LEGAL experts are urging State Parliament to reconsider new surrogacy laws they say will lead to couples lying to authorities, friends and family about their children’s births.

Under altruistic surrogacy laws from March 1, any NSW resident who travels overseas for commercial surrogacy can on return be fined $110,000 and imprisoned for two years, reported The Daily Telegraph.

They will also not benefit from other changes making it easier for couples to be recognised as parents of a child born via an altruistic surrogacy.

Commercial surrogacy, where a surrogate mother is paid for carrying a couple’s genetic child, is illegal in all states of Australia.

Community Services Minister Linda Burney said the laws aimed to stop exploitation of women in other countries who might be forced to become a surrogate for financial reasons.

University of Technology Sydney law professor Jenni Millbank said couples desperate to have a child would still seek commercial surrogates overseas and lie about it.

It comes as a gay Melbourne couple who paid an Indian surrogate to give birth to twin girls won a major Family Court case for parenting rights for the non-genetic partner.

Justice Paul Cronin said: “While it is clear that the Act talks about a parent as a mother and a father … biology does not really matter. It is all about parental responsibility.”

[Source: Original Article]

The photo is purely self indulgence.  Jeff, Ethan and I had our photo taken with the fabulous Matthew Mitcham.  What a sweet, confident, inspiring young man.  The little doll Ethan is holding is his new (recycled) Ken doll which we brought from the ALSO stand.  For all those who got to carnival I hope you enjoyed it as well.

Gay couples in Brazil looking to become parents now have another option. The country’s national association of doctors has drafted a new set of rules for in vitro fertilization allowing same-sex couples and single people to qualify for the process. The organization says the change in rules “was a demand of modern society.” The new set of standards also allow for fertilization using eggs or sperm from the deceased with prior approval. The prior set of rules, in place for nearly two decades, barred gay couples from qualifying for the procedure.

Australian gay men have only recently become parents through surrogacy arrangements. They have had to overcome a discriminatory legal, social, political, cultural and financial environment. A cooperative inquiry action research group was formed, with seven two-father families conceived via surrogacy, to explore their journey to parenthood and their consequent politicisation as gay fathers. This article reveals how that experience of the cooperative inquiry process strengthened their resolve to be intentionally ‘out’ in their communities to overcome discriminatory and conservative social attitudes. They embraced the political reality of their parenting and were stimulated to create improved support structures for themselves and future parents. This transformed the legal, social, political and cultural environment for their families.

[Source: Two Dads: Gay Male Parenting and its Politicisation — A Cooperative Inquiry Action Research Study - By Jason Tuazon-McCheyne]

Download Paper

In this article we present findings from the Work, Love and Play (WLP) study: a survey completed by 445 same-sex attracted parents across Australia and New Zealand. Comparisons of household division of labour are made between a sub-sample of WLP participants, who were currently cohabiting with a same-sex partner (n = 317), and 958 cohabiting opposite-sex parents surveyed as part of a major Australian study, Negotiating the Life Course. This comparison showed that same-sex couples divided household labour significantly more equally than heterosexual parents, and lesbian couples also shared parenting tasks more equally. Qualitative findings from the WLP study indicate that, for many same-sex couples, major decisions around who gives up paid work and how many hours parents choose to work, as well as decisions around work/family balance, are negotiated on the basis of couple’s preferences and circumstance rather than an assump- tion that one parent will be the primary child carer. It is speculated that this finding highlights an important point of difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples where the division of household labour is often based on the assumption that the mother will almost always be the primary child carer and homemaker. The research is a collaborative partnership between La Trobe University, Deakin University, The University of Melbourne, and Relationships Australia Victoria.

[Source: Perlesz-2010]

ALISON RUTHERFORD is a little surprised that so many women she meets complain about their husbands’ ineptness around the house.

It is not a problem she experiences with her same-sex partner, Dale Newman, who is the co-parent of three-year-old Rafael.

”There’s a female culture of husband bashing which is quite alien to me,” she said.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Same-sex parents, research shows, are significantly more egalitarian than heterosexual parents in the way they divide household tasks and parenting responsibilities.

With lesbian couples, the mother who carries the baby and breastfeeds it is not assumed to be the parent who will stay at home or be the main nurturer. In fact little can be assumed and everything must be negotiated when couples do not have gender roles to fall back on.

The findings, from the Work, Love and Play study which compared the experience of

317 same-sex parents – including 27 men – and 958 heterosexual parents, challenges the notion that biology is destiny.

”It is not uncommon for the biological capacity of mothers – childbearing, breastfeeding, nurturing – to be used as the rationale for women’s more limited participation in the workforce and their primary role as homemaker,” says Jennifer Power, of

La Trobe University, a co-author. But among lesbian couples, generally both women take on a mothering role, regardless of who gave birth, and both tend to take on the work role. In other cases, the women changed roles over time.

The study found that compared with heterosexual parents, both same-sex parents are much more likely to be working part time. Only 6 per cent of Australian couples with children under the age of 15 have neither parent working full time, compared with 23 per cent of lesbian couples.

Perhaps because of the extraordinary effort gay people must go to to have children, spending time with them is a big priority for both parents, the study found.

As a result, both partners tend to take responsibility for generating income and for all household tasks. ”Sharing roles means each partner develops empathy for what the other is doing,” said the study, published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy.

Dr Rutherford, 41, from the school of public health and community medicine at the University of NSW, and Ms Newman, 47, a freelance illustrator, have been together 11 years. The planning and making of Rafael took four years, Ms Newman said.

Though Dr Rutherford was the main breadwinner, she was the more determined to have children and is Rafael’s biological mother.

She took six months’ maternity leave before returning to work three days a week. Then Ms Newman, who works from home, did more of the parenting.

The decision to live on two part-time incomes until Rafael started school was fairly easy. ”We’re older parents, we’ll only have one child, and five years is not a huge chunk of our lives,” Dr Rutherford said.

While their closest friends are a heterosexual couple both of whom work part time, most parents of preschoolers they encounter are in more traditional relationships where women complain that their husbands do not do enough housework.

”I get jealous that the women don’t have to be breadwinners as well as mothers, so there’s always something to complain about,” Dr Rutherford said.

[Source: Original Article]

Attorney-General Lara Giddings today released for public comment draft legislation to legalise altruistic surrogacy in Tasmania.

Ms Giddings said the Surrogacy Bill, which she aimed to introduce in the first sitting of State Parliament next year, would legalise surrogacy in certain defined circumstances.

“This legislation would help many Tasmanians to realise their dream of starting a family,” Ms Giddings said.

“I recognise that this is a complex and contentious area and that is why I intend to allow time for the community to comment on the draft legislation.

“For some people surrogacy may be the only way in which they are able to have children and I am pleased the proposed legislation would help them to become parents.

“Currently surrogacy arrangements are illegal in Tasmania and commercial surrogacy would continue to be banned.

“The Bill would permit all people, regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation, to enter into a surrogacy arrangement but a surrogate mother will only be able to accept medical and other related expenses.

“It would also impose conditions on parties entering into surrogacy arrangements, and will include requirements to undergo counselling and to obtain independent legal advice.

“Parentage of a child would only be transferred to the new parents where it is found by the Children’s Court to be in the best interest of the child to do so.”

Ms Giddings said the drafting of the Bill followed a Legislative Council Select Committee Report supporting the move, and support for the provision of altruistic surrogacy at a national level through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). 

“This legislation has been developed by SCAG after extensive community consultation at a national level.

“It would bring Tasmania into line with other jurisdictions across Australia as well as meeting the expectations of the Select Committee.

“One jurisdiction which has taken a slightly different approach to the others (and to the current draft Tasmanian Bill) is Western Australian in its Surrogacy Act 2008. 

“That Act enables a court to make parentage orders in circumstances where the consent of the birth mother is not forthcoming but the child is the genetic child of the intended parent/s and is not the genetic child of the birth mother.

“Even in that circumstance the best interests of the child remains the paramount consideration which a court must have regard to when deciding whether to make a parentage order, but I invite comments on whether this provision might be included in the Tasmanian Act.”

Ms Giddings said progress on surrogacy delivered on another major aspect of her law reform agenda.

“I said in June this year that my key law reform priorities would be progressing a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, reforming Tasmania’s sex industry laws, introducing surrogacy laws and developing voluntary euthanasia laws.

“We are currently consulting with Tasmanians about whether we need a Charter and if so what it should look like, and I am pleased that through the draft Bill released today we are making progress on surrogacy as well.

“The other two issues will be addressed in the coming months,” Ms Giddings said.

The draft Bill, together with some explanatory material as well as links to the interstate legislation is available on Department of Justice website (http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/legislationreview/reviews). 

Copies of the Bill can be downloaded from the website or obtained from the Department by emailing legislation.development@justice.tas.gov.au or by calling 6233 3798.

Comments on Bill can be directed to the Office of Legislation Development and Review, Department of Justice, GPO Box 825, Hobart. Submissions close on Friday 4 February 2011.

[Source: Original Article]

FIVE-YEAR-OLD William and his baby sister, Jane, suffered a life of neglect until they were placed with foster carers.

One took a year off from his job as a child welfare worker to care for the troubled siblings; both foster parents work four-day weeks to maximise their family time.

The children are now thriving and their foster parents – affectionately called ”Dad” and ”Papa” – have become the first same-sex couple in NSW to adopt.

Advertisement: Story continues below

A Supreme Court judge, George Palmer, last week made orders for the adoption of William, 9, and Jane, 5, by their foster parents, Mr Smith and Mr Jones (the family has been given pseudonyms).

Mindful of the debate surrounding same-sex adoption, Justice Palmer took the unusual step of publishing his reasons for the landmark decision. ”Many in the community have expressed, and continue to express, a strongly held belief that adoption by same-sex couples is, in its very nature, contrary to religion, to morality and to the best interests of the child, and that it undermines the long-established concept of the nature of a family,” he said.

Though the court and the community would ”grapple for some time with the novelty of same-sex couple adoptions”, such applications did not require a specially cautious approach.

The judge said the court was not concerned with ideological debate, only what was best for the children, and Mr Smith and Mr Jones were ”unquestionably capable of parenting these two children”.

Although single gay men and women have been eligible to adopt children, the Adoption Act previously defined a ”couple” as a man and a woman who were married or in a de facto relationship.

Amendments to the legislation introduced in September expanded that definition to ”two persons”, allowing adoption by same-sex couples.

William and Jane were born to a young woman with a history of substance abuse. She has only seen them once since June 2006, when they were taken into care by the Department of Community Services. She has had no contact with them since January but did not object to their adoption by a same-sex couple.

William’s father could not be found to obtain his consent to adoption, which was dispensed with by the court.

Jane’s father – who has never met her – consented to her adoption by Mr Smith and Mr Jones, who were among the 8 per cent of foster carers with the child welfare organisation Barnardos who are gay.

A consultant psychologist involved with the family viewed them as ”experienced, highly skilled and creative” parents.

Justice Palmer described Mr Smith and Mr Jones as exemplary parents, observing that the children were happy and outgoing in court and ”stood close to their new fathers, hugging them in moments of excitement and at other times unconsciously reaching for their hands”.

[Source: Original Article]

THE decision that same-sex couples are allowed to foster children in Queensland has infuriated a 63-year-old grandmother who said she was passed over as a foster parent while two of her grandchildren were placed with gay men.

She said one of the men “walks around the streets in a dress as if he was a woman.”

“It’s not right,” she said.

The case was raised in State Parliament on Monday when Rob Messenger (Independent, Burnett) asked Child Safety Minister Phil Reeves if he was aware the state had entrusted children to a transvestite.

The grandmother, who can not be named for legal reasons, said the decision to place children with homosexuals ran counter to her strong Christian values.

She said her grandson aged four and a granddaughter, 12, were taken from their mother in July and placed with the gay couple without considering the family’s feelings.

“I can’t understand it at all,” she said.

“I was really upset. It has split our family even further.”

She won the support of a long-time social worker who said he knew of three cases where homosexual couples had been allowed to foster children in a Queensland regional city.

When the grandmother complained, she eventually won custody of the four-year-old, while the granddaughter was returned to her natural mother.

The grandmother admitted there had been drinking and gambling problems in the family.

She said the children were suddenly seized one morning while their mother was at bingo.

Mr Messenger asked Mr Reeves to explain why the government failed to ask the parents and grandparents whether they agree to same-sex couples or transvestites being allowed to provide foster care to their children and their grandchildren.

Mr Reeves did not answer the question directly.

He said: “It is a sad fact that in Queensland 7800 children are not able to live at home because they would not be safe there. The reality is that in Queensland we need more foster carers.

“We need more people to put up their hands to offer care to children. I would like to thank each and every one of our foster and kinship carers who have gone the extra mile to help our children.”

[Source: Original Article]

?In April 2010, a national network of advocates, community members, researchers and service providers identified the following three priorities for reform and resources at a federal level:

• Marriage equality

• Removal of discrimination in adoption law, and

• Ensuring that federally-funded services are inclusive of children with same-sex parents and their families.

Rainbow Families Council is the Victorian community organisation representing same-sex parented children and their families. We urge all parties and independents running in the federal election to consider these issues.

The final and full report of the Australian national NOT SO PRIVATE LIVES survey is now available online.

The 2,032 participants were 18-82 years of age, from each state and territory, and from metropolitan and rural Australia. Results are presented based on gender identity (male, female, and gender different), six age groups (18-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-82) and three age cohorts (<25 yrs, 25-34 yrs, 35+ yrs). Additional findings are provided for transgender/transsexual and intersex participants.

[Source: Original Document]

[Source: Original Video]

The conference will be covering topics for gay dads in surrogacy, co-parenting, gay dads from a straight relationship, fostering and adoption, step gay dads (partners) and of course gay guys wanting to be dads. More information from Drummond Street Services on 03 9663 6733 or download flyer.