Sydney Star Observer - "My Life With Christopher" by Barry McKay

BEING A SINGLE PARENT CAN HAVE MANY DRAWBACKS BUT FOR DAVID JONES IT HAS BEEN A SINGULAR BLESSING.

I have always been comfortable with being gay, but felt there was always something missing. I’d always had a very strong paternal instinct that confused me. I didn’t know whether it was a goal that would ever be achieved. It was a part of me that I felt I couldn’t express in a gay relationship – something was missing. I devoted myself to working with children with disabilities for about 15 years, but my work didn’t fulfil that need either.

I did have a few relationships that lasted a few years, and after travelling overseas, I returned to live in the Blue Mountains. I met my son Christopher’s mother in the workplace. She knew that I was gay, we talked a lot and became good friends. I told her that I would like to have a child. She was divorced and wanted to have another child, and being the modern woman she was, she thought that it was a perfect opportunity to have a “family” that was non-stereotypical. She agreed to help me. As we were both in our mid-30s, we took fertility vitamins to increase the chances of conception. She fell pregnant almost instantaneously. We were quite shocked.

We discussed arrangements before Christopher was born: we agreed it was in the best interests of the child that he’d always be share-cared, he’d have a home with dad and he’d have a home with mum. Initially I was able to take more time off work to look after the baby. Nurses from the hospital and Christopher’s mother gave me crash courses in what to do and she’d ring me quite often.

I would want Christopher in the best clothes and I would be taking photos of him all the time. I’d be changing his entire outfit several times a day, so during the times Christopher was with his mum, I’d be kept busy washing all of his things. It felt like that was never going to end.

Christopher is just such a happy balanced boy now. He’s got two worlds: he’s got a mum that loves him and a dad that loves him, his home with mum, and his world with me, and all of his things at my house. Both his mum and I have our own lives – his mum is more career-driven than I am. We respect each other and she has a very positive perception of gay men in general. We both give Christopher as much time as we can. We don’t have to live in each other’s pockets either.

Christopher is quite a gentle little spirit. He loves his dad, he wants to be with me constantly, which I find very rewarding. You can’t think of yourself all of the time, and you know whatever you’re doing is out of love. You have to remember that having a child is for life. You have to sacrifice your time. Being constantly available for Christopher makes it hard for me to date guys. Ideally I would like to be in a relationship. A potential partner would have to accept the responsibilities that I have.

As a gay father, you tend to be under more scrutiny with some people. A common attitude people hold is whatever mistakes your child makes, it’s your fault. A few people have said, “Your child will turn out gay because of you,” which is very narrow-minded, considering most gay people are brought up by heterosexuals. Probably the majority of negativity comes from some gay men, attitudes like “leave it to the breeders”. It’s just not the way the world is any more. I was quite surprised to hear things like that. Although I know that some people do hold the opinion that gay dads might want to molest their kids, I’ve never had anyone express that to me personally. Drawing such a conclusion about gay people and pedophilia makes me rather sick. It’s quite a harsh judgment. I don’t worry about Christopher being teased at school because he has a gay father. He’s already pretty big for his boots at this age.

I’ve read about situations where gay men have wanted to have children and paid a woman to be a surrogate mother and, after she had the child, instinct kicked in, she wanted to keep the child, and the father didn’t have much of a leg to stand on. So, I’ve been lucky. It depends on the motivation of the couple and of the mother. If the motivation is money, then straight away I would say “no”. I think lesbians “shopping for sperm” among their close gay friends is good, because they want the child to know its father. A gay couple needs to know someone who would mother the child for the right reasons and to keep in mind that having a child is for life. It’s bigger than marriage – it’s forever. You can’t just walk away from it.

Interview by Barry McKay

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

The Age - "Call to teach same-sex issues" by Cathy Anderson

Educators want a national schools program tackling gay issues. By Cathy Anderson.

A CONFERENCE at Deakin University has called for a compulsory national schools education program on same-sex issues to help prevent homophobic abuse and curb discrimination.

The Schooling and Sexualities Ten Years On conference heard that many gay students continued to suffer isolation, abuse and suicidal tendencies, owing in part to the fractured policies on same-sex education in schools.

Research presented also revealed many gay teachers were forced to live dual lives for fear of discrimination from colleagues, parents and students.

About 100 academics, policymakers and teachers from Australia, New Zealand and the US attended the three-day event earlier this month. It was organised to assess the progress made since a pioneering conference was held 10 years ago at Deakin to address the need for same-sex issues to be taught in Australian schools.

The "reunion" conference heard many government and independent schools were largely conservative.

A panel from Melbourne and regional Victoria of gay students, and one student who has a gay parent, told the conference inadequate programs had left some of them feeling depressed and suicidal.

Yvonne, a year 12 student from Sale, spoke of how she was ostracised by her classmates through most of high school, bullied in front of teachers who turned a blind eye, and denied access to sexual health information specific to lesbians.

She said that by 16 she was suicidal. She also received very little familial support, with her mother telling her "not to come home" after Yvonne revealed she was gay.

Several other students who spoke at the conference experienced similar emotional torment, depression and loneliness. All the students said there was little or no educational policy regarding sexuality at their schools, and information about gay support groups was non-existent.

All agreed they would have benefited from such programs, and said increased education about same-sex attracted youth would probably have diminished the levels of homophobia they encountered.

Many presenters believed the problem was an absence of a national, compulsory program and the unwillingness of principals, politicians and parents to allow same-sex issues to be formally raised in schools.

While the conference presenters discussed resources, such as the national Talking Sexual Health program developed by La Trobe University and various state programs such as Shine in South Australia, schools were not obligated to adopt them.

"Many schools are still very homophobic," said conference joint co-ordinator Dr Lisa Hunter, a lecturer in the school of education and professional studies at Queensland's Griffith University.

"Parents can be a main influence as to whether diverse sexualities are liveable and whether exploration is demonised or ignored."

Dr Hunter said supportive and informed teachers and parents were vital if young people were to have a positive schooling experience.

"Politicians and organisations from the Christian right often block programs. The moment you put the word 'sex' in a school program, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Even states with mandatory curriculums, it's not necessarily carried out and it's still on a school-by-school basis."

Conference attendees also heard how gay teachers were often unable to help gay students because they feared being outed and discriminated against. The recent case, revealed in Education, of a Melbourne University student teacher removed from her position after she told her students she was gay was cited as an example.

Tania Ferfolja, school of education lecturer at the University of Western Sydney, shared her research on lesbian secondary teachers in government schools in NSW. She told the conference most of the women were fearful of coming out and often led double lives.

Ms Ferfolja said the rise of neo-conservative politics had a huge effect on attitudes in schools. Policies such as the ban on gay marriage, IVF access for lesbians and the adverse reaction to ABC TV's Play School episode featuring two lesbian parents, contributed to a reluctance of gay teachers to be out at school.

Conference joint co-ordinator Dr Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli said the event had some very positive outcomes. She said sex education had made improvements over the past 10 years but there was still a lot of work left to do.

"Programs are slowly getting into schools, but we need to find a way to mandate their inclusion," Dr Pallotta-Chiarolli, a senior lecturer at Deakin, said. "Schools have an inherent heterosexuality, which is supported by a lack of equity in law and the use of language such as 'phase' and 'choosing a lifestyle'. That's the sort of attitude we need to change."

Following the conference, researchers, academics, family planning groups and teachers pledged to build stronger networks to decrease the level of homophobia in schools and provide more support for gay and lesbian students and teachers.

One initiative is to create an international centre on sexuality and health classes. It will be set up and headed by US-based gay and lesbian education policy pioneer Professor James T. Sears (who was the keynote speaker and conference facilitator), with committee representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the South Pacific. The centre will collect and disseminate information about same-sex programs in the US and Australasian region and co-ordinate research grants.

Other conference initiatives were:

· An Australian website and national publication to be launched.

· Two forums will be held in Queensland with the education department to address homophobia in schools, policy changes needed and implementation across the state.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

The Sunday Times - "Gay adoption splits opinion" by Giz Watson & John Barich

State MP Giz Watson and John Barich, national vice-president of the Australian Family Association, put their cases on the issue of allowing gay couples to adopt

GIZ WATSON, the case for . . .

TWO men have exercised their rights under WA law to be considered as prospective parents of a child who needs a new family, a child who has been relinquished for adoption.
Their chances of becoming parents in this way are slight. There are already more than 100 other couples on the waiting list; in 2003/04 only three children born in WA were placed in so-called "stranger adoption".

Other countries offering children for adoption prevent children from going to same-sex couples; and the relinquishing mother can (quite rightly) limit or proscribe who the child goes to (for example, she can say they have to be Catholics or Caucasian).

Under WA law, in the case of stranger adoption, the interest of the child always comes first and the decisions of the relinquishing parent and the adoption service are final. Neither a heterosexual nor gay couple discriminated against for good reason in this process can appeal. These decisions cannot be appealed under the Equal Opportunity Act.

So why all the excitement? What exactly is behind this debate?

Are lesbian and gay parents less capable? The scientific evidence is to the contrary and more than 50 scientific studies have shown this.

The Australian Psychological Society, representing more than 15,000 psychologists, says that gays and lesbians parent no differently from heterosexuals.

Jenny Milbank, of Sydney University, reviewed the last 30 years of research on lesbian and gay families. She concluded that it was family processes, not family structures, that determined children's welfare. Parenting skills and the management of stress and conflict determined dysfunction in children, and these were completely unrelated to gender or family structure.

Are children in gay families in any danger? Statistics from Australia and other countries show that children are more likely to suffer neglect or abuse in heterosexual families.

The facts are that more than 90 per cent of the perpetrators of child abuse are men who identify as heterosexual – overwhelmingly their victims are female, the majority are related or known to their victim, and most offences occur inside the hallowed family home. Of course, the vast majority of heterosexual families provide safe and loving homes for children, and gay families do so equally.

Will children in gay families be teased or bullied at school? Children may be teased for having big ears or a bald father, or for being thin.

Parents and schools are fully aware of bullying issues and employ intelligent approaches to conflict resolution. Teasing is a behaviour-management issue, not a "gay-parent" issue.

One of the key tools to address teasing is promoting understanding and tolerance.

So is it really a "rights of the child" issue that excites all the fuss? Opponents of gay adoption remain adamant that a gay-family structure is damaging – but to whom? Why does the institution of the heterosexual family require such vehement defence?

Is it really true that a child's best interests are necessarily served by having a mother and a father? An optimal home environment for a child provides both nurturing and resourcing. These roles are not gender specific.

So, finally, what arguments are left other than a bald, unsubstantiated assertion that heterosexual families are simply best for children? Is the "threat" of gay adoption not really about the "best interests of the child", but rather its perceived challenge to a narrow, imagined notion of an ideal family?

Since time immemorial the true, rather than imagined, reality is that children have been raised in a variety of settings. One person or many may provide the nurturing and resourcing roles: family members, friends and teachers all contribute. Opponents of gay adoption would do well to take a longer and wider view of child-raising in the world, and, frankly, get over it.

JOHN BARICH, the case against . . .

THE 1994 Adoption Act declares that the "paramount considerations to be taken into account in the administration" of that Act are "the welfare and best interests of a child who is an adoptee or a prospective adoptee; the principle that adoption is a service for a child who is an adoptee or a prospective adoptee; and the adoption of a child should occur only in circumstances where there is no other appropriate alternative for the child".

Nothing in these considerations refers to any alleged "right" of couples, of any kind, to adopt.

Therefore, the question of whether a homosexual couple should be treated equally to a married couple does not arise, except in the context of asking what is in the best interest of the child.

The onus is on those advocating adoption by homosexual couples to establish that the best interest of a child can ever be served by intentionally depriving the child of a father or a mother.

This is the necessary consequence of placing a child for adoption with a male homosexual couple or a lesbian couple.

Advocates of adoption by homosexual couples frequently claim about 50 studies have shown no difference in outcome between children raised by married or homosexual couples.

Any social-science study depends for its validity on following rigorous statistical and research procedures.

Dr Robert Lerner and Dr Althea Nagai – experts in quantitative analysis – after dissecting each of 49 of such studies, found at least one fatal research flaw in each.

These studies are therefore no basis for good science or public policy.

On the other hand, there is a large and reliable body of evidence that there are gender-linked differences in parenting skills.

Men and women add different strengths to their children's development.

Fathers and mothers interact differently with their infant children.

Fathers tend to play with their children more physically, while mothers smile and talk more to them.

Fathers tend to encourage curiosity and problem solving and are less solicitous about failure.

Mothers provide more expressive and nurturing child-rearing.

What a perverse idea of fairness is it to decide that a little boy or girl shall never be able to call anyone "Mummy" because the next couple in the adoption queue is a pair of male homosexuals?

Adoption creates a legal, lifelong bond between a child and the new parents.

It provides a vital service to those children whose natural parents freely decide that they are unable or unwilling to care for and raise them.

The state has a grave obligation to ensure that it acts only in the best interests of these children and ignores the self-serving interests of any adults demanding a "right to adopt".

Millennia of human experience, common sense and weighty research support the presumption that the best interest of the child is served by entrusting him or her to a mother and father in a stable marriage.

The advocates of adoption by homosexual couples cannot meet the burden of proof required to rebut this presumption.

The Australian Family Association welcomes the commitment of the Liberal Party to repeal the unjust provision of the Act that permits adoption by homosexual couples.

This provision was introduced by the Gallop Government – not after any comprehensive review of the needs of children, but on demands for equality from a small, influential group of adults.

We urge the Gallop Government to likewise consider repealing this provision.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Star Observer - "Teething Problems" by Myles Wearring

MANY LESBIANS AND GAY MEN ENTER PARENTHOOD WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE POSSIBLE LEGAL HURDLES AHEAD.

Would-be lesbian mums and potential gay dads have a new resource to check out when considering the potential legal minefield of same-sex parenting.

The new Talking Turkey website was created by the Inner City Legal Centre in Darlinghurst to answer some of the questions regularly asked by prospective parents.

In NSW only the biological mother has any automatic legal rights. In the case of lesbian couples with kids, the non-biological mother has no legal standing. Nor does the man who donated sperm, often a friend or acquaintance of the mother. So when lesbian parents break up, or the mothers have a falling out with the sperm donor, there’s not much the non-biological parent can do.

This is the predicament one Sydney lesbian couple now find themselves in. The women had a child through donor insemination, broke up and are currently fighting for custody of their three-year-old boy in the Family Court. The biological mother wants the child to live with her and give the non-biological mother contact once a fortnight. At present the two women (who cannot be named) share equal custody of the child, and the non-biological mother wants to keep it this way.

The Family Court verdict is eagerly anticipated, as it will set a precedent for what is expected to become a more common issue. As more and more same-sex couples start having babies, the more potential there is for complicated custody battles in the future.

The problem is, a lot of lesbian couples and their sperm donors who enter into “informal agreements” – effectively starting a family on their own by their own rules – don’t anticipate the kinds of things that can go wrong.

The lawyer for the non-biological mother in the current case, Nici Clayhills, said this was a common issue for gay and lesbian parents.

“And it’s because there aren’t the facilities, the advice, the institutional set-up to say ‘this is how it should be done’,” Clayhills told Sydney Star Observer.

“Most people don’t think about seeing a lawyer about having a kid. A lot of people learn the hard way.”

Jenni Millbank, associate professor of law at Sydney University, agreed prospective lesbian mums and their sperm donors often didn’t think about the legal problems they could face in the future.

“People are going into agreements often with people they don’t know that well,” Millbank said.

“Not often with complete strangers, but often with people who are not much more than casual acquaintances.”

The trouble is, Millbank said, gay men and lesbians often did not have many options when it came to starting a family. Gay men were generally excluded from adoption and often needed a lesbian friend or couple to have children with. And many lesbians were barred from fertility services or preferred to not use unknown donors, so this type of informal agreement was their only hope.

The lesbians and gay men who got into these arrangements were often so excited at the prospect of impending parenthood they overlooked the conflicting desires of the other parties, Millbank said. For instance, the mothers might have said they wanted the father to have contact with the child once a month but the father might have thought they’d agreed upon access once a week.

“For that reason I would say that everyone going through an informal agreement to have a baby should be writing down what their hopes and expectations are,” Millbank said.

“Most of that won’t be legally binding but it’s a really important process to go through to make sure everyone understands what their respective positions are and pulls out if they’re not in agreement.”

Whatever arrangements were made before conception, people’s views and perspectives could change after the birth, Millbank said.

“But at least if you start off from a clear platform at least you have some hope. If you’ve all got cross-purposes to start with it’s a disaster. What if the mums want to move away? Who gets to decide what the baby’s name is? What if someone decides they want to send the children to a Catholic school? It’s really important people are clear from the outset.”

The Talking Turkey site (www.iclc.org.au/talking_turkey/) has draft documents available for people to download, to help biological and non-biological parents establish formal boundaries and rules.

Parents could also seek consent orders from the Family Court after the birth.

“That’s an increasingly common mechanism that’s used,” Millbank said.

“A mother and co-mother can go before the court and ask for orders that they have shared parental responsibility. Those orders can also include a donor dad or involved man, so they can provide for him to have contact or some form of parental responsibility.”

If a man has had extensive contact with a child the court was unlikely to change that, Millbank said.

Thankfully for non-biological parents, it looks like the laws in NSW may be about to change. The NSW Attorney General’s department is currently consulting with the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby to reform the Status of Children Act. The reforms would give non-biological parents legal parenting rights.

Lobby co-convenor Julie McConnell believed a draft of the new law will be going before cabinet in the next fortnight. “We’re looking forward to that being a reality,” she said.

But no matter how many possible problems parents took into consideration, Millbank said at some point the child would get to have a say as well.

“You can plan all you want but it can always turn out differently,” she said.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

The Sunday Times - "GAY COUPLE TO ADOPT: Two WA men approved as parents" by Trevor Paddenburg

A GAY couple have been approved to adopt a child – a WA first under liberalised laws that came into force in 2002.
The application, by a male couple, has been approved by the Department for Community Development.

The historic laws allow same-sex couples to adopt children if they can convince authorities they would make suitable parents – the same criteria for heterosexual couples.

The gay partners are among 118 WA couples approved to adopt a child, most of whom will wait an average of two years.

But the two men may never become fathers because a child's birth mother also has to approve the foster parents.

Opposition Leader Matt Birney slammed the department's decision, saying it was disappointing, disturbing and against a child's best interests.

He said the debate about same-sex parents had been "hijacked" by a focus on the rights of gay parents rather than the rights of children.

"I can't support it. I find it very disappointing and I think most people out there would find this quite disturbing," he said.

Mr Birney said every child deserved to grow up with the influence of a mother and a father.

"Out in the real world, you don't always have that opportunity, but in this case the Government can provide that opportunity," he said.

"Instead, they are imposing their own political ideology on the system and denying a child the best start in life he or she could have."

Australian Family Association WA branch president John Barich described the liberal laws as obscene, anti-social and against the community's wishes.

But Greens MP Giz Watson, a lesbian whose partner of 16 years has three children, said critics of gay adoption were old-fashioned and ill-informed.

She said it was good news the gay couple had taken advantage of the changed laws because sex and sexuality had no bearing on being a good parent.

"There are many examples of same-sex couples raising children in a healthy, loving and stable home environment," she said.

"The main thing to recognise is that a stable, loving couple provide the best environment for children, and gay couples are just as capable as heterosexual couples of providing that."

Despite adoption approval here, the gay couple cannot adopt a foreign child because no other country accepts applications from same-sex couples.

In WA, relinquishing mothers have to give their tick of approval to potential foster parents.

Department for Community Development acting adoptions manager Bob Sprenkels said it meant the gay couple could be "chosen at any time or may never be chosen".

Ms Watson agreed that relinquishing parents should have the final say on who could adopt their child.

But gay couples should be considered on the same terms as heterosexual couples, she said.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Star Observer - "Gay dads have their day" by Ian Gould

THEY MAY REMAIN IN THE MINORITY, BUT OPENLY GAY DADS WILL CELEBRATE DIVERSE PARENTING MODELS THIS FATHER’S DAY

For Gary Hampton, coming out 20 years ago meant announcing himself as part of a group stereotypically seen as childless hedonists. But the then 17-year-old was not about to abandon a long-held dream.

“I always knew that I could be a father and when I came out as gay I didn’t discount that option,” Hampton said.

Twenty years on, Hampton has witnessed his ambition come to life. On Sunday he and his partner Andrew will celebrate Father’s Day as dads to their three-year-old son Oliver.

The Sydney couple will join other men who, though part of a firm minority, are issuing a challenge to convention by parenting as openly gay men.

Determining how many gay men in Australia have children, and ascertaining the nature of their parenting arrangements, is a tricky business. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ most recent population and housing census, five percent of an identified 11,000 gay male couples in Australia had children, compared with about 20 percent of lesbian partners.

But the 2001 information made no distinction between offspring from previous heterosexual relationships and those from other parenting arrangements. Nor did it take into account single gay dads.

University of Sydney law academic Jenni Millbank, who has written major parenting reports for the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said in her experience most gay men who were parents tended to have had their children with a former female partner.

In LGBT community consultations Millbank observed that when openly gay men formed families in partnership with another woman or couple, it was commonly “a friendly, avuncular relationship with the kids, ranging from casual to regular contact.”

Gary Hampton and his partner wanted more than that when they decided to become dads about five years ago.

After dismissing an international surrogacy arrangement as “unattractive and difficult-looking”, and with adoption in NSW out of reach for same-sex couples, the pair were introduced through a mutual friend to a lesbian couple who also hoped to become parents.

Hampton agreed to donate sperm, and after about six months one of the lesbian partners became pregnant.

Under a parenting model downloaded from the Internet – “a co-parenting arrangement for lesbian and gay parents … that spells out everything, areas of responsibility and that sort of thing” – the four parents-to-be agreed their child would live in each couple’s household half the time, after spending his first six months with his mothers.

It’s an arrangement that works well, according to Hampton, despite early insecurities and continuing scepticism from some. In contrast to his parents’ initial agreement, Oliver was about eight months old before he spent his first night with his dads, and almost two when he began living with his fathers 50 percent of the time.

“That was difficult for everyone involved because all of us were a bit insecure about our positions,” Hampton admitted. “I think there is a sort of culture among the gay male ‘donor dad’ people that shared parenting is too hard and doesn’t work. But for us it really does work.”

Oliver’s four parents have family planning meetings every two to three weeks, and communication between the mums and dads helps ward off possible parenting rivalry.

“Certainly we could go down that track of competitiveness … but they are general fears that everybody has,” Hampton said.

Not all gay dads are so keen on female involvement in the parenting process. Lee Matthews became a dad for the second time two weeks ago, and is quick to emphasise he and partner Tony are the only parents their two-year-old son and new daughter have.

“Our children have two dads who love them and look after them. They don’t have a woman as a parent. So because there is no female parent, there is no mother,” Matthews said.

The Melbourne man can make the assertion with confidence because he and his partner became fathers through a surrogacy arrangement in the United States.

The same surrogate bore the couple’s two-year-old son Alexander and new daughter Lucinda, both times using another woman’s egg and sperm donation by Matthews and Wood.

Commercial surrogacy arrangements like those taken up by Matthews and Wood are unlawful in Australia. Even where they are permitted – like in parts of the United States - a price tag running to the tens of thousands is often a deterrent.

But while commercial surrogacy’s critics resent what they see as a business-like transaction, Matthews’s experience has been positive. “We’ve received nothing but support from so many aspects of the broader community, including the crèche that our first child goes to, right down to good old playgroup or Mums’ group that the local council offers new parents.”

He attributes the outcome to an inner city postcode and a robust defence of their parenting model. “I think we have actually been quite proactive in asserting why we want to be parents and that may result in people not asking.”

“[And] I think with most aspects of being gay, as soon as you can personalise it, people look at you as individuals.”

Meanwhile, gay men hoping to independently form a family in Australia face a struggle. Fostering, adoption and surrogacy are the three main options, according to Jenni Millbank. But fostering is not usually intended as a permanent parenting arrangement. And since same-sex couples cannot adopt in NSW, gay men must apply as individuals.

“There is much less likelihood that as an individual you’re going to get an [adoption] order compared to a couple,” Millbank said. International adoption is also competitive and skewed towards heterosexual couples, while commercial surrogacy is unlawful in Australia. Altruistic surrogacy – where the surrogate receives no payment – is highly complicated and prohibited in many states if medical expenses are paid or advertising occurs.

Adding to the legal complexities is possible discrimination, an area in which gay dads’ experience appears mixed. Like Lee Matthews, Gary Hampton said he and his partner had yet to experience much serious prejudice. The pair appeared on Channel Seven’s Sunrise program this week in a bid to raise awareness of same-sex parents, but will decline media appearances once Oliver starts at school to protect their son’s privacy.

They will also ensure teachers and parents at Oliver’s school know he is from a same-sex parented family, and are hopeful their son won’t experience harassment.

But another gay father believes prejudice is a real issue for would-be gay dads to weigh up, particularly if women aren’t involved as parents. Paul van Reyk has fathered six children to different mothers since the 1980s through private sperm donation arrangements.

“I think that there is a significant part of the population who is entirely comfortable with two women having kids,” the Sydney 53-year-old said. “[But] I think that they’d be less comfortable with two gay men who chose to have a child where there wasn’t, say, a ‘mother’ somewhere involved.”

“There is still a really strong prejudice against the notion that [gay men and lesbians] are absolutely reasonable parents.”

Gay dads can also expect limited support options, according to another gay father Reymon Leglise. After the then married father-of-three came out as gay two years ago, he faced a battle.

“I spent six months either searching the web, going to forums, going to different groups and outings and anything else, trying to find some form of support for children [of gay and lesbian parents].”

Leglise eventually established social group Gay Dads And their Young (GDAY) late last year.

GDAY runs social outings for about ten gay fathers and their children, but Leglise said it and a similar organisation in Melbourne were rarities.

The prospect of limited support, combined with legal complexities and possible prejudice might be enough to warn many gay men off fatherhood. But Lee Matthews dismissed those fears in the lead-up to his first Fathers Day as a two-time dad.

“It certainly cools the lifestyle down, there’s no doubt about that,” he said of parenthood as an openly gay man.

“But it opens up whole new social experiences that are quite wonderful and rewarding.”

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Herald Sun - "Same-sex Law Storm" by Kate Jones and Sarah Wotherspoon

GAY and lesbian couples would have the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples in plans being considered by the State Government.
Changes recommended by the Law Reform Commission also include legal protection for same-sex couples who act as parents and better access to donor information for those conceived by IVF.

The commission has made 27 interim recommendations to adoption and assisted reproductive technology laws, which will go before Attorney-General Rob Hulls next year.

The radical changes aim to end discrimination against same-sex couples and single people, said the commission's chairman, Prof Marcia Neave.

But the suggested reforms have outraged family and religious groups.

Family First senator Steve Fielding said it was in children's interests to be raised by a mother and a father.

"This undermines traditional values and the traditional family unit which comprises a mother and a father," Senator Fielding said.

"That is the ideal and the best environment in which to raise our children who are our future," he said.

"This is a defining issue in terms of family values and the Bracks Government must defend and uphold family values at all times."

The Catholic Church and the Australian Family Association also condemned the proposed changes.

Vicar General of the Melbourne Archdiocese Les Tomlinson said children's rights should supersede those of same-sex couples and singles.

"To legislate changes) would be depriving a child of their rightful entitlement to a mother and a father," he said.

Gay and Lesbian Fertility Access Rights Lobby Convener Felicity Martin said: "Children of gay and lesbian parents do not suffer because of the sexuality of their parents.

"They suffer from the stigma and discrimination that they face when the family is not acknowledged socially or legally," Ms Martin said.

Adoption by same-sex couples is allowed in Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT.

Other recommendations by the commission include rights for lesbian partners who do not give birth to children.

Prof Neave said the changes would give same-sex partners a fair go. "We are recommending changes to the Adoption Act so that people who are undertaking a parenting role are legally recognised and legally responsible," she said.

"This means that non-birth mothers will be liable for child support if they leave the relationship and their children will have a right to a share in their estate if they die."

The Government will also be asked to let children under 18 who have been conceived through IVF to find out about their donor parents.

These latest recommendations are made in a second report by the commission. The first was released in May and the third is expected in September.

So far it's had 252 submissions from lobby groups and individuals.

The final report will be released early next year.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Dimocks Family Lawyers - "Same Sex Parenting" by Paul Boers

The purpose of this paper is to examine legislation and case law insofar as it relates to parental responsibility in same sex parenting cases. In doing so, it is intended to identify some legal issues and difficulties that will arise in various cases, and hopefully offer some practical suggestions to deal with those issues.

The fact situations this paper will examine will be the less common dealt with by most family lawyers – that is, where there is no dispute between the parties and there has been no breakdown of a relationship. Who has parental responsibility in a family comprising a same sex couple that has a child? Who is a parent for the purposes of the Family Law Act ?

Issues of residence and contact disputes, usually arising at the end of relationships, will not be examined. Similarly, this paper will not examine in any great detail parental responsibility for children conceived as a result of sexual intercourse between opposite sex parties.

In the absence of conception via opposite sex intercourse, conception will of necessity involve an artificial conception procedure. It should be noted that in this paper, the expression “artificial conception procedure” (As used in S.60H of the Family Law Act ) will be used to cover commonly used expressions such as IVF, infertility treatment and artificial insemination. Different legislation in various States and Territories use different expressions to describe a procedure where conception occurs with artificial assistance, ie without sexual intercourse. The State and Territory legislation dealing with artificial conception procedures will be referred to generally as reproductive technology legislation, and clinics where artificial conception procedures are performed will be referred to as reproductive technology units.

Where same sex parties are concerned, the conception of a child will occur in four general fact situations, as follows: -

1. A lesbian couple where one party conceives via an artificial conception procedure with an anonymous sperm donor;

2. A lesbian couple where one party conceives via an artificial conception procedure with a known sperm donor;

3. A gay male couple entering into a surrogacy arrangement, where one or both donate sperm; and

4. A gay male couple entering into a surrogacy agreement, where the sperm is from an anonymous donor.

The general fact situations referred to are not as uncommon as people might think. In October 2002, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby Inc (NSW) (“GLRL”) released a discussion paper in relation to legal and other issues of concern to gay and lesbian parents. The contents of the discussion paper is drawn from research on same sex couple family forms from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Following on from that discussion paper, the GLRL held community consultations in New South Wales between December 2002 and February 2003, and this culminated in a report . The findings of the report, following on from the community consultations and research, included: -

* Up to 10% of gay men and 20% of lesbians are parents;

* Up to half of these parents had children from a previous opposite sex relationship;

* Most lesbian parents are now conceiving through artificial conception procedures;

* About 85% of lesbian parents are having children in a same sex relationship;

* Between 50%-70% of lesbian parents using an artificial conception procedure use a known sperm donor, and most are gay men;

* Between half and two thirds of gay sperm donors had some contact with the child;

* The family form, and sharing of parental responsibility, was not confined to a “model” of two same sex parties and in some cases extended to other persons including the sperm donor and his partner.

“Family” is not a concept which is defined in the Family Law Act . Despite some conservative views, it takes different forms in different social, ethnic and religious backgrounds. In the case of families lead by same sex parents, its form has been recognised by the Family Court of Australia in various cases, and it is worth noting the comments of Nicholson CJ who said:

"One of the fundamental misconceptions which plagues me is the failure to understand that heterosexual family life in no way gains stature, security and respect by the denigration or refusal to acknowledge same-sex families. The sum social good is in fact reduced, because when a community refuses to recognise and protect genuine commitment made by its members, the state acts against everybody’s interests."

Although the Family Law Act contains some provisions dealing with artificial conception procedures, the laws regulating reproductive technology and surrogacy are dealt with by the States and Territories and vary.

In the case of a lesbian couple having a child conceived via an artificial conception procedure, with a known or unknown sperm donor, a presumption of parentage will only apply to the birth mother under S.60H(2) if there is a relevant prescribed State or Territory law, as identified by Fogarty J in B v J (1996) FLC 92-716. It would otherwise be expected that the child’s birth certificate would note the birth mother as such, and a presumption of parentage would arise from that under S.69R of the Family Law Act. In addition, as it was found in Re Mark:an Application relating to parental responsibilities [2003] FamCA 822 that S.60H does not provide an exhaustive definition of “parent”, other matters could be applied in concluding a birth mother having a child as a result of an artificial conception procedure is a parent, such as the application of the natural meaning of “parent” as in Tobin v Tobin (1999) FLC 92-848.

As for her partner/the co-mother, a presumption of parentage may apply, depending on where they are from. If they live in Western Australia, she could be noted as a parent on the birth certificate and a presumption of parentage would then apply to her, in addition to expressly applying at a state level where she gave her consent to the artificial conception procedure. However, as none of Western Australia’s laws are prescribed for the purposes of S.60H of the Family Law Act , and this section does not make provision for persons in the position of the co-mother, the presumption of parentage to the co-mother at state level will not result in a presumption of parentage under s.60H of the Family Law Act . If they are from the Northern Territory, there is a specific presumption of parentage in her favour arising out of conception via an artificial conception procedure at a territory level. However, the section of the relevant Northern Territory Act is not a prescribed law for the purposes of S.60H of the Family Law Act, and again that section makes no provision for persons in the position of the co-mother.

Where an anomaly arises due to relevant State or Territory laws not being prescribed for the purposes of S.60H, the Court can take into consideration other matters to conclude a person is the parent of a child. It is submitted that presumptions of parentage created by state/territory law, as in Western Australia and the Northern Territory in favour of the co-mother of a lesbian couple, could be one such consideration. This is all very well from a legal perspective, but on a day to day basis how would a co-mother of a lesbian couple from the Northern Territory establish her parentage to various authorities? Production of a birth certificate is the most common method of verifying parentage, but in the absence of birth registration being available for the co-mother other methods of verification of parentage would need to be sought.

A presumption of parentage can arise by operation of S.69S by way of a finding by the Court that a person is the parent of a child. This, of necessity, would require an application for parenting orders by way of a Form 3, and findings by the Court at a hearing, although presumably not defended. This would seem a difficult route to take for a same sex couple, to achieve parental responsibility for both.

In places where no presumption of parentage exists in favour of the co-mother, the solution involves seeking parenting orders under the Family Law Act where both parties have responsibility for the long term care welfare and development of the child. It is suggested this be done by way of a Form 11 Application for Consent Orders, filed together with the proposed orders and a short Affidavit explaining the role of the parties, how the child was conceived and details about the sperm donor if known. If the sperm donor is known, he may also be a party to the orders, depending upon whether all parties agree he is to have a role in the child’s life and have parenting orders in his favour. If the sperm donor is not known, then this should be set out in the Affidavit.

When filing the material, it is recommended it be accompanied by a letter to the Duty Registrar explaining the Application. Although consent orders where a birth mother confers parental responsibility upon a co-mother does not invoke the requirements of S.65G, it may be helpful to point this out in the letter accompanying the Application for Consent Orders, as anecdotally it is understood in some of these cases a S.65G report has been ordered unnecessarily. It may be worthwhile asking to speak to a friendly Deputy Registrar, if available, to explain the matter and what your client(s) wish to achieve.

It is understood that the Family Court is working on a standard procedure to deal with cases where same sex couples seek parenting orders in relation to children conceived through an artificial conception procedure. A draft practice direction the Family Court was previously working on encompasses the procedure suggested above, except the part about asking to speak to a friendly Deputy Registrar. Realistically, the previous draft practice direction, and presumably any future standard procedure, will only really apply to lesbian couples as the converse case with a gay male couple involved in a surrogacy arrangement would no doubt attract a S.65G report, and other complex issues exist, as was the case in Re: Mark (supra). At this stage it is not known whether a standard procedure has been resolved, or how far it has advanced.

At present, whether the sperm donor is known or not, there will be no presumption of parentage in his favour and he will therefore have no parental responsibility. However, this will not of itself preclude a sperm donor from seeking parenting orders in relation to a child, as was the case in Re Patrick: (An Application Concerning Contact) [2002] FamCA 193. It will then be a matter for the Court on the individual facts of the case to determine whether the sperm donor is a person concerned with the care welfare and development of the child, and whether it is in the child’s best interests to make any parenting orders sought.

Otherwise, in some fact situations such as in Re: Mark , it may very well be the case that the Court can make a finding a sperm donor is a parent for the purposes of the Family Law Act , despite the provisions of S.60H. That is for another case, and it is suspected the Court may endeavour to avoid this outcome given the potential ramifications.

Surrogacy arrangements for gay male couples will be rare, given the illegality of commercial arrangements in most States and Territories, and the unenforceability of altruistic arrangements. In places in Australia where it is not illegal, neither party of a gay male couple entering into a surrogacy arrangement will have a presumption of parentage in his favour, although if one donated sperm for an artificial conception procedure it is yet to be decided whether he is a parent for the purposes of the Family Law Act . In surrogacy situations where no legal impediment exists, as was the case in Re: Mark , the parties would need to apply for parenting orders conferring on them both responsibility for long term care welfare and development of the child. This is not a matter that would be dealt with by a Deputy Registrar in chambers, and by necessity would involve a Form 1 Application for Final Orders to be determined presumably by a judge. It should be noted, however, that this process could be done through the Federal Magistrates Service.

Parenting Plans under Part VII, Division 4 of the Family Law Act will generally not be an option for same sex parents. S.63C provides a parenting plan is an agreement “…made between the parents of a child”. Given the problems with the existence of a presumption of parentage under the provisions of the Family Law Act or state/territory law in most cases of same sex parents, they will generally be outside the requirements before they can enter into a parenting plan. However, Western Australian lesbian couples may have this option available to them if both are registered on a child’s birth certificate as parents, and filing the birth certificate with the parenting plan would be sufficient to satisfy a Deputy Registrar of the Family Court of parentage. For lesbian couples in the Northern Territory, the birth certificate will not have provision for the co-mother being noted as a parent, and it is suggested that a brief affidavit be filed along with the parenting plan to explain the facts of how conception occurred (without going into intrusive detail) giving rise to a presumption of parentage to the co-mother.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

M/C Journal - "Who Wants to Be a 'Good Parent'?" by Damien Riggs

1 In this paper, I will be looking at how the news media may be both helpful (‘good’) and a hindrance (‘bad’) to lesbian and gay parents. While I acknowledge the incommensurable differences between the experiences of lesbian parents and gay parents, I do believe that representations of both lesbian and gay parents in the media tend to focus on any similarities that exist between (and within) the two groups, rather than looking at the important differences. I would suggest that this is the result of the hetero-normative assumptions that inform the news media, which take heterosexual parents to be the norm from which all other parents differ. Such normative assumptions thus suggest that it is important to look at how particular moral frameworks are employed in both pro- and anti-gay news media reports of lesbian and gay parents, the implication being that the former may not necessarily be better than the latter. As lesbian and gay parents, we may thus do ourselves a disservice by uncritically accepting that ‘positive’ media accounts are useful in our fight for rights.
‘Good Parents’ and the ‘Rhetoric of Pseudoscience’

2 One of the most central aspects of representations of lesbian and gay parents in the news media is the use of ‘scientific proof’ to legitimate lesbian and gay parenting. Some examples include:

3

Significant, reliable social scientific evidence indicates that lesbian and gay parents are as fit, effective and successful as heterosexual parents (Judith Stacey reported in http://www.lethimstay.com/wrong_socscience_expert.html).

4

Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical test, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy (American Psychological Association [APA], 1995, http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html).

5

Scientific findings debunk the myth that gay men cannot be nurturing parents (http://www.familypride.org/issues/myths.htm).

6

A comprehensive international review of 25 years of research into lesbian and gay parenting… shows convincingly that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not demonstrate any important differences from those of heterosexual parents
(Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, 2002, http://www.glrl.org.au/issues/parenting.htm).

7One particular strategy of legitimation evident in these extracts demonstrates what Kitzinger has termed the ‘rhetoric of pseudoscience’ – disproving your opponents claims to truth by demonstrating their ‘bad science’ (see also Riggs, “Politics”). Thus, in the examples above, ‘significant, reliable social scientific evidence’ is contrasted with ‘debunk[ed]… myth[s]’. Another example of this is provided in Stacey’s claim that:

8

Paul Cameron is the primary disreputable and discredited figure in this [anti-lesbian and gay parenting] literature. He was expelled from the APA… for unethical scholarly practices, such as selective, misleading representations of research and making claims that could not be substantiated
(http://www.lethimstay.com/wrong_socscience_expert.html).

9Here, Stacey uses the authority of ‘good’ social scientific research in order to disprove the claims of ‘bad’ ‘disreputable and discredited figure[s]’. In so doing, while she seeks to support lesbian and gay parents in our fight for rights, she also perpetuates the notion that scientific knowledge is the appropriate arbiter of what counts as ‘good parenting’. This is reinforced in the statement of the APA, which suggests that ‘many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical test’. While this is intended to demonstrate the importance of using psychological research to ‘evaluate [the] accuracy’ of such beliefs, it also demonstrates the risks that we run when using science to determine what will count as ‘truth’ (Clarke; Riggs, “Politics”, “On Whose Terms”). Thus, while psychological knowledge in the extracts above is deployed in support of lesbian and gay parents, we only need to look back 30-odd years to see a vastly different story. It is as recently as that that same-sex attraction was classified as a pathology in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Thus, as Joshua Gamson (76) suggests, that which is considered ‘“normal” is often a synonym for “power”’.

10In this regard, the power that is evoked through the use of scientific discourse in news media may also be used against lesbian and gay parents. For example, Bill Maier, a clinical psychologist and vice president of the (right-wing and, anti-gay) Focus on the Family Institute is reported as saying that:

11

Every responsible psychologist in the APA should be ashamed; the organization is obviously more concerned with appeasing its powerful gay lobby than it is with retaining any semblance of moral and ethical duty
(Baptist Press News, http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=18784).

12Here morality and ethics are constructed as being a priori oriented towards the values of the heterosexual majority. Even if lesbian and gay rights activists are to counter this with ‘proof’ of the normality of lesbians and gay men, this does little to destabilise the hegemony of scientific knowledge and its ability to define what counts as moral and ethical. Indeed, Maier draws attention to a very important point – while organisations such as the APA may seek to use psychological knowledge to refute anti-gay claims, they do so without challenging the ideological assumptions that underpin it. As a result, the APA (and those who use psychological knowledge in pro-accounts more generally) are left open to accusations of bias and wilful ignorance of a system of law that is based upon the values of white, heterosexual, middle-class men (Bernstein).
‘Taking Sides’: Is There Any Difference?

13This leads me to ask the following question: Do we as lesbians and gay men actually want to be ‘good parents’? How might our location within this position only serve to erase the unique experiences of parenting and families that we share? Eldridge suggests that what appear as debates over social issues may more accurately be described as ‘one-sided debates’, wherein the ‘opposing parties’ are actually arguing very similar points. This is particularly evident in debates over lesbian and gay parenting, as both those for and those against lesbian and gay parents often uncritically accept the notions of ‘science’ that inhere to the debates. For example, in the previous section we saw Stacey claim that anti-gay researchers have questionable ethics, just as Maier suggested that the support for lesbian and gay issues given by the APA represents a crisis in its ‘ethical and moral duty’.

14While pro-accounts of lesbian and gay parents may be useful in the short term to generate ‘positive’ representations of lesbian and gay parents in the media (which in some cases may be an important aspect of legal challenges in regards to lesbian and gay adoption rights), they do little to challenge the networks of power within which they are located, focused as they are upon stereotypical representations of ‘good’ lesbian and gay parents who are typically white, able-bodied, and financially secure. As a result, these representations further marginalise those lesbians and gay men who do not fit within this category (for example, due to economic or cultural difference from the white, middle-class majority), in addition to those lesbians and gay men who choose not to parent. These points demonstrate how the fight for ‘positive representation’ within the media can lead to the further marginalisation of groups of lesbian and gay men who already have little access to such representation (Gamson).

15Within this paper, I have demonstrated some of the ways in which ‘good’ representations of lesbian and gay parents may also be ‘bad’—they may render us complicit with discourses of science that have often been used against us, and they also encourage us to conform to a heterosexual model of relationality. In this way, lesbian and gay parents are expected to be ‘as fit, effective and successful as heterosexual parents’ (Stacey). As a result, lesbian and gay parents are encouraged to accept a form of subjectivity that recognises scientific arguments as legitimate, and which thus encourages lesbians and gay men to open their lives to scientific scrutiny, measurement, and objectification. Moreover, it encourages lesbian and gay parents ‘not [to] demonstrate any important differences from… heterosexual parents’ (Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby) under threat of being declared, by default, unfit parents.

16The converse effect of news media reports of lesbian and gay parents can also be true: ‘bad’ representations may inadvertently draw attention to the problems that inhere to using science to ‘prove the case’. Thus, as the extract from Maier suggests, naively believing that science is the answer ignores the moral assumptions that shape news media and which further marginalise the often critical moral frameworks of lesbian and gay parents. Obviously, I am not advocating here for more statements like those of Maier. Rather, I am suggesting that as lesbian and gay parents we need to be wary of accepting normative framework when mounting our resistances. In other words, if ‘bad’ is often ‘good’, and ‘good’ is often ‘bad’ in scientific media accounts of lesbian and gay parents, then it would seem important that we develop alternate ways of accounting for our experiences, at the same time as we critique such accounts in order to demonstrate their moral assumptions.
Acknowledgements

17I would first like to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Kaurna people, upon whose land I live in Adelaide, South Australia. Thanks as always go to Greg for support and proof reading, and to our foster child, Gary, for helping this all make sense.
References

* Bernstein, Mary. “Gender, Queer Family Policies, and the Limits of the Law.” Queer Families, Queer Politics: Challenging Culture and the State. Ed. Mary Bernstein and Renate Reimann. New York: Columbia UP, 2001.
* Clarke, Victoria. “‘Stereotype, Attack and Stigmatize Those Who Disagree’: Employing Scientific Rhetoric in Debates about Lesbian and Gay Parenting.” Feminism & Psychology 10 (2000): 152-9.
* Eldridge, John. “News, Truth and Power.” Getting the Message: News, Truth and Power. Ed. John Eldridge. London: Routledge, 1993.
* Gamson, Joshua. “Talking Freaks: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Families on Daytime Talk TV.” Queer Families, Queer Politics: Challenging Culture and the State. Ed. Mary Bernstein and Renate Reimann. New York: Columbia UP, 2001.
* Kitzinger, Celia. “The Rhetoric of Pseudoscience.” Deconstructing Social Psychology. Eds. Ian Parker and John Shotter. London: Routledge, 1990.
* Riggs, Damien W. “The Politics of Scientific Knowledge: Constructions of Sexuality and Ethics in the Conversion Therapy Literature.” Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review 5 (2004): 6-14.
* Riggs, Damien W. “On Whose Terms?: Psychology and the Legitimisation of Lesbian and Gay Parents.” GLIP News 3 (2004): 3-6. .
* Riggs, Damien W. “The Psychologisation of Foster Care: Implications for Lesbian and Gay Parents.” PsyPag Quarterly 51 (2004): 34-43.

Read More