern Star the bill had her in-principle support and that she would take part in debate over it.

“I know of … same-sex couples who successfully foster children but are unable to adopt them,” Keneally said. “I also personally know same-sex couples who are raising children together. Like all good parents, they love their children and want the very best for them.”

Keneally said her faith was no barrier to supporting the bill, though she expected there would be some critics.

“What I know as a Christian, as a Catholic, is that Jesus himself was about love.

“Jesus loved all and he accepted all and for me that is the strongest message that comes out of the gospels. When I see gay and lesbian people giving that unselfish love to a child, that’s something that I … want to support.

“However, I am aware that there are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue and adoption by same-sex couples is a sensitive issue for the [wider] community.”

NSW GLRL co-convenor Kellie McDonald welcomed Moore’s bill.

“These amendments will enable same-sex couples to apply to become legal parents of children in their care, giving their children access to rights and entitlements such as a parent’s superannuation or worker’s compensation if their parent is injured at work,” McDonald said.

“Same-sex couples, like all other prospective adoptive parents, should be judged on their individual merits and their capacity to provide a loving and stable home for a child. Sexual orientation is not a meaningful indicator of parenting ability.”

“There is no evidence to suggest that a person’s sexual orientation has any bearing on their suitability to be an adoptive parent, therefore there is no reason to legislate to exclude someone from being able to adopt on the basis of their homosexual orientation or family arrangements,” Clover Moore told Parliament in presenting her bill on Thursday.

[Source: Original Article]

Senthorun Raj who is the Policy and Development co-ordinator of the NSW Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby has written an interest piece in relation to the current NSW Bill relating to Same Sex Adoption. 

"It is in the best interests of children to have both a mother and a father." In a society where marriage, heterosexuality and family are so closely intertwined, such a simple, albeit cliched, statement would seem uncontroversial. In fact, the idea of a mother and a father in a married relationship carries such political and cultural currency that it is hard to imagine having children in circumstances that do not fit neatly under the matrimonial rubric. So how do we then manage to contemplate a family unit that is not only unmarried, but has two mums or two dads?

In moving to recognise the status of existing and potential same-sex families, the recently introduced Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill removes the last piece of legislative discrimination against same-sex couples in NSW. The basic rationale behind this Bill is that the sexuality of prospective parents should not be a determinative factor when it comes to protecting the welfare of children.

In NSW, the Adoption Act currently uses an archaic heterosexual definition of "de facto", "spouse" and "partner" to preclude same-sex couples eligibility to be considered to adopt. Adoption is not a right. However, the legislative barriers in the Adoption Act send out a troubling social message that a person’s non-heterosexual orientation necessarily makes them an inadequate parent. It is unsurprising then that homophobic ideas that conflate pedophilia and homosexuality continue to exist, when the law itself seems to implicitly connect gay or lesbian parents as potential risks to children.

Discriminatory rhetoric used in protecting children is not new. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families have suffered the forcible removal of children. The commonly referred to "stolen generations" represents an era of government policy that imputed a lack of parenting ability to persons of an indigenous heritage. While such a racially motivated policy is now rightly met with abhorrence and apology, why does the NSW government continue to promote a construct of parenting that disenfranchises same-sex families?

While not contesting the value of the typical nuclear family, part of the problem with our understanding of parenting is the overemphasis of gender. Feminist politics has laboured across generations to contest the popular idea that women bear the primary responsibility or desire for raising children because of their reproductive anatomy. As surprising as this may be to some, not all women want to be mothers. The association between motherhood and nurturing, or fatherhood and discipline, reveals more about our limited cultural stereotypes than any gendered natural predispositions.

Social research on families ably demonstrates that it is the processes of parenting, rather than the family structure that matters. Credible psychological studies discern that children in same-sex families do not demonstrate any important differences in development, happiness, peer relations and adjustment.

Adoption often evokes the image of a mother giving her child to unknown parents. Despite the prevalence of this image in our cultural imaginary, this form of adoption accounts for only a very small percentage of adoptions in NSW. Adoption reform will have the most significant impact on the already 1500 children living in same-sex families in NSW (what is referred to as "known adoption").

If a child is unable to have both their parents legally recognised, they will be denied rights, entitlements and benefits associated with the non-legal parent. This includes automatic rights to inheritance, superannuation benefits or worker’s compensation. Parentage also ensures custody and contact for parents upon relationship breakdown, including child support obligations on a non-resident parent. The Bill also amends definitions of "step-parent" to to include same-sex couples and this will ensure children have greater certainty around their care and welfare.

Perhaps what makes the government policy situation to parenting in NSW more confusing is that same-sex couples are able (even encouraged) to foster children by the NSW government. Minister for Community Services Linda Burney has endorsed parenting by same-sex couples: "Lesbian and gay foster carers make a highly valued contribution to the NSW out-of-home care service system."

Despite considerable praise for same-sex parenting for vulnerable and displaced children, the NSW law denies these children the durability of having their relationship to their foster parents recognised. Permanency planning, which places children in long-term foster care, continues to be undermined, as children fostered by same-sex couples are then denied the security of adoption. Parenting orders that empower foster carers with parenting responsibilities expire once the child becomes 18, effectively terminating the legal parent-child relationship.

With the NSW government claiming it is committed to the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly children, how can disallowing same-sex couple adoption be conducive to this agenda?

Even in the case of unknown adoptions, permitting same-sex couples eligibility for consideration does not undermine the rights of children or other potential parents. Relinquishing parents should have the broadest possible range of options for their children. The adoption process is intricately guided by the consent and wishes of the relinquishing parents. It should be left to the relinquishing parents to decide on the best place and parents for their child from the widest possible diversity of families.

Adoption reform is not foreign territory in Australia. Western Australia, the ACT and Tasmania (in specific circumstances) already permit same-sex couples eligibility to adopt children.

Equality and non-discrimination before the law are universal rights, not selective privileges. Passing the Adoption Amendment (Same-Sex Couples) Bill will not only benefit children, and existing same-sex families, it will also send an important social message that people should be judged on their individual merits, not on their sexual orientation.

Families come in all shapes and sizes. It is not the lack of a mother or father that should concern us. Rather, it is the continued stigmatisation of same-sex parenting and denying legal recognition to same-sex families that undermines the best interests of children.

Senthorun Raj is policy and development co-ordinator of the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby.

[Source: Original Article]

A sensible and well balanced piece by Lisa Prior in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age today.  A copy of the NSW Adoption Bill is available

.

Those gays are after the children again. On Thursday Clover Moore introduced a bill into Parliament which would allow same-sex couples to adopt. Both major parties will allow their members a conscience vote on the issue after the winter break. And it is indeed a matter of conscience.

In a parliamentary inquiry conducted last year, a majority found that the Adoption Act should be amended to allow gay couples to adopt. Faith-based adoption agencies would still have the right to exclude prospective parents who are gay, so long as they refer them to an agency which will assist.

This follows the lead of Western Australia and the ACT which already give gay couples equal access to the adoption process. Even in Tasmania gay couples can adopt a child related to one of them. In every state gay couples can foster.

Reform is opposed by church adoption agencies and many church groups. Trawling through the submissions to the parliamentary inquiry yesterday, I felt awe at the special kind of faith of some of the groups standing in judgment of gay families, making accusations about promiscuity, abuse, violence and communicable disease.

These flimsy and alarmist accusations were rather ironic coming from organisations which have been implicated in well-documented systemic abuse relating specifically to adoption and foster care, such as the mistreatment of child migrants, the stolen generations and the removal of babies from young mothers without proper consent.

Stereotyping all religious people because of the sins of a few is no better than stereotyping all gay people. Instead let’s consider the facts.

Adoption is not what it used to be. The scenario of the teen mother relinquishing her newborn is pretty much a thing of the past. Here are the statistics about adoption cited in the inquiry, statistics which are scary for anyone whose baby-making fall back plan is: ”It’s OK. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll just adopt.”

”In 2007-08 … 125 adoption orders were finalised in NSW. Of those adoptions, 73 were inter-country. Of the remaining 52 local adoptions, 15 were unknown and 37 were known. Known adoptions for this period [comprised] 10 step-parent, 22 foster carer, three other relatives and two special case adoptions.”

In other words, most local adoptions involve children who already have a relationship with a carer, and adoption is about making that relationship permanent and secure.

The bill introduced this week is mostly about allowing gay foster parents, and gay step-parents, to provide the children in their care with stability and protection of permanent adoption.

It is also about providing children with the benefits of having two parents. As Moore noted on Thursday: ”Currently a child can’t be adopted by their parent’s same-sex partner yet can be adopted by their parent’s heterosexual partner,” she said. ”Unlike heterosexual couples, same-sex couples can’t adopt a child together – one parent must adopt as an individual and the other has no legal standing as the co-parent, leaving their child in legal limbo.”

Interestingly, one of the agencies in favour of allowing gay adoption is Barnardos. It specialises in the difficult side of fostering and adoption, often involving older children who have been victims of abuse and neglect.

As it said in its submission to the inquiry, it facilitates fostering by gay couples: ”Barnardos currently has seven children placed with two gay and two lesbian couples, all of whom have a care plan of adoption. The carers have provided excellent parenting for these children, all of whom have made pleasing and significant progress in areas of their physical, social and emotional development and who have developed a secure and positive attachment to each of their carers.”

So much for the cliche about flippant gays wanting designer babies as fashion accessories, a cliche repeated this year when the former US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee argued against gay adoption by saying ”children are not puppies”.

When it comes to voting on this legislation, the real issue facing our elected representatives is whether it is conscionable to try to send some vague message about preferred family structure by making the lives of children living in gay families more difficult and less secure. And this truly is a matter of conscience.

[Source: Original Article]

THE State Government has decided not to allow same-sex couples to adopt, ignoring a parliamentary inquiry that said changing the law would ”ensure the best interests of children”.

The Government said yesterday there was insufficient community support to justify new legislation on the topic.

Groups representing same-sex couples denounced the decision, saying an opportunity to redress discrimination had been missed.

”There are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue and that is why a decision on this matter will not be taken at this stage,” the Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, said yesterday.

Kellie McDonald, of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said the decision was ”extremely disappointing”. ”If the NSW Government’s primary concern was the interests of the children, it would rectify the discrimination of the NSW Adoption Act,” she said. ”I’m not sure what more can be done.”

The director of the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre, James McDougall, said his organisation had argued to the committee that children, ”particularly children of families without legal recognition, wanted this change”.

Judy Brown, of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said ”to suggest that same-sex couples may not adopt is, on the basis of all the evidence available, patently discriminatory and simply highlights ignorance and bigotry”.

[Source: Original Article]

Stephen Page reports on the Australian Gay & Lesbian Law Blog:

The Queensland Government has introduced today the Adoption Bill into the Queensland Parliament, to replace the antiquated Adoption of Children Act 1964. The Minister responsible, Margaret Keech, said about the Bill:

* it was “delivering fair laws to those people affected by adoption”
* it reflected “contemporary community standards”
* “Eligibility to lodge expressions of interest to adopt will be extended from married couples to de facto couples who have been in a relationship for at least two years.”
* was “in line with the Bligh government’s vision for a fairer Queensland”
* by now requiring adoption orders to be made by a court, “provides for this and brings Queensland into line with every other Australian jurisdiction”.
* “The current objective is to identify the best possible prospective adoptive families to meet the needs of the small number of children who require adoptive parents.”
* “Finally, in line with the Bligh Government’s vision for a fairer Queensland,I am proud this Bill is a very progressive piece of new legislation which will bring Queensland’s adoption practice in line with international best practice.” (emphasis added)

The Bill will remove the discrimination that exists in the 1964 Act against heterosexual de facto couples, but not against same sex couples.

Just so that it is clear, the Bill is expressed to override the Anti-Discrimination Act. The only obvious reason for this is so that same sex couples can be discriminated against.
This approach is different to that in places such as Western Australia and the ACT where same sex couples can adopt.

For the full speech by the Minister, click here[PDF] .
For the Bill, click here.

[Link: Original Article]

The NSW Government has promised a parliamentary inquiry into legalising same-sex adoption after making changes to speed up the approval process for heterosexuals.

“The issue of same-sex adoption was not included in the amendments, however, it was agreed the issue would be referred to the Law and Justice Committee,” a spokesman for Community Services Minister Linda Burney said. “We look forward to the committee’s findings and when the report is due we’ll look at the issue.”

The inquiry will hold hearings early in 2009 to coincide with a separate ongoing inquiry into altruistic surrogacy.

This comes more than 10 years after the NSW Law Reform Commission recommended the current ban against same-sex couples be dropped, and more than two years since another review by the Department of Community Services was handed to the Government.

Attempts by Sydney Star Observer to obtain the 2006 DOCS report through freedom of information laws were unsuccessful as it contained recommendations. It is still not confirmed that the report recommended legalising same-sex adoption.

Stranger adoptions are uncommon due to the low number of Australian children available — around 20 per year. Countries allowing overseas adoptions generally do not use same-sex couples.

Most cases where same-sex adoption would apply are in existing foster arrangements with a gay couple.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby strongly supported the inquiry into the last piece of NSW law that still discriminates against same-sex couples.

“NSW is in the ludicrous position of allowing individual lesbians and gay men to be assessed for adoption eligibility, but not same-sex couples. This discrimination hurts children by denying legal and social recognition to lesbian and gay parents,” Lobby spokesman Peter Johnson said.

“Adoption reform is essential for long-term foster carers, some step-parents and co-parents. Adoption would give children the economic and emotional stability which comes with the recognition of their families.”

This year co-mothers were given the right to legally adopt the biological children of their partner if they participated in the artificial conception process. But co-fathers were not included.

The inquiry into altruistic surrogacy laws heard in October gay men have
been seeking commercial surrogacy options in the US due to a lack of parenting options in Australia. That inquiry is not expected to report until the second half of 2009. Liberal powerbroker David Clarke is on both inquiries.

[Link: Original Article ]