Gay Dads Australia

THE new head of the Australian Medical Association has said single women and gay couples should not have access to IVF.

Dr Andrew Pesce, elected AMA federal president in May, told the Sunday Herald Sun that IVF should not be a "lifestyle choice" and use of the treatment by same sex couples went against the "natural order".

"Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn’t be there as a lifestyle choice," Dr Pesce said.
"For example, single women (who choose IVF) don’t have a disease, they just don’t have a partner. Same-sex couples, they don’t have disease but they are using an option that gets around the natural order of things."

Dr Pesce later contacted this newspaper and said his comments were "clumsy" and a mistake.

He said single women and same sex couples should have access to IVF, but could not give a reason for his earlier remarks.
The comments have thrown the AMA into crisis, with former president Dr Kerryn Phelps saying Dr Pesce’s views were "not rational".

Read more…

GAY couples wanting access to IVF and donor sperm will have to wait for authorities to develop a way to make sure they are fit to be parents.

Laws allowing same-sex couples access to donor sperm and extra IVF services will be delayed at least five more months amid claims the Government doesn’t have the technology or resources to implement mandatory police checks in the legislation.

The Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill, passed in December, gave lesbian and single women access to donor sperm and additional IVF services, but it also made it compulsory for all women and their partners, and any man donating sperm, to have police and child protection record searches.

The Act was to be proclaimed on July 1, but Melbourne IVF director Dr John McBain said the Government had stalled, unable to handle the hundreds of expected record checks.

Read more…

2008 was a historic year for the LGBTI community in Victoria. It was the year that the government recognised our love.

The government recognised our loving relationships through a state relationships register, a registration that will automatically be recognised by the 85 laws altered by the federal government to bring same-sex de facto relationships equal with heterosexuals’.

There is no more needing to prove interdependency through joint financial statements or photo albums: Victorians can now simply declare their relationship on the register and show their registration certificate as proof of their relationship.

Now, many will say this isn’t a major achievement, because it’s not equal to marriage laws. But relationship registers or civil unions are not designed to be a marriage substitute. They’re different and provide a choice of relationship recognition to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

We would call on the government to make changes soon to allow one partner to live outside the state. They should also automatically recognise a relationship created in the ACT, Tasmania or even the UK. But these small changes shouldn’t diminish the excitement many couples will feel knowing they have a way to formalise their relationship.

Perhaps the largest reforms in Victoria this year were that of equal parenting laws. Nationally, the government recognised both mummies as parents of their children.

In Victoria, changes to laws regulating artificial reproductive treatments were altered to allow single women and lesbian couples to have children through IVF. Laws also recognise two dads who enter into an altruistic surrogacy arrangement.

The government has yet to indicate what it will do regarding adoption laws, but hopefully they will take similar steps towards equality.

The changing of these laws will have long, lasting effects in Victoria. The equal treatment in law is often the first step to the equal treatment in society. So let’s celebrate our love, knowing that the government does, too. Maybe one day soon, society will as well.

Corey Irlam is spokesperson for the Australian Coalition for Equality.

[Link: Original Article ]

THERE will no doubt be howls of protest from the traditionalists and church groups but new legislation in Victoria has finally given some certainty to families of same-sex couples.
Ostensibly, the legislation  has granted single women and lesbians increased access to IVF technology but the essence of the Bill is to provide rights for the child.

It recognises the non-biological mother and father of a surrogate child as the legal parents and recognises the female partner of a woman as the joint parent of a child.

The fact that both members of a lesbian couple have now full legal rights is a major step forward. Before the Bill, only the natural birth mother had legal rights. Therefore the other partner in the relationship had no rights in which to help the child should the natural mother die.  The child could not be included on her passport, could not be the beneficiary of  her  will, and the partner could not be privy to vital medical information.

The changes have been a long time coming. The legislation rewrites  20-year-old laws which  were in danger of becoming redundant in today’s society and brings Victoria into line with other states.

Two weeks ago Federal Parliament  passed new laws giving gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

Under the new laws, same-sex couples now have access to the same services as opposite-sex couples living together in “de facto”  relationships.

Gays and lesbians will be allowed to get family benefits under the state-run health care program and to leave their retirement benefits to their partners if they die. The changes also confer parental rights on gay and lesbian couples with children.

While the laws give same-sex partners many of the same rights and protections as married couples, they stop short of allowing gays and lesbians to wed under the Marriage Act, which was redrawn by the Howard Government to define marriage as between a man and a  woman.

Society has changed drastically in the past 20 years.

Public opinion is changing and the numbers of same sex marriages are on the rise. In Australia same sex marriages represent 0.6 per cent of all marriages. The number is far higher for relationships outside marriage.

In June last year,  in a Galaxy poll  of 1100 Australians aged 16 and over, 71 per cent  agreed  same-sex partners should have the same legal rights as de-facto heterosexual couples.  Similarly, 57 per cent  of respondents supported same-sex marriage.  Those figures show  a 20 per cent  jump in support since 2004.

Last week’s Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill is not a harbinger  of doom. It’s really a contemporary piece of legislation which accurately reflects  the society in which we live.

[Link: Original Article]

Lesbian couples and single women will soon be able to have babies using IVF treatment in Victoria, but some women and doctors say the new laws themselves are discriminatory because they include mandatory criminal background checks for prospective mothers.

There was celebration in the Upper House of Victoria’s Parliament as the votes were counted last night.

The Lower House gave the Government’s Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill the final tick of approval soon after.

It means Mikaela Olijnyk and Naomi Paton can now have the family they’ve planned together.

“One of us has medical infertility and the other doesn’t and we’re both wanting to carry a child with two children related through the same donor in a way that would allow our family to be related to each other,” Ms Olijnyk said.

“We fly to Perth on Wednesday to meet with a potential donor and start the negotiations,” Ms Paton said.

Under the old laws, single women and lesbians had to be clinically infertile to receive IVF treatment in Victoria and even then they weren’t allowed to use donor sperm from a clinic.

Natasha and Melissa had to go to great lengths to conceive their son Caius.

“We had to travel interstate every month to track ovulation and travel interstate every month in order to access donor sperm. We couldn’t have access to any medical assistance at all in Victoria because I’m not infertile,” Natasha said.

“I felt like we weren’t considered good enough to have children, that our family is not recognised and not valued because we’re not straight.”

Victoria’s Attorney-General Rob Hulls says the states laws are no longer in breach of the Federal Sex Discrimination Act.

“There are kids that are being born to all sorts of arrangements and they don’t have appropriate legal protections and so this legislation ensures that children – regardless of the arrangements under which they’ve been born – are protected,” he said.

“This legislation was always about kids and ensuring that children born into same sex families or as a result of surrogacy arrangements are not discriminated against.”

Background checks

There is a condition in the new laws which is proving controversial – mandatory criminal background checks. The medical director of Ballarat IVF, Dr Russell Dalton, says that will delay fertility treatment in some urgent cases.

“If we have to wait for the processing of police checks prior to undertaking fertility treatment for a person who for example has breast cancer at the age of 28 and is embarking upon invasive and aggressive chemotherapy, that person is going to be significantly disadvantaged. There’s no doubt about that,” Dr Dalton said.

Ms Paton doesn’t think she should have to pass a criminal check to get access to fertility treatment.

“We don’t need the police to tell us whether we’re suitable to be parents. I think it’s actually quite insulting,” she said.

Mr Hulls says the requirement is meant to protect children and it’s not discriminatory.

“We believe we have a responsibility to kids that are born of these arrangements and as a result we believe that police checks are appropriate,” Mr Hulls said.

“We don’t believe it will cause any inconvenience and it will ensure that any possible, unacceptable risk of harm at least can be addressed through police checks.”

Some women aren’t concerned about the background checks, including Vicky who has already become a mother through IVF.

“It can’t be any more invasive than the vaginal probes that you have to have every second day for scanning,” she said.

Based on a report by Simon Lauder for The World Today on December 5.

[Link: Original Article ]

Gay men will be able to commission a baby via a surrogate mother under new Victorian laws that have angered the Christian lobby.

The landmark laws, passed in State Parliament late on Thursday, legalise surrogacy and give lesbians and single women access to fertility treatment, including IVF.

The Australian Christian Lobby has denounced the legislation as “social engineering” and says it will enable gay men to “order” a surrogate baby on demand.

“It steps outside the natural family, two men can’t (physically) have a baby,” lobby spokesman Rob Ward said.

“The wishes of homosexuals to have children should not be placed above the inalienable rights of children to start out in life with a mother and a father.”

The new laws eradicate the need for surrogate couples to travel interstate for IVF.

Previously, women had to be infertile to qualify for fertility treatment, ruling out surrogate mothers and most single and lesbian women.

The legislation also gives gay partners and parents of surrogate children legal parenting rights and allows women to conceive using the sperm of their dead partners.

Rainbow Families spokeswoman Felicity Marlowe said the notion that mums and dads made better parents was outdated and false.

“We would say that parenting and the ability to be a loving, nurturing and caring parent has no link to gender or sexuality, just as family structure doesn’t have a link to the (parenting) outcome,” she told AAP.

Ms Marlowe has three children with her partner Sarah Marlowe. Each was conceived with sperm from the same donor.

Both women were able to access IVF because they have fertility problems, otherwise they would have had to fly across the border for treatment, Felicity Marlowe said.

She said the new laws meant both women could now be recognised on their children’s birth certificates, giving them legal status as parents.

“One of the big advantages of this law change is the social recognition that comes along via law reform like this.

“What we would say is this law reform is just catching up with social attitudes that have already changed a lot…acknowledging our family makes a huge emotional and social difference to our children.”

Victorian Premier John Brumby said the legislation, which was subject to a conscience vote, was about respecting diversity of families and not passing judgment.

“It’s about respecting that there are different types of families in our society,” he said.

“It’s government in a sense getting out of the way of individuals and families – letting them make judgments without us passing judgment on what we think is right or wrong, and putting the interests of children at the forefront.”

[Link: Original Article ]

Landmark legislation giving lesbians and single women access to fertility treatment is about respecting diversity of families and not passing judgment, Victorian Premier John Brumby says.

Speaking a day after the upper house passed the controversial Assisted Reproductive Treatment (ART) bill, Mr Brumby said the laws were a positive step and praised MPs for conducting a respectful debate.

“It’s about respecting that there are different types of families in our society and that the interests of children are paramount and that’s what the legislation gives effect to,” Mr Brumby said on Friday.

“It’s government in a sense getting out of the way of individuals and families – letting them make judgments without us passing judgment on what we think is right or wrong, and putting the interests of children at the forefront.”

The Victorian upper house narrowly passed the bill 20-18 on the final sitting day of parliament for the year.

It gives single and lesbian women access to fertility treatment, including IVF, and grants gay partners and parents of surrogate children legal parenting rights.

The new laws also eradicate the need for surrogate couples to travel interstate to access reproductive treatment and allow women to conceive using the sperm of their dead partners, with prior consent.

Previously women had to be infertile to qualify for reproductive treatment, ruling surrogate mothers and most single and lesbian women out.

Those seeking fertility treatment must submit to controversial police checks and have a record free of convictions for sexual or violent offences and child protection orders.

Mr Brumby defended the clause, which was hotly contested, saying while it would be inconvenient for some people it was an appropriate safeguard.

“It’s an issue really about whether the support is provided to someone who potentially has previously shown that they’re not capable of bringing up children, or for example, have abused children.

“It’s just aiming to protect the public interest and, I think, if you had a position where a couple who had a long history of abusing children wanted to use these procedures you’d say, well is it appropriate that a couple in those circumstances should be supported by the state, supported by taxpayers in this way?

“I think the overwhelming majority of the public would say it’s not appropriate.”

[Link: Original Article ]

GAY and single women can have babies with fertility treatment after controversial legislation passed State Parliament.

Upper House MPs voted 20 to 18 in favour of the amended legislation at 8.30pm. The result was greeted with uproarious applause and cheers from dozens of mothers with children in the public gallery.

The amendments to the legislation then passed the Lower House just after 11pm.

Divisive elements of the Bill – that force women accessing IVF treatment to undergo police checks – were retained, despite outspoken doctors and a former judge having condemned them.

The Government was forced to introduce amendments regarding surrogacy and identity matters yesterday to curry favour with some MPs who were wavering in their support for the Bill.

Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Labor MP Brian Tee introduced three amendments and said the Bill was all about the rights of the child.

“That’s why it’s a great result,” he said.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls, who announced the legislation last December, said it was ground-breaking reform.

“It’s long overdue, it modernises our laws and it ends discrimination against people who haven’t been able to get access to ART (assisted reproductive technology),” he said.

Amendments to the Bill mean:

A WOMAN who uses IVF to become a surrogate mother cannot do so for her first child, nor can she use her own eggs.

THERE will be increased counselling, particularly if something goes wrong.

A CHILD will have “donor conceived” marked next to its name on the birth register, but not on its birth certificate

[Link: Original Article ]

[Link: Original Article ]

Stephen Page from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia is a partner with Harrington Family Lawyers, Brisbane, a long established boutique family law firm. He writes a wonderful blog called “Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Blog“. [Ed - Rodney Cruise]



The Victorian Government has put a Bill before the Parliament proposing major changes to the way that ART and IVF services are delivered. The Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill 2008 proposes a new regime for the regulation of IVF services.

Some significant features:
- surrogate arrangements will now be able to occur in Victoria. They will not be limited to married couples. People seeking surrogate arrangements could be single (male or female), married or de facto, or same sex partners.
- commercial surrogacy in Victoria could occur. However, the surrogate mother can only receive her expenses reimbursed and cannot be allowed to profit. There would also be a ban on advertising for surrogates. In reality, these limitations should prevent commercial surrogacy.
- an egg or sperm from a dead person can be used to fertilise the dead person’s partner (so is not limited to married couples, and might include lesbian but not gay couples) in limited cases.
- sets up the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority.
- changes presumptions about children for women who are single or have female partners- “the man who produced the semen used in the procedure is presumed, for all purposes, not to be the father of any child born as a result of the pregnancy whether or not the man is known to the woman or her female partner” and the female partner is presumed to be a parent. However, if a donor egg was used, the donor is presumed not to be the mother of the child born as a result of the pregnancy. Therefore if the female partner were to be the donor, she would be a parent but not the mother.

The Bill is subject to a conscience vote, so it remains to be seen if it passes both Houses.

[Link: Original Article ]

Stephen Page from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia is a partner with Harrington Family Lawyers, Brisbane, a long established boutique family law firm. He writes a wonderful blog called “Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Blog“. [Ed - Rodney Cruise]


Back in May I posted about how Queensland Attorney Kerry Shine was seeking to amend the Status of Children Act so that the position of IVF dads becamse clear- if they were to donate sperm to single mums or a lesbian couple, then they would not be dads in law.

I had chased up Kerry Shine’s office- twice- as to whether the proposed changes would cover men offering sperm to their female friends, but my calls were not returned and I was none the wiser.

Last week a friend told me that he was considering donating sperm via a website: http://www.free-sperm-donations.com/ . He ultimately had second thoughts.

At the time that Kerry Shine made the announcement, he considered that part of the reason for making the changes was so that sperm donors to IVF women would not be fathers and therefore would not be required to pay child support. He proposed that the laws be retrospective to 1988- when the Status of Children Act was enacted!

Because of my friend’s situation, I looked over the weekend, and found that tucked in at the back of the Guardianship and Administration and Other Acts Amendment Bill were these proposed changes.

So what do they mean? If enacted, the Bill would make ensure that if a woman other than a married woman were to have a child by a sperm donor- if she were to go through IVF, then the donor will NOT be the father and will never have the rights of fatherhood unless and until he marries her. It doesn’t matter if the woman and the man agree that he is to have those rights- that agreement is irrelevant.

However, if the man donates sperm to the mother other than through IVF, then it is possible that he might be considered to be the father, in which case there would be certain rights under the Family Law Act, including the presumption of equal parental responsibility, and the obligation to pay child support.

Although there are two decisions of the Family Court which in part dealt with Victorian legislation which would suggest that the known sperm donor would not be a father or parent under the Family Law Act and under child support legislation, there is no guarantee that that court will follow the same approach with the Queensland legislation, especially when the Attorney expressly stated that part of the purpose of the legislation was so that donors would not have to pay child support. If the legislation that he is proposing does not include known donations other than via IVF, then this of itself raises the possibility that known donors other than through IVF might be treated as fathers and liable to pay child support (and seek to make decisions about the child and spend time with the child, maybe even equal time, relying on the Family Law Act).



[Link: Original Article]

The State Government introduced new laws on assisted reproductive treatment (ART) and surrogacy on Tuesday, which will bring Victoria into line with other states.

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Rob Hulls said in a media statement that “the overarching objective of the reforms was to protect the best interests of children born using such treatment”.

“Families come in all shapes and sizes and always have. We want to ensure that regardless of family structure, a child born through a surrogacy arrangement, to a single mother or to a same-sex couple receives the same legal protections as others.

“These reforms provide a legal framework for what is already occurring in the community,” Hulls said.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission, which recommended the changes, found that parental capacity was based on good parenting skills rather than relationship status or sexual orientation.

The new laws will ensure Victoria’s laws are compatible with Federal discrimination laws by providing that women can gain access to assisted reproductive treatment regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.

The laws will also ensure stronger legal protection for children by giving legal recognition to the commissioning parents in a surrogacy arrangement, or the female partner of a child’s mother.

The Rainbow Families Council, which represents the interests of same-sex parents and their children, has welcomed the new laws.

“This is a step towards law reform that recognises our children and families legally and socially,” said spokesperson Felicity Marlowe.

Although the legislation will be the subject of a conscience vote in the state parliament, Marlowe told MCV she is confident it will be passed.

“I think it will get through on the recommendations that this is in the best interest for children and families in Victoria,” she said.

[Link: Original Article]

Stephen Page from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia is a partner with Harrington Family Lawyers, Brisbane, a long established boutique family law firm. He writes a wonderful blog called “Australian Gay and Lesbian Law Blog“. [Ed - Rodney Cruise]

It is better for children conceived by donor insemination to be told of their origins at an early age, according to the first large-scale study of people who are aware of their donor conception. If the children are not told until they are 18 or older, they are more likely to have feelings of shock and anger, the 24th annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Barcelona heard.

The study is one of the first to compare the views of offspring of donor insemination told of their origins during childhood compared with those who only found out in adulthood. The researchers recruited a sample of 165 offspring conceived by sperm donation through the Donor Sibling Registry – a US-based, worldwide website that enables donor offspring to search for their donors and their donor siblings (other donor offspring who share the same donor). The participants answered an online questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. They were aged 13-61; 148 (89%) were living in the USA and four (2%) were living in the UK; the majority (approximately three-quarters) were female.

Dr Vasanti Jadva, a research associate at the Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge (UK), found that children born into mother-only or same-sex parent families were much more likely to be told about their origins before the age of three than were children of heterosexual parents: 63%, 56% and 9% respectively. Indeed, 33% of children in heterosexual families were told about their conception after the age of 18, compared with none in the other two types of families. Two children from heterosexual parents only found out when told by people who were not their parents.

Dr Jadva said: “We asked the offspring how they felt at the time they found out about their conception, excluding those that found out before the age of three as they would have been too young to recall their feelings. For all offspring, the most common feeling was curiosity, irrespective of the age at which they found out. However, there were differences according to the age at which they had been told of their conception, with those told during adulthood more likely to report feeling confused, shocked, upset, relieved, numb and angry.”

For instance, 37% of those told when aged 4-11 reported feeling confused, compared to 52% told when aged 12-18, and 69% told when aged over 18. In the respective age groups, 27%, 58% and 75% respectively reported feeling shocked; 16%, 23% and 44% reported feeling upset; 6%, 26% and 38% reported feeling relieved; 6%, 26% and 38% reported feeling numb; and 12%, 13% and 38% reported feeling angry.

Examples of comments made by the participants included:

“I would have appreciated revelation of this information much earlier in my life. Learning of my biological identity at 17 years of age was a traumatic event.” A 30-year-old, found out at age 17.

“I am angry because I asked about being ‘adopted’ several times throughout my childhood and adolescence and told that I was being foolish. I knew.” Someone who found out at age 50

“Either tell your kid from the beginning or don’t tell them at all, it was one of the most shocking and upsetting moments of my life. I felt alone.” A 19-year-old, found out at age 12.

“I was so young I don’t remember feeling much more than interested and curious.” A 13-year-old who found out at age four.

Dr Jadva said: “With regards to how offspring felt towards their mother at the time of finding out, offspring told in adolescence or adulthood were more likely to report feeling angry about being lied to and betrayal. Those told as children were more likely to state that it made no difference to how they felt towards their mother compared to those told later in life.” According to whether they were told between 4-11, 12-18 or over 18, 12%, 29% and 47% respectively felt angry at being lied to, and 12%, 23% and 34% felt betrayal. There were no statistically significant differences in feelings of offspring towards their father at the time of disclosure.

When asked how they felt currently about their conception, the most common response was curiosity, reported by 69% of offspring. There were significant differences for those feeling angry, relieved and shocked, with those told after the age of 18 more likely to report these feelings. By contrast, a 15-year-old, told before the age of three, commented: “I’ve grown up knowing how I was conceived. I’ve always been accepting to it because I never knew any different. Now that I am a little older the only thing that’s changed is that I’m a bit more curious.”

Dr Jadva concluded: “This study shows that age of disclosure is important in determining donor offspring’s feeling about their conception. It appears it is better for children to be told about their donor conception at an early age. This finding is in line with research on adoption, which also shows that children benefit from early disclosure about the circumstances of their birth.

“In light of the trend toward greater openness, it is important we recognise that telling offspring of their conception may evoke a sense of curiosity about their origins which could lead them to seek out their donor relations. In fact, we have found that offspring show high levels of interest in contacting not only their donor, but also their donor siblings. Offspring from this study have gone on to find an average of four donor siblings, with a maximum of 13.”

[Link: Original Article]

The lesbian mothers of IVF twin girls have lost a legal bid to sue their doctor for the cost of raising one of the toddlers.

The women, whose names have been suppressed, sued prominent Canberra obstetrician Sydney Robert Armellin for more than $400,000 for implanting two embryos instead of the requested one.

The ACT Supreme Court today ruled in favour of Dr Armellin, and ordered the couple pay his legal costs.

The IVF procedure, which used sperm from a Danish donor, resulted in the birth of twin girls, now aged four.

The couple, whose combined income is more than $100,000, sought $398,000 from Dr Armellin to cover the costs of raising one of the girls, including fees for a private Steiner school in Melbourne.

The court was told the twins’ birth mother had lost her capacity to love and the couple’s relationship suffered as they became mired in everyday tasks associated with raising two children.

But Dr Armellin’s lawyer said loss of freedom was experienced commonly by parents across Australia.

The couple said it was Dr Armellin’s responsibility to ensure his patient’s wishes were carried out during the operation at Canberra’s John James Memorial Hospital on November 12, 2003.

Dr Armellin countered by saying the birth mother only told him she wanted one embryo minutes before she was sedated, after previously signing a form consenting for up to two embryos to be implanted.

The case, before Justice Annabelle Bennett, sparked nationwide condemnation of the women in the media.

The mothers issued a statement during the civil proceedings arguing the case had nothing to do with their feelings towards their daughters, but with Dr Armellin’s failure to comply with their wishes.

“This has never been a case about whether our children are loved,” they said in a handwritten statement.

“They are cherished.”

The couple’s solicitor Thena Kyprianou said her clients, who live in Melbourne, were shocked by the decision.

“They’re disappointed,” Ms Kyprianou told reporters.

“They said they are shocked and that they will consider their options further once they have an opportunity to read the judgment.”

Ms Kyprianou said the publicity surrounding the case had destroyed her clients’ privacy.

Dr Armellin’s barrister Kim Burke said her client was relieved but mindful the women have 28 days to decide whether to lodge an appeal.

[Link: Original Article]

The New South Wales Government wants a federal law amended so children of lesbian couples can seek child support if their parents separate.

State Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says co-mothers are not recognised in Family Court proceedings under the current laws.

Mr Hatzistergos says he will ask the Federal Government to change the Family Law Act to include lesbian parents at a meeting of attorneys-general this week.

“It’s important that the laws be amended to ensure that these children are treated in the same way that children of heterosexual relationships are, so that in the event that the parents split up, there is an entitlement for that child to be able to seek child support from co-mothers,” he said.

“It’s important to recognise that these relationships exist and these children exist, whatever one might think about them.

“And bearing in mind those facts, it’s logical to ensure that we have a civilised way of ensuring the economic security of these children.”

The State Government last month expanded the rights of NSW children with lesbian parents, clearing the way for children from lesbian couples to inherit money from and receive workers’ compensation on behalf of their non-birth parent.

The reforms allowed both mothers to appear on their child’s birth certificate.

[Link: Original Article]

STATE Cabinet has backed a vote among Labor MPs on legislation covering fertility treatment access for gays and single women.

Premier John Brumby has told the MPs they will have a free vote on assisted reproductive technology (ART) and surrogacy.

The Government is drafting legislation to better enable gay couples and single women to have children and expects it to be tabled this year.

Last week’s decision to allow a conscience vote will appease concerns raised by Catholic MPs uncertain about the broadening of treatment, including IVF.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu is also set to allow his MPs a free vote, though this depends on the Bill’s detail.

Mr Brumby has previously supported a conscience vote on abortion reforms being backed by the Government, making the last half of the year a potentially divisive environment in the State Parliament.

The Premier told MPs the ART issue was complex and the sort of subject on which MPs could determine their position on the basis of their own conscience.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls announced plans to reform ART legislation just before Christmas.

Mr Hulls said that the changes would bring Victoria into line with other states and “better reflect the reality of modern families”.

“The reality is that many Victorian children are already born to same-sex couples and to single women and yet those children don’t enjoy the same legal protections as others,” Mr Hulls said in December.

The changes are set to be based on the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

Under those proposed changes:

GAYS would not be forced to travel interstate for treatment to become pregnant.

A PANEL would be set up to screen people seeking the treatment in a clinic if convicted of a sexual offence.

SURROGACY arrangements would be changed to make it easier for surrogate mothers to receive treatment.

THE ban on commercial surrogacy would continue.

THE mother’s female partner would be recognised as a parent of the child who was conceived using treatment.

[Link: Original Article]

Children born to lesbian couples through artificial insemination can now have both mothers on their birth certificates after the Iemma Government’s parenting reforms passed 64 votes to 11 last week.

Despite Anglican and fathers’ rights groups campaigning strongly against the changes, only a quarter of Coalition members voted against the bill in the lower house, with a further quarter failing to turn up.

The bill passed the upper house without individual votes being recorded.

Minister for Women Verity Firth acknowledged the reforms did not address all the parenting needs of same-sex couples, but were designed to address the most common circumstances.

“The Minister for Community Services [Kevin Greene] is considering adoption by all prospective partners in the context of a broader response to a review of the Adoption Act 2000,” she said.

“Currently, gays and lesbians, as individuals, can adopt children, subject to the same process of screening for suitability as heterosexual men and women.

“Surrogacy is a developing area of law … being considered as part of the development of a national surrogacy framework. At this stage it would be premature for any changes to be made in NSW.”

It is also now illegal to discriminate on the basis of domestic status, which had Christian Democrat leader Fred Nile claiming critical debate of same-sex relationships could result in a $40,000 fine.

“I have been before the Anti-Discrimination Board in relation to what I regard as trivial matters,” Nile told Parliament.

“Vexatious individuals could say, ‘I’ve got another weapon to use against the people I disagree with’. It costs the person who made the complaint nothing.”

Liberal MLC Charlie Lynn used the parliamentary privilege to attack previous equal age of consent reforms as “exposing vulnerable young boys to sexual predators” and accused the Government of not having a public mandate on these issues.

Nationals leader Andrew Stoner warned the Government was embarking on plans to undermine bans on same-sex marriage, adoption and IVF [sic], but voted for the bill anyway.

Sydney MP Clover Moore joined Greens Leader Lee Rhiannon in calling on the government to proceed with “urgent adoption reform”.

[Link: Original Article]

Same-sex parenting reforms have finally been approved, marking the end of a very long road. But the journey is far from over, writes Jenni Millbank.

Last week saw a major victory for our families in NSW, with the passage of the underwhelming titled Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2008 (law reform can be satisfying but I never said it was sexy).

These reforms ensure that same-sex couples are recognised as de facto relationships across all areas of NSW law (the ‘missing pieces’ left over from the 1999 reforms, with the continued and vexing exception of adoption) and strengthen anti-discrimination protection on the basis of same-sex relationship status.

Most importantly, it finally provides parenting recognition from birth to co-mothers of children conceived through donor insemination, making them legal parents in all areas of NSW law. Both mothers can be recorded as parents in the birth register, can have their children listed as siblings, and can both appear on their child’s birth certificate.

These changes will apply to children who have already been born as well as those born after the passage of the law. There is a simple process for mothers to apply to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry to add the second mother to the birth certificate.

This is a huge achievement for community activism and grass roots law reform because we devised our own solutions and then slogged away until the government realised they were the right ones. These reforms reflected the proposals devised by the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby in And then the Brides Changed Nappies in 2002 and 2003. I am so proud of the Lobby’s commitment and professionalism over the years; this simply would not have happened without them.

These changes bring NSW into line with similar laws now in place in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT (with Victoria set to follow later this year), and will help to bring pressure to achieve the same kind of recognition in federal law in the near future.

This system is far more accessible, equitable and broad-reaching than second-parent adoption, in place in many US states, because it does not require a court process. Rather, recognition applies automatically from birth and simply requires that the co-parent consented to assisted conception, regardless of whether conception took place through a clinic or informally at home.

Some press reports have misrepresented the changes as removing rights from fathers, including gay fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth. These changes add a mother to lesbian-led families that previously only had one legal parent.

Sperm and egg donors are not legal parents under current law anywhere in Australia, even if they have a relationship with the child and even if they have been listed on the birth certificate. If mothers have listed a donor as the father in the past this did NOT make him a legal father, but it should be noted that he will only be removed from the birth certificate with his permission or following a court hearing.

Of course there is still more to be done. We need to work together to make adoption open to all and to ensure that parental rights are also included in the new federal reforms. If genuine multiple-parent caregiving is happening in lesbian and gay families we should pursue modes of recognition that can accommodate the needs of such families.

In my view it is also time to create a careful and transparent scheme for the transfer of parental status to commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements, including gay fathers who have children through this process. But these goals shouldn’t detract from celebrating the magnitude of what we achieved last week.

Jenni Millbank is a Professor of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney. She is the lead author of And then the Brides Changed Nappies report, published in 2002.

[Link: Original Article]

BRITAIN has forged landmark new rights for homosexual partners seeking legal recognition as parents.

The House of Commons unexpectedly threw out proposals that would have required fertility clinics to consider a child’s “need for a father” before providing treatment, enabling two-mother families.

The father’s role will now be substituted to require the “need for supportive parenting”. Both partners will be recognised as parents on birth certificates when lesbian couples conceive with donated sperm or gay men use surrogacy to have a child.

At present, as occurs in Australia, only the natural mother or father is automatically considered to be a parent when homosexual couples have fertility treatment.

The changes will be made to the controversial Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which governs stem cell research as well as fertility treatments and abortion in Britain.

Proposed “pro-family” amendments, including a Conservative bid to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks, were defeated by a large margin, surprising the Labour Government, which had been prepared, publicly and privately, for a major defeat.

The attempt to ensure the legal need for a father in fertility treatment was rejected by 292 votes to 217, a majority of 75.

The conscience vote on homosexual partners has been hailed as the most important widening of homosexual rights to family since gays were allowed to adopt children.

Fertility clinics will now be banned from refusing lesbian or single women treatment if they cannot provide a male paternal model. This reason has often been used by clinics who refuse treatment to lesbian or single women.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, said it was “wrong to pass a law” where biological parenthood was not recognised, “because clearly there must be a father for a child”.

Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, who led opposition to the plans, told MPs: “On the whole, the absence of fathers generally has a detrimental effect on the child.”

Supporters of the new law argued that existing laws discriminated against gay couples.

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo described the changes as fair and said they were drafted to recognise the complexities of modern British life. “What counts is the quality of parenting,” she said.

The vote is a further fillip for Labour, which had a major win on stem cell research on Monday when Britain became the first Western nation to allow the mixing of human and animal cells in stem cell research as well as the creation of so-called “saviour siblings” who can be screened for life-saving tissue donations for sick family members.

The Victorian Government announced in December last year that a similar law to the latest British changes was part of a reform to in vitro fertilisation and surrogacy. The new law will recognise the female partner of a mother who conceives a child using IVF, as a legal parent of that child. Legislation is being drafted and due to be ready in a few months.

With TELEGRAPH, NICK MILLER

[Link: Original Article]