Sydney Morning Herald - “Dark cloud to fertility act's silver lining” by Jen Vuk

Preposterous demand for police checks has been met by silence.

A NEW era in Victoria's assisted fertility legislation is about to dawn. From January 1, single Victorian women and lesbian couples will be able to access IVF in their home state rather than having to travel north for treatment.

The Assisted Reproductive Treatment (ART) Bill, which will also allow male gay couples access to IVF by surrogates, was passed in December last year, and arrived on the back of recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission to bring the state's assisted reproductive treatment regulation into line with NSW, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the ACT.

For those it assists in becoming parents there's no denying the act's silver lining. It has the potential, as researchers Giuliana Fuscaldo and Sarah Russell argued last year, to legitimise "the idea that biology alone does not define parenthood".

Now for the dark cloud. The act also requires all Victorians jumping on to the IVF carousel to undergo police checks and child protection order checks. As Dr Lyndon Hale, director of Melbourne IVF, told the ABC recently: "The argument forwarded by the Government is that this is Government funds that are being used to help these people get pregnant and therefore they require extra checking."

How is it that the colour of money can make even the most complex of moral issues suddenly seem so black and white?

What's truly intriguing here isn't that the police checks were passed in Parliament, virtually unchallenged (save by the Greens), but that they appear the result of a perfunctory statement made by the commission that "people with convictions for serious sex or violence offences or had children taken from their care should not have access to IVF".

Sorry to lower the tone folks, but … duh! I mean, who in their right mind would support a system that facilitates even one person with a history of sexual violence to become a parent?

Police checks have long been in place for people wishing to adopt here and abroad, and are there for one reason and one reason alone: the protection of children.

But there's not a scrap of evidence - statistical or anecdotal - to suggest that couples who embark on the financially and emotionally taxing process of trying for

a baby constitute even the tiniest minority of child abusers.

Up until now, if an aberrant case were to present, it would have quickly been referred to a clinical ethics committee, but as pioneering fertility doctor Professor Gab Kovacs makes clear: "There have not been a series of IVF children mistreated. There have not been a whole lot of criminals who've been having children."

There are, however, a whole lot of regular, everyday Victorian women seeking treatment, by some estimates about 7000 every year.

And you'll find many more blogging about their fears, hopes, joys and disappointments on online parenting forums, such as Fairfax's essentialbaby.com - where news of the police checks understandably generated something of an emotional tsunami.

The frustration isn't limited to patients. As Dr Mac Talbot, from Monash IVF, says: "Couples can, and will [undergo them], if they really have to. I mean, they've already put up with so much. But I can't help thinking that, not only is it unjust, it's such a waste of time, money, resources and paper."

A paper jam occurred as far back as July, the original enactment date for the regulation. Due to a lack of infrastructure to cater for the increased number of checks, the date was moved to November.

Can the Department of Human Services now handle what some believe could be up to 3000 child protection order checks at a time? Only time will tell.

But it doesn't look good. In Britain, in 2005, ''unnecessary paperwork'' and a groundswell of public opposition sounded the death knell for criminal record checks in association with fertility treatment.

Closer to home, in South Australia, police checks for those undergoing assisted reproductive treatment were found to be impossible to administer and ineffective. They were quietly dropped from legislation.

So what's the alternative? The indefatigable Sandra Dill, from support and advocacy group ACCESS, tells me the onus should always be on the patient.

In South Australia, patients sign statuary declarations (as recommended by the commission) - although she doubts the efficacy of this in protecting children.

Seen through the prism of protecting the innocent, the act has merit, but its reasoning is flawed. On the one hand, it acknowledges that sexual orientation has no bearing on the calibre of a person's parenting; on the other, it clearly discriminates against infertile couples.

If we were really serious about acting in the best interest of children, then we'd demand everyone start undergoing police checks well before they took baby home from hospital.

It's highly unlikely, though, isn't it? Not to mention preposterous. Legislation of this kind would surely be met by a chorus of opposition. So why the silence now?

Jen Vuk is a freelance writer.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Morning Herald - “Court upholds parenting orders for lesbian partner” by Kim Arlington

TIMING is crucial when it comes to artificial insemination - at least as far as family law is concerned.

The issue was highlighted when an estranged lesbian couple went to the Federal Magistrates Court in a dispute over parenting orders relating to a three-year-old girl.

The women - given the court-ordered pseudonyms of Ms Aldridge and Ms Keaton - were living together when Ms Aldridge gave birth to the girl in 2006.

They had begun an intimate relationship in 2001 and three years later started attending a fertility clinic together. Before the child was conceived by artificial insemination with donated sperm, Ms Keaton signed consent forms for Ms Aldridge to undergo the procedure. Ms Keaton stayed with her in hospital after the baby's birth and they shared her home in Sydney's inner west for nine months afterwards. But after arguments about parenting, Ms Aldridge moved out with the child late in 2006.

Ms Keaton sought court orders that she be declared a parent of the child and given equal shared parental responsibility for her.

The court found in February that she was not a parent as defined in the relevant legislation, which hinged on the timing of conception. To qualify under the Family Law Act, Ms Keaton had to be the mother's de facto partner at the time of the artificial conception, and the court heard the women only moved in together the month before the child's birth.

The Chief Federal Magistrate, John Pascoe, found Ms Keaton was not the mother's de facto partner at the key time. However, he found she was concerned with the girl's care, welfare and development. He ordered Ms Aldridge have sole parental responsibility for the girl but that she also spend time with Ms Keaton.

Ms Aldridge appealed to the full court of the Family Court, arguing the orders were unnecessary because she was the child's only parent.

The appeal was dismissed last week. The full court found that the original decision recognised Ms Keaton played ''an important role, akin to a parent, in the child's life for a significant period of months after her birth''. The three appeal judges, including the Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, were satisfied the child's best interests had been taken into account.

 

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - “Surrogacy should not be open to gays: Family Association” by Katherine Spackman

The Australian Family Association (AFA) says Queensland government plans to allow gay couples to access altruistic surrogacy is not supported by the wider community.

Last week the State Government introduced the legislation which is expected to be debated next year.

A Galaxy Poll commissioned by the association reportedly indicates nine out of ten people believe children should be raised by a mother and father.

AFA Queensland Branch spokesman Michael Ord says traditional family unit should be preserved.

"The problem is that children have the best opportunities in life with a mother and a father," he said.

"Same sex couples can't naturally have children ... that relationship is not a natural relationship in the sense of being able to bring children into life in a natural way and that's all about self-interest really and its not in the best interest of children to be in that situation."

The State Government has introduced legislation to legalise altruistic surrogacy.

The Opposition has introduced its own bill, but it outlaws surrogacy for homosexual couples.

Parliament has risen for the year and the bill won't be debated until next year.

Attorney-General Cameron Dick has told Parliament commercial surrogacy will remain a criminal offence.

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - “Lesbian Mothers get Retrospective Recognition”

Tasmania's Legislative Council has voted unanimously to make the legal recognition of lesbian co-mothers retrospective to 2003.

The vote followed the unanimous acceptance to legally recognise two mothers on a birth certificate.

The law was originally rejected in 2003 when gay and lesbian couples were first recognised in Tasmanian law.

Rodney Croome from the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group said it is an important step forward.

"It means those children will now have the benefits which include of course greater legal, emotional and financial security of having two legal parents, both of them mothers, rather than just one legal parent, that has been the case up until now which of course has been their biological mother."

Windermere MLC Ivan Dean said not only would the law recognise parents who are supporting children without legal obligation, but it would also streamline the adoption process.

"Rather than go through the costly process, the drawn-out process of applying for adoption and doing it that way, and going through the Family Court, they will now be able to make the application to the registrar and if they can satisfy the register of their significant relationship, then it will be a fairly easy process for them to be included," he said

[Source: Original Article]

Read More

Same-Same - “Gay Census: Babies” by Travis de Jonk

The results are in from the Gay Census. So far we’ve looked at gay marriage, sex and drugs. This week we’re taking a look at the issues surrounding gay parenting and surrogacy. How many of us already have children, and how many of us are keen to take the plunge into parenthood?

The survey found that approximately a third of us would one day like to have children. 28% of gay male respondents want kids, 1% already have kids and wanted more. Unsurprisingly, lesbians were more inclined to want children and were also more likely to already have them. 40% of women wanted kids and 3% of those already had them and wanted more. It’s a positive and promising sign according to Rodney Chaing-Cruise, co-moderator of Gay Dads Australia.

“The statistics are quite interesting and illustrate that the desire for gays and lesbians to become parents is very strong. I would suggest at least amongst gay men it’s becoming stronger, particularly as the options of surrogacy are becoming more widely known,” he said.

Discussion of the issues surrounding parenting have become of greater interest to the community, and are starting to become more reflected in aspects of our culture and activities.

“Attitudes towards parenting and children are changing – slowly – within the LGBTI community too,” says Felicity Marlowe from the Rainbow Families Council. “For example the Melbourne Queer Film Festival held a kids movie session at this year’s film festival for the first time.”

When it comes to methods of creating a family, surrogacy, adoption and donor / insemination were the most preferred options. The gay men surveyed were pretty evenly split between adoption and surrogacy as options for how they would create their families. 46% opted for surrogacy as the chosen method, while 48% preferred adoption.

Lesbians respondents preferred the donor / insemination option overall – 62% would choose a donor to help facilitate creating their children, rather than going down the adoption path (25%).

Despite its popularity as an option, the unfortunate reality is that adoption is simply still not really an option for most gays and lesbians in Australia.

“In relation to the gay parenting aspects it is true that surrogacy done in the US, Canada and India is providing gay men with the opportunities to be dads and fulfill their desire to be parents. It’s a desire that straight people have as well. The adoption statistics are very interesting and I suspect they are merely a reflection of ‘we would do it if we were allowed’,” said Chiang-Cruise.

Adoption is essentially illegal for gay and lesbians in all states except WA. ACT and Tasmania allow for “second parent” or “known parent” adoption. The lack of available children for adoption in Australia is a well documented problem. This is on top of the fact that gays and lesbians generally don’t have a legal right (in most states) to access adoption. International adoption is also banned for all gay and lesbian couples from Australia.

So who do we most want to help facilitate the process of creating our families? The clear majority of those surveyed (66% of gay males, 63% of lesbians) said they would want the donor / surrogate to be a good friend, with a slight preference for a queer friend over a straight one. The second most popular option was for an uninvolved donor or surrogate, paid or unpaid, with a 24% of gay men favouring that option, and 27% of lesbians.

The above figures appear indicate a preference for an ongoing relationship with donors, someone who will assist in creating a family and will continue to have an involvement in the child and family’s life. However, according to Lee Matthews, founder of the Gay Dads Australia network, for those creating their family the most important focus is the welfare of the child and treating both parents as equal, rather than focusing on who is or isn’t involved biologically.

“All the dads we know rarely acknowledge whose sperm was used, and make sure that everyone treats both guys within a relationship as equal parents,” said Matthews.

“What’s paramount is that their children see their parents as equal, and also that those around them – extended family, friends, school teachers – do too. Genetics might be topical at time of conception but social circumstance wins out as soon as your kids are part of your life.”

Both Marlowe and Chaing-Cruise agree with Matthews.

As a result of strong community campaigning from organisations such as Rainbow Families Council and Love Makes A Family, parenting options are slowly becoming more available and GLBTI families are more recognised – so is greater awareness of the complex issues surrounding parenting. Traditional terms such as father, mother, biological, natural and parent have radically different implications when used to describe roles within a GLBTI family context.

“Language is a fraught area of discussion as we are trying to create families that do not fit the words or terms the mainstream world uses to explain everyone’s roles/responsibilities with a family structure,” explains Marlowe.

“I think our LGBTI parenting community takes the use of language very seriously and thinks long and hard about what to call ourselves and what words to use to describe our families.”

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Blaze - “Gay Dads” by Scott McGuinness

With Fathers Day just around the corner (Sunday September 6), we went in search of Adelaide’s gay dads. Scott McGuinness spoke with Damien Riggs, who with his now ex partner Greg, foster three children.

Are there many gay dads in Adelaide?

I know of a few but I don’t know any who have children through adoption or surrogacy and most aren’t coupled. Adelaide’s gay dad scene really is quite different to that in Sydney and Melbourne. We hang out with a great bunch of SA mums and their kids through Pink Parents (www.pinkparents.com.au) but we don’t see many dads there, unfortunately.

How has life changed since becoming a dad?

With each child I have had less time for myself, friends, and relationships, but with each child I think I have become more focused on my identity as a parent. I don’t think that necessarily qualifies me as more grown up or sensible, but it does mean that most of my energy goes on the children, and that is something I’m happy about. They’re only young once, so we try to enjoy it!

Is there a mother figure in the relationship?

All three children have birth mothers who they have varying degrees of contact with. We are very focused on putting the children’s interests first, which often means negotiating a complex set of relationships and kinship claims that ultimately we hope will provide them with a rich life story to take with them as they grow up and move out of home as adults.

Has there been sacrifice in your own life to have kids? In what ways?

I don’t know that ‘sacrifice’ is the right word – I think all of us give things up when we are in a relationship, no matter what form that relationship takes. We give things up for friends, we give things up for partners, and of course we give things up for kids. For me probably the biggest thing I now see I don’t have is personal space. Children, in my experience, move in the world in quite different ways to adults. They will claim you and your space as their own. Parenting as a gay man (and as a foster parent) means negotiating what it seems like other people expect from you with what children expect (which I think at the end of the day should come first).

How accepting do you think the wider SA community is of gay dads?

In general I wouldn’t say people are not accepting (either within LGBT communities or in the broader community.) Rather, I would say that we often don’t make sense to people – I think we often are presumed to be brothers, or uncles or mannies! We were in the Castro recently in San Francisco with the children and even there we felt like people couldn’t make sense of our family. I think we have come a long way with legal recognition in much of Australia, but I think we still have a long way to go towards recognition in general.

Any plans to extend the family?

I think we have both pretty much factored ourselves out of the ‘market’ with three children, so I think we will stop there!

What have you got planned for Fathers Day on Sept 6?

Lunch with my dad and our family, I think!

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

SX - “Hey dads!” by Peter Hackney and Ron Hughes

Commercial surrogacy, gay adoption - the modern brood is ever-evolving. But the rewards of family always remains the same. On the eve of Father’s Day, two same-sex couples share withSX the joys, and the challenges, of fatherhood.

RODNEY AND JEFF

Pictured: Rodney (left) with partner Jeff and son Ethan (centre).

Many Dads become fathers by accident. Not Rodney Chiang-Cruise. Chiang-Cruise, 43, planned his fatherhood to the nth degree, with his partner Jeff. The couple’s child, Ethan, was born two-and-a-half years ago via an egg donor and a commercial surrogate in the USA .

“That’s where I think there’s a significant difference between children with gay parents and kids with straight parents,” Chiang-Cruise tells SX. “It’s not unusual for a child who’s the product of a heterosexual union to be unplanned or even unwanted, but when it’s a same-sex couple it’s more difficult and challenging to have kids – so a lot of planning and expense goes into it.

“It’s not something that can happen by accident.”

Melbourne-based Chiang-Cruise feels strongly about the rights of gay men to have children – so much so that he’s a co-moderator of the Gay Dads Australia group (“400 members and rising quickly”) and co-chairs Victoria’s regular Surrogacy Forums, an event for gay men looking at surrogacy as an option to create their families.

Chiang-Cruise reports that his non-nuclear family have had nothing but positive reactions in the wider community. “People are more tolerant than you might think,” he states. “We’ve had no negative reactions. It might raise eyebrows briefly when you first meet someone, but everybody knows people who have had kids who shouldn’t have had them – so if they see that the child is loved, that the child is supported, any prejudices are dissolved.”

Nevertheless, gay parenting remains a hot topic in society – particularly when it involves commercial surrogacy, which remains illegal in all states and territories of Australia. Paying for parenting remains controversial, to say the least. But Chiang-Cruise, who says the costs associated with arranging Ethan’s birth were upwards of $130,000 – has an arresting take on the controversy.

“People are paid to be parents in this country all the time,” he says. “And not only that, but the government pays them, which means all of us, as taxpayers, are paying people to become parents. The baby bonuses that have come in are quite considerable, and they’re all about paying people to have kids. That’s exactly what they are. So I find it very strange that we could be criticised for paying money to have a child.”

Ideally, Chiang-Cruise would like to see commercial surrogacy legalised across Australia – “but I don’t think we’ll be seeing that inside of the next twenty years” – but he’s hopeful that altruistic surrogacy (surrogacy where no money trades hands) is on track for legalisation Australia-wide, with Queensland being the final state in which it is illegal “and that looks set to change soon”.

“That would be a good Father’s Day present for a lot of gay Dads,” he says. – Peter Hackney

IAN AND ROBERT

Pictured: Robert with sons Richard (left) and Lee.

“It’s certainly given life more purpose.” So says Robert, who with his partner Ian adopted two boys in London back in 2002. “We’re more child-focused than, say, my parents were; but it’s also about giving the boys the opportunity to experience how we choose to live, such as travel, eating out, that sort of thing.”

Robert although born in London, grew up in Australia, then spent most of his working life back in London, where he met his partner Ian in 1990 on a blind date.

After 12 years together and thinking long and hard about fostering, they had gradually come to realise what they really wanted was to be parents.

“We started the adoption process in 2001 and were finally approved in 2002,” Robert says. “The boys were placed with us right at the end of 2002.”

Two years later, they emigrated to Australia. Why? “Sunshine!” Robert and Ian laugh.

“The boys have a physical freedom here that was certainly lacking in Central London,” Robert adds.

When the law enabling civil unions between same sex couples came into force, Ian and Robert were among the first handful to undertake a civil union through the British High Commission in Sydney.

Their boys Richard and Lee were seven and eight when they came here, so at 12 and 13 they’ve spent half their lives in Sydney. In NSW where gay adoption is not legal, Ian and Robert say they really haven’t met with any bureaucratic hurdles. In fact they’ve found most public servants have gone out of their way to resolve issues rather than be obstructive. “Really the only problem we had was when we applied for passports as naturalised Australian citizens,” Robert says. “Because there was no mother, they couldn’t get their head around that.”

“They did issue the passports in the end,” Ian adds.

They even gave evidence recently to the NSW Senate Inquiry into same-sex adoption.

And how have they gone fitting into their local communities? “We’re living in the bible belt, we’re the only gays in the village!” Robert laughs. “Really, like a single man bringing up kids, you just don’t fit in somewhere social life is primarily organised by women.”

“It’s quite socially isolating,” Ian agrees. “But it’s great for the kids here.”

So how do the boys feel about their dads? “Fun!” yells Richard. “Good!” chimes in Lee.

As they chat about their upcoming trip to China, it’s clear these two boys feel very lucky to have two dads. – Ron Hughes

 [Link: Original Article]

Read More

Gay Dads Victoria - Discussion: Making decisions about childcare, kinder and school – 8 September 2009

What: Gay Dads Victoria - Discussion: Making decisions about childcare, kinder and school

When: 8 September 2009 – 6.00pm – 7.00pm

Where: Drummond Street Relationship Centre 195 Drummond St Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia

View Larger Map

Read More

Queensland Review of the legal status of children being cared for by same-sex parents – Paper Published, Responses due 18 September 2009

Review of the legal status of children being cared for by same-sex parents - August 2009

This is the paper from the Queensland Government on Surrogacy, and IVF issues and Same Sex parents, published yesterday.

Comments on the proposed changes to the parentage presumptions for same-sex
parents can be made before 18 September 2009:

• By email to: legalpolicysubmission@justice.qld.gov.au; or
• By writing to : Director, Strategic Policy, Department of Justice and

Attorney-General, GPO Box 149, Brisbane QLD 4001

This document is also available on the Department of Justice and Attorney-General
community consultation website: http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/33.htm

[Link: Original Document]

Read More

News.com.au - “Christians to fight gay surrogacy laws” by AAP

QUEENSLAND Labor MPs will be lobbied to vote down new laws allowing same-sex surrogacy arrangements.

Premier Anna Bligh has released a model for legal surrogacy in Queensland which is the only Australian state where altruistic surrogacy - where no money changes hands - is still illegal.

MPs will have a conscience vote on the laws, expected to go to parliament before the end of the year after public consultation.

Australian Christian Lobby Queensland director Peter Earle said same-sex surrogacy arrangements would deprive children of the complementary love and care of both a mother and a father.

Mr Earle said the Liberal National Party had given a commitment during the March state election campaign to oppose the laws.

"In the interests of children, we urge them to stick by these commitments, and we urge Labor ... politicians to look to their consciences and follow suit," Mr Earle said in a statement.

"Children are not commodities and their interests should always come before the desires of adults."

But the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities said the announcement was welcome.

"We congratulate the government on bringing Queensland laws up to date with the rest of Australia," association general manager Paul Martin said.

"These changes, if implemented, will bring legal certainty to children of same-sex couples, allowing access to a share of a person's estate or superannuation upon the death of a parent and providing both parents with the power to consent to medical treatment of the child."

But Mr Martin said the government needed to comprehensively overhaul the law, including civil partnerships and adoption for same-sex couples.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - “Tas MPs consider equal rights for lesbian parents”

The Tasmanian Attorney-General is moving to officially recognise same-sex parents.

Victoria passed laws late last year allowing IVF babies to have two legally recognised mothers and the Tasmanian Government had a similar move blocked in the Upper House six years ago.

Tasmania's Gay and Lesbian rights group says joint motherhood is now recognised in most states and territories and Tasmania should do the same.

The Attorney-General Lara Giddings has told State Parliament the change would remove discrimination and protect children in same-sex relationships.

"As the law stands the birth-mother is registered as the mother and the partner has no rights at law" said Ms Giddings.

"This bill will rectify that situation and put a same-sex partner in the same position as a male partner who has agreed to their partner becoming pregnant through ART."

The Liberals have been granted a conscience vote.

The Shadow Attorney-General Michael Hodgman said the bill is misguided.

"Here you have a situation where the two parents are of the same gender and with respect that is against the law of nature and legally an impossibility to me," said Mr Hodgman.

The Liberals' Rene Hidding and Brett Whiteley will also oppose the bill.

Mr Hidding said it is a corruption of the meaning of parenthood.

 

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

ABC Online - “Qld to include same-sex couples in surrogacy law changes” by Chris O’Brien

 

Everyone ... should be afforded the privileges of parenthood: Bligh (Reuters: Robert Galbraith)

The Queensland Government says same-sex couples will be included in changes to the state's surrogacy laws.

Premier Anna Bligh has previously announced that altruistic surrogacy will be decriminalised, although commercial surrogacy will remain illegal.

Ms Bligh has told Parliament the new laws will be in place by the end of the year.

"I can advise the House that same-sex parents will be included among those who will be affected by the decriminalisation of surrogacy, because everyone - regardless of their sexual status or their gender - should be afforded the privileges of parenthood," she said.

Read More

Courier Mail – “Same sex couples to be allowed to have surrogate children” by Steven Wardill

SAME sex couples in Queensland will be allowed to become parents through altruistic surrogacy, Premier Anna Bligh has told parliament.

Ms Bligh this morning announced her government would legalise altruistic surrogacy for all Queenslanders, including same sex couples.

Queensland is one of the few jurisdictions where altrusitic surrogacy - where no money changes hands - remains illegal.

Miss Bligh told parliament the new laws would ensure children born through surrogacy would have the same rights as every child.

``We will do this because each and every Queenslander who wants to be a parent should be allowed the opportunity to do so,'' Ms Bligh said.
``Anyone who is unable to conceive a baby but who wants to become a parent should know the joy of bringing a child into the world, providing them with life lessons, shaping their future and guiding them into adulthood.''

"At the end of the day, we want every child to be raised in a nurturing environment," she said.

Read More

The Australian – “Couple must battle to adopt their own son” by Caroline Overington

This article which appeared in today’s Australian illustrates the issues of who is the legal parent in the cases of Surrogacy.  It has particular relevance to same-sex parents.

A SYDNEY couple will have to apply to the NSW Supreme Court for permission to adopt their own son, after the Family Court found that, in the eyes of the law, he was not theirs.

Judge Garry Watts last week ruled that the boy's biological mother -- the woman who provided the egg and has raised him since birth -- is legally his stepsister, while his biological father -- who provided the sperm and has likewise raised him since birth, is legally his stepbrother-in-law.

The court ruled that the boy's mother is the woman who carried him in her womb: that is, his grandmother. His father, at least in the legal sense, is his grandmother's de facto, a man named Clive, who has no biological connection to him.

Justice Watts admitted that these results were "surprising" to all parties but came about because surrogacy law in NSW hadn't kept pace with science.

The issue last made headlines in 2006, when Senator Stephen Conroy announced that he and his wife had travelled from Victoria to NSW to enter into a surrogacy arrangement with a host mother, using sperm from Senator Conroy and an egg donated by a family friend.

It cost the Conroys about $50,000 to "adopt" their daughter from the surrogate mother, who had no genetic link to the child.

Victorian law has since been changed to make altruistic surrogacy arrangements legal, although commercial surrogacy remains banned. Couples must still adopt the children resulting from these arrangements, but this has become simpler in Victoria, WA and the ACT.

By comparison, there is no clear law on surrogacy in NSW, which meant the judge had to deal with the latest case, known as "Re: Michael" under the existing Family Law Act.

The case involved a couple, known in court documents only as Sharon and Paul, who were unable to conceive because Sharon had been treated for cervical cancer. Before having treatment that rendered her infertile, Sharon had her eggs harvested and stored. One of these eggs was later mixed with Paul's sperm, creating an embryo.

Sharon's mother, Lauren, offered to carry the embryo for her daughter. The child, known as Michael, was born in October 2008.

Immediately after birth, Lauren handed the baby to Sharon and Paul, and they've been raising him ever since. The couple listed Paul as the father on the birth certificate, since he provided the sperm, while Lauren (his grandmother) had to be listed as the mother, since she gave birth.

Sharon and Paul went to court in April, mainly to see if Sharon could formally adopt Michael.

To the family's surprise, Justice Watts ruled on August 3 that not only was Sharon not the mother, but Paul wasn't the father.

Under Section 60 (H) of the Family Law Act, couples who undergo artificial conception, using donated sperm or eggs are the legal parents of the children they conceive, regardless of whether they use their own sperm and eggs.

A wife who undergoes assisted conception is the mother, even if it isn't her egg, and her husband is the father, even if it isn't his sperm.

Therefore, when Lauren gave birth to her grandson, she automatically became the legal mother of Michael, whereas Sharon was merely the egg donor.

The surprise was that Lauren's de facto partner, Clive, legally became the father.

Associate Professor Anita Stuhmcke of the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney, said a national review of surrogacy law, prompted by Senator Conroy's case, had apparently stalled, in part because the issues were so tricky, but also because surrogacy law never gained enough attention to become a national priority.

"A national approach is needed but it never seems to get off the ground," she said.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Herald Sun - “AMA head Dr Andrew Pesce in IVF row” by Eleni Hale

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".

Equal rights campaigners called for his resignation, saying his comments were out of the "stone age".

"If male/female couples (receiving IVF treatment) followed the 'natural order' of things then they would remain childless," Dr Phelps said.

"It is not rational to say that IVF is not there as a lifestyle choice, it is a lifestyle choice. This is not AMA policy because AMA policy is non-discrimination."

Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group convenor Emily Gray called for Dr Pesce to resign immediately.

"He shouldn't be holding a position of responsibility if he's going to discriminate against (same-sex couples') entitlement to the same medical treatment as everyone else," Ms Gray said.

"He needs to open up his eyes and get with the times."

Monash IVF director Dr Lynn Burmeister said fertility treatments should be available to everyone.

"I don't agree with that view, it's discrimination, everyone has an equal right to access treatment," Dr Burmeister said.

Last year the Victorian Parliament granted lesbian couples and single women access to fertility treatment under the controversial Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Gay Dads NSW - Gay Dads NSW - Monthly Social Dinner – 8 August 2009

What: Gay Dads NSW – Monthly Social Dinner

When: 3 August 2009 – 7.00pm – 10.00pm

Where: The Bank Hotel's Thai Restaurant, Downstairs 324 King Street Newtown An informal regular gathering for all gay guys who have children or plan on becoming parents.

View Larger Map

Read More

The Age - “Same-sex couples still waiting at the altar for a basic right” by Tim Wright

FRIENDS and family flocked from all over to attend Jacqui Tomlins’ and Sarah Nicholls’ wedding in Toronto six years ago. The Melbourne couple, who had been together more than a decade, tied the knot shortly after a Canadian court declared marriage equality a constitutional right.

In the brides’ assessment, it was an oddly normal affair. The caterers, the party-hire people, the jewellers who provided the rings, all treated them just as they would have a heterosexual couple. Yet this public celebration of love and commitment caused a great commotion among social conservatives in Australia.

It is, in fact, the precise genesis of our nation’s ban on same-sex marriage, whose fifth anniversary the religious right will celebrate next month. So affronted were our political leaders by what the Canadian authorities had sanctioned, and so eager were they to preserve the moral order in Australia, that they hastily enacted this hateful law. Its passage was of such high priority that even anti-terror legislation before the Parliament was shoved to the side.

Greens leader Bob Brown, himself in a gay relationship, described it as an ugly manifestation of the Howard government’s "straight Australia policy" — a policy endorsed heartily by the Labor opposition. But five years on, the ALP appears much less comfortable with its traditionalist stance on marriage (even if the Prime Minister is avowedly wedded to it).

Earlier this week, the Tasmanian branch of the ALP caused a stir by adopting a policy in support of same-sex marriage. Federal Government backbenchers such as Louise Pratt and Trish Crossin have spoken publicly in favour of matrimonial equality, and Rainbow Labor — an internal ALP lobby group — is agitating for a change of policy at the party’s triennial national conference now under way.

But most Labor parliamentarians are still unwilling to criticise the mean-spirited same-sex marriage ban. The Government is clearly afraid of upsetting groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby and the Salt Shakers, which preach intolerance and employ fear as their weapon of choice. In our politicians’ appraisal, retaining the ban is the safe and easy option for now. But their silence in the face of this injustice is almost as harmful as the vicious rhetoric of the right-wing groups — who are busy organising to ensure the ban remains in place.

The Prime Minister, like most of his colleagues, has tended to rely on popular opinion to justify his objection to equal marriage rights. But a Galaxy poll released in June has him searching for a new line. It turns out that just 36 per cent of Australians agree with his position. Three in five of us now support marriage equality, and younger generations, who lack some of the prejudices of the baby boomers, overwhelmingly favour change.

The Government and its conservative allies are swimming against the tide of history. Around the world, courts and legislatures have started waking up to the senselessness and inhumanity of denying same-sex couples the basic right to marry — a right protected by international law. This is not just in progressive Scandinavia, but also in devoutly Catholic Spain, South Africa and half a dozen US states.

Australia’s decision-makers, meanwhile, continue to fawn over a small minority of electors who are rapidly dwindling in number — men and women who see gay relationships as somehow inferior to their own and unworthy of legal or social recognition. Every so often, we hear them in the media calling homosexuals promiscuous or sick.

Labor claims in its new draft policy platform, which is due to be adopted tomorrow, that it has "always stood for equality", that it opposes "all attempts to divide Australians by pandering to prejudice". Yet that is precisely what it’s doing. Same-sex marriage is not an item on some radical gay agenda. It is a basic human right, and it’s beyond time the Government recognised it as such.

Jacqui’s and Sarah’s marriage, and same-sex relationships in general, should offend none of us. Surely we, as a nation, are mature enough to allow all people, regardless of their sexuality, to get married.

One day, of course, the forces of love will prove more powerful than the forces of fear.

But for now, we are left standing at the altar. Waiting, patiently, for equality.

Tim Wright is a spokesman for Equal Love, which will hold a rally for same-sex marriage at Federation Square tomorrow at 1pm.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

The Age - “Three cats, two men — and now two babies” by Farah Farouque

ABOUT 36 kilometres from Melbourne’s CBD, Trevor Elwell and Peter West have fulfilled many of their Australian dreams. They have a mortgage, a station wagon and a deck where they can barbecue to their hearts’ content come summer.

And then there are the 11-week-old twins, Evelyn and Gaia — who are accompanied by the waft of soiled nappies this winter afternoon.

‘‘Who’s got the crappy nappy?’’ coos Mr West (it’s Evelyn). He is solicitous — and inured to the scent — perhaps only as a newly minted parent can be. But this is a nuclear family with a strictly 21st-century edge. The family that resides in this cul de sac in Wyndham Vale consists of three cats, two babies — and two dads, who have become standard bearers for gay fatherhood.

Mr Elwell, 41, and Mr West, 40, who revealed their plans to become fathers in The Age earlier this year, are now bona fide national celebrities after the TV program Sixty Minutes followed their path to parenting via commercial surrogacy in India.

The program, which attracted 1.3 million viewers, made them instantly famous when they landed in Melbourne with their new cross-cultural bubs in May.

Watch Video here

‘‘Even the guy in customs recognised us,’’ remembers Mr Elwell, who has taken six months’ parental leave to help Mr West, who works from home, care for the children.

And then there are the parents in the local shopping centre and at the neighbourhood mothers and babies group who invariably want to swap stories with them, they say.

But as the babies approach three months, these parents do not have many tales of sleepless nights or other horror stories. ‘‘We have really done well in the baby lottery — they have great temperaments,’’ Mr Elwell declares.

Yet before they fade into the suburban anonymity they say they want for their daughters, the two dads — who outlaid $40,000 to collect eggs from one woman and rent a womb from another to gestate their babies in a Mumbai fertility clinic, are determined to bring another vexed issue into the public domain.

If they can pay taxes and raise children (one of them is the biological father and on the birth certificate, but they will not identify him publicly), why can’t they be lawfully wed, they argue. Tomorrow, in a bid to focus more attention on the issue of the gay marriage, Mr Elwell and Mr West will dress the little girls in symbolic rainbow coloured woollen hats (their neighbour’s mother knitted the garments for them), and take part in a mass mock wedding ceremony at the top of Collins Street.

It’s not an act of provocation or even activism, insist the couple, who plan to have another child in India soon.

‘‘We’re not living a lifestyle, we’re living a life,’’ protests Mr Elwell.

‘‘We are mother, father — the parents.’’

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

The Age - “Same-sex couples demand right to marry” by Gary Roberts

Equal Love makes The Age newspaper online this evening.

Life for gay and lesbian couples in Australia is better than ever before but many still feel like second-class citizens.

The reason: same-sex Australian couples cannot get married.

The Equal Love gay rights group was holding a fundraising party in Melbourne on Sunday night ahead of a national day of action for its campaign for same-sex marriage on Saturday, August 1.

The rallies will include a world record attempt for the largest mass illegal wedding.

Thousands of same-sex couples in Australia wished to publicly celebrate their love for each other by tying the knot but the law prevented them from doing so, Equal Love spokesman Martin Baldock said.

"It's important because we are being treated like second-class citizens," he told AAP.

"I think the politicians need to stop looking at themselves and looking at what people want - a recent Galaxy poll found 60 per cent of Australians were for same-sex marriage.

"We just want the same rights as everyone else, we fall in love for the same reasons, we just happen to sleep with the same sex.

"It's like rubbing it in their faces to show them that they're still not quite human and that marriage is still reserved as an exclusive institution for heterosexuals."

Mr Baldock said that as the law stood if there was a medical emergency neither he or his partner Jason could make decisions in a hospital for each other - but their parents could - because they were not married.

Last year the federal government amended more than 100 laws to provide lesbian and gay couples with the same financial and work-related entitlements, including superannuation and pension rights, as straight couples.

The developments were great but not good enough, with civil unions often not recognised by employers and insurance companies, Mr Baldock said.

Currently same-sex marriage has been legally introduced in seven countries - the Netherlands was the first in 2001 - and six US states.

In 2004 the federal parliament banned same-sex marriage but Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young introduced a private member's bill earlier this month seeking to grant same-sex couples equal marriage rights.

The rallies on August 1 will take place in capital cities and coincide with an Australian Labor Party national conference in Sydney.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Out in Perth – “Winding Road To Motherhood” by Kelly Pilgrim-Byrne

Kelly and Sam’s journey to building a family has been a long, hard fought road for them both. Throughout the process they have remained committed to their goals, to each other and to supporting others in their own journeys.

We are nothing if not persistent. My partner Sam and I have a beautiful 21-month-old daughter named Charlotte, but motherhood didn’t come easily for us and it was only after 4 years of assisted reproductive technologies and some fairly major changes of direction that she was finally conceived and born.

We have now been together for 17 ½ years, although quite early into our relationship and when we were still in our twenties, we both knew we wanted children, however it wasn’t until the beginning of 2002 that we were legally able to access a Perth fertility clinic for assistance (following ground-breaking law reform in WA). At the beginning of the journey, we had decided on an unknown donor because the law wasn’t clear at that stage whether or not we would be protected as the child’s parents. So, after registering with Concept Fertility Clinic and putting our names down for an unknown donor, we waited 18 months before one became available. In the early days after the law reform which allowed lesbians to access fertility treatment not many donors granted permission for their donations to be directed to a lesbian couple, hence the long wait.

We finally received the phone call from the clinic when I was 34 and Sam was 35 and we began the process of donor insemination in September 2003. We had decided that I would carry our child because I had a stronger desire to be pregnant and had closer links to my family for support.

Month after month we fronted up to the clinic before work for ultrasounds, blood tests and IUI inseminations. In fact, we kept trying this method for a year until late 2004 when we faced the reality that I probably had fertility issues and we would need to consider invasive and expensive IVF treatment. A few months before this, we had a change of heart in terms of our selection of donor. I particularly had been giving thought to our future child and wondering if they would be disappointed to not be able to trace their biological heritage (at this stage, donor release was not available). We thought long and hard and decided that we couldn’t possibly make that decision for a person who did not yet exist and so we felt we should change to a known donor so that if the resultant child wanted a relationship with their donor dad, they had the option of doing so.

We rang a friend of ours to ask if he would consider being our known donor and he went away to give it serious consideration. In due course he came back to us and agreed to our request. The difficulty was that he was based in Tasmania and he had to fly to WA so that he could donate for us. We feel privileged to have him as Charlotte’s donor dad and now that Charlotte is here, we travel to Tasmania once a year to spend time with him and his extended family.

So, with new donor sperm, in October 2004 I started my first IVF cycle and whilst Sam learned to give me injections, I did my best to learn how to manage my hormone-induced emotion overload and rapid weight gain, caused by oestrogen and progesterone drug regimes.

To add to the stress of IVF, a looming state election saw the Opposition publicly declare that they would wind back law reform and again deny access to IVF for lesbians. We were devastated and chose to appear in the West Australian in an attempt to shine the spotlight on the Opposition’s plans. The public backlash to the Liberal Party plans was considerable and in the end they did not pursue their very cruel agenda. We have since appeared in The West a further two times, the last time being December 2007 when Charlotte was 3 months old. We believe firmly in the positive effects real stories can have on social change. That said, we declined a request to appear again when Charlotte turned a year old – we’re not aiming for our very own series of gay 7-Up!

Between October 2004 and late 2006, I underwent 6 fresh IVF cycles and although I managed to achieve pregnancy 6 times, each time the pregnancy did not progress past 6 weeks. Assumptions were made that severe endometriosis and advancing age were the causes. The final time this happened, I had made the decision that emotionally and physically I couldn’t take any more and so we changed tack and Sam began the IVF process around October 2006. We ultimately decided that what was truly important to us was to create our family and after 3 years of trying neither of us any longer cared how this happened.

To our great delight after Sam’s first fresh IVF egg pickup, we discovered that the quality of Sam’s eggs, although she was older than me, was excellent. We did one fresh transfer which was unsuccessful and the following month did a frozen embryo transfer which was also unsuccessful. By this point, we started to worry that she too had fertility problems, so when we received the joyous news that she was indeed pregnant after the second frozen embryo transfer in January 2007, there were tears aplenty!

At the 18-week scan, they found that there was a problem with low fluid in the uterus and the specialist signed Sam off work for the remainder of the pregnancy and by the end of the pregnancy, the fluid had returned to a normal level.

Our daughter was born in September 2009 and our lives changed in the most extraordinary ways. She was and is everything and more than we had ever hoped for and now, nearly 2 years on, we can’t imagine a life without her. She has changed our hearts forever and she is a truly special little girl.

Despite having to remortgage our house twice to pay the $50,000+ it took to create her, we have decided to do it all again and since October last year I have done 3 fresh IVF cycles. The plan was for me to try one last time and see if Sam could carry my eggs. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to produce any eggs in these three cycles, so it may be that my reproductive days have come to an end. We will try one more time next month and if not successful, we will use Sam’s frozen eggs that we have in storage and hope that she is pregnant sooner rather than later.

I am more concerned about us being older parents (we’re 40 and 41 respectively) than I am being same-sex parents. We have received nothing but positive comments from people and we are 100% open about our family to everyone.

We have a blog that we’ve been keeping since well before Charlotte was conceived. If anyone reading this would like more information or just to connect with lesbians who have been through IVF, our email address can be found here:http://themuriels.blogspot.com

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Southern Star – “Call for Adoption Reforms” by Andie Noonan

Victorian gay and lesbian rights groups have urged the Brumby Government to move on same-sex adoption, claiming the state is now lagging on the issue.

The calls follow the release of a NSW report last week recommending the state amend its Adoption Act to allow same-sex couples to adopt.

Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby spokesman Anthony Bendall said he feared the issue may be buried by the Brumby Government.

“There is a danger, particularly when it does not really appear to be on the agenda in a solid sense in Victoria, that Victoria is lagging behind the other jurisdictions,” he said.

“With the national process, you’ve got to get agreement from all the jurisdictions which can be quite difficult to do. So while it would be desirable for a national approach, if that’s not achievable we still think Victoria should do the right thing and have quality within its laws.”

The issue in Victoria was formally mooted in a Victorian Law Reform Commission report in June 2007 which recommended same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights to adopt as heterosexual couples.

Currently WA, Tasmania and the ACT all offer same-sex adoption rights.

A spokeswoman for Community Services Minister Lisa Neville told Southern Star same-sex adoption issue was being considered by a national working group.

“We have referred the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission Report … to the Community and Disability Services Ministerial Conference for discussion within a wider context of the role of adoption generally, and with a view of achieving a nationally consistent approach,” she said.

The spokeswoman said the working group is scheduled to meet later this year, however could not provide a firm date.

Bendall said the focus of any discussions surrouding adoption should remain on the needs of the child.

“Regardless of any particular attributes of the presumptive adoptive parents … the broadest possible range of adoptive parents should be available so that the focus is always on the best interests of the child,” he said.

He confirmed the VGLRL would push the state Attorney General and Community Services Minister for action.

The ALSO Foundation will also step up a renewed campaign.

“Adoption rights should not be a forgotten issue … the issue has not been given the state attention it deserves,” foundation CEO Lyn Morgain said.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

MCV – “Gay Dads - Andrew Shaw talks to two gay men who are happy to be in the family way”

 

A family affair: Stephen (left) and James with children (from left) Talin, Remy and India.

James and Steve are pin-ups for the ‘Gay Dad’ movement. Here they talk frankly about their family, which so far consists of three children – soon to be five through co-parenting – and how the experience has affected their lives.

S: We met 12 years ago at work. I was married. James seduced me.

J: Oh bullshit, I did not.

S: I left my wife not long after that and we’ve been living together ever since. We were together six years or so before we had our first co-parenting child. We always both wanted to be parents, but we didn’t go into it until about six years into our relationship and after our eldest son was born through co-parenting we then wanted to progress to surrogacy given that the co-parenting didn’t work for us as well as we wanted. And that surrogacy was becoming more publicised as an option.

J: There are lots of options around surrogacy these days. We only knew one option. Had we known more options it would have been a much cheaper and—

S: India hadn’t taken off, so really there was surrogacy through the States, which was where 99.9 per cent of the guys from Melbourne were going. There were a couple of other options, Canada, then India—

J: There were cheaper options in the US.

S: But not through an agency.

J: Our option was closer to $150,000 to $200,000 versus $100,000 with some of the other guys. There are different versions of agency as well. And with some agencies you didn’t have to get insurance, you could use the surrogate’s insurance. Our agency you had to take out insurance, and that was $30,000 to $40,000.

In surrogacy cases, how important is the personality of the surrogate mother?

J: We wanted someone who reflected our values and beliefs. We wanted the children to have the opportunity to have a birth mum. A lot of surrogates are simply surrogates with little or no contact with the children they birth, and egg donors tend to want to be anonymous. Luckily with Stacey, our [American] surrogate mother, she was happy to be quite involved and we will see each other at least every year and we talk monthly. And that’s exactly what we wanted.

If this was The L Word, after a couple of episodes Stacey would move to Melbourne and demand parental rights. In reality, what rights does she have?

J: In American law, none. We were the first couple to get parenting orders by consent. That meant it wasn’t a disputed case. If she moved here, she may have some rights. If she put an application in the judge would have to look at a set of facts. She birthed the children, she breastfed them, she has a once a year visit. I should imagine the judge would keep that continuing.

S: But certainly Australian law doesn’t recognise the contracts we have in the States and she does have some recourse here because of that.

J: The judge stated very clearly when we got our parenting orders that if she was to come here and make an application, he would have to hear that and look at what that meant for the children. The children’s rights are paramount.

S: But the chances of that happening are a million to one. She has a family in the States, a life, a job, parents. The chances of her coming here to live and then demanding access to a surrogate child are pretty slim.

J: But if we cut [the child] out of her life—

S: Uproot her whole life? And come here for the sake—

J: No, no, the children might have to go there. There are lots of arrangements made around overseas contact.

Are there gay dads who do not reference a mother?

J: Oh yes. The women, i.e. surrogates, aren’t referred to as mother. There’s no mother, she’s a surrogate and there’s an egg donor.

Who is the father on the children’s birth certificates?

J: With the three children of which we are parents, it will be either one of us. In Australia we co-parent so we have a child that one of us is the biological father for that child. The two others that we have through surrogacy, given the state that we were in in the US, only one father could be put on. In some states like California you can put both fathers on. But in the state where our children were born it’s only one father. The [as yet unborn twins] that we’re having now, we’re not the day-to-day parents, so it’s still a question whether we’ll be put on the birth certificate or not.

Do you have high hopes for the children after spending so much time and money?

S: Beyond the process of getting the kids, which is very time consuming and can be very expensive, when they’re here they’re just your kids. You hope and dream for them no more or less than any other parent that they live a happy, healthy life. There is a part of me that would like to see them as a doctor or a lawyer—

J: Or a pilot.

S: Or a pilot.

J: Because you give planes to them.

S: I had given them those three choices as a joke. You can be one of three things... (laughs). But at the end of the day, if they’re happy being an alternative musician...

How much have you sacrificed of your own lives to have the kids?

J: We’re coming out of that a little bit. I think in the early days you live... not vicariously, but you live an alternate life. I think you grow and evolve as much as they do. Their innocence, naiveté, are relearning opportunities for you. We did a lot of travel, we were well set up financially before we had them. Probably we could do with a little bit more of our time—

S: Personal time is what goes. I enjoy having an afternoon off just in my own space and that disappears. I have found myself ducking down to Safeway and taking that little bit longer... It’s your time, and I miss that.

J: Your restaurants change—

S: You move from a lovely restaurant to a pub with a built-in child’s play area and meals that are either chicken or beef.

J: Which he thinks is hideous—

S: It is hideous. But it’s either that or you don’t go out anywhere, so we choose that.

J: You don’t miss out, you gain: parks, museums, the zoo – I never went to the zoo.

S: We’re also tapping into baby sitters now so we can go out with friends. I think that’s important for your relationship.

Would you get married if you legally could?

S: No, we’re not really interested in marriage. We had a commitment ceremony in Italy before Remy was born. But I certainly think people should have the right to get married if they want to.

J: I’m in favour of something more fabulous than marriage, we could make something better and bigger. I think it’s more important to have adoption rights.

S: I know a number of gay guys going through surrogacy who say exactly the same thing. They were initially more interested in adoption, but because we can’t, surrogacy became the option for them. I would like to have considered adoption.

For information on gay dads group The Meeting Place, which meets at the Drummond Street Relationship Centre, 193 Drummond St, Carlton, contact James 0410 548 613 or join the email group via: gaydadsvic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

[Link: Orginal Article]

Read More

Sydney Star Observer - “Pollies to Fight Adoption Reform”by Ani Lamont

Politicians from both major parties have vowed to fight proposed changes to NSW adoption laws that would see same-sex couples able to adopt.

The NSW Law and Justice Committee last week released their findings from the same-sex adoption inquiry, urging the government to allow adoption for same-sex couples.

The committee also recommended faith-based adoption agencies be allowed to refuse same-sex couples, but be obliged to refer them to services that could assist them.

Endorsed by a narrow margin of four votes to three, the Committee remained divided over the issue even as they announced its release.

The Coalition’s David Clarke and Labor’s Greg Donnelly, who sat on the committee, have indicated they would be advising their parties to block any reforms.

“I don’t think there is any mandate for the Government to act in this report and I don’t think it is in the best interest of the children,” Clarke said.

He said he was concerned about forcing religious organisations to “go against their beliefs” and refer same-sex couples to other agencies.

Donelly said he doubted same-sex adoption would be in the best interests of a child.

“A child should be entitled to expect that they will be raised by a mother and a father,” he said.

“My difficulty is that, in a situation where there is such a difference in the number of children compared to the number of couples seeking a child, that a child may be provided to a same-sex couple and that child will not have the benefit of growing up with a mother and a father.”

Committee chair Christine Robertson urged the government to follow the recommendations.

“This reform will address discrimination against same-sex couples and their children, removing one of the final areas of NSW law where discrimination … has been allowed to remain,” she said.

“To allow same-sex couples to adopt will help ensure the best interests of the children are met by our adoption laws.”

Greens’ GLBT spokeswoman Lee Rhiannon pushed the Rees Government to endorse the recommendations by offering a guarantee to “work with the government to ensure the quick passing of same-sex adoption legislation”.

“The inquiry’s recommen-dation takes on added significance as it was reported in May that Upper House MP Reverend Fred Nile had won the support of Premier Rees not to back such legislative reform,” she said.

“Now the Premier has the Upper House report, he should demonstrate that he has not done a deal with Rev Nile and move quickly to work quickly with the Greens to make the necessary legislative changes.”

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

GLRL calls for community to take action on adoption reform

The NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby welcomes the recommendations to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and their children made by the recent NSW Parliament Law and Justice Committee, but now urge the GLBT community to take action to ensure the reforms are implemented.

The GLRL will soon be meeting with key members of the NSW Parliament to discuss the reforms. The GLRL is calling upon community members to provide their own personalised stories through our website, so as to aid us with our lobbying efforts when meeting with various members of parliament during the campaign.

GLRL Co-Convenor Benjamin Keats said, “It is important that members of the NSW Parliament hear about the personal impact of discrimination from same-sex couples and their children. We know from our previous law reform work that personal stories make a difference.”

To take action, please visit the NSW GLRL website (www.glrl.org.au) and simply enter your details and personal story or opinion. The letter is automatically generated and sent the Premier and Minister for Community Services.

“It is clear that there is widespread support in the community for equality. There is no valid reason for the NSW Government not to act swiftly to remove this last area of direct discrimination against same-sex couples in NSW law,” concluded Emily Gray, GLRL Co-Convenor.

Using the GLRL website the community can easily make their voices heard to pressure the NSW Government to delver on adoption reform in 2009

Read More

Brisbane Times - “Gay couples 'should be allowed adopt'” by Nick Ralston

Laws should be altered to allow same-sex couples to adopt in NSW because it's in the best interests of children, a parliamentary inquiry has found.

The majority of a six-person upper house committee which examined same-sex adoption has recommended amendments be made to definitions of "couple" and "de facto relationship" in the Adoption Act 2000.

Committee chair, Labor's Christine Robertson, said same sex-parents should be able to be assessed on the same terms as anyone else on whether they were suitable to adopt a child.

She said the committee found reforming the laws to allow same-sex couples to adopt would "ensure the best interests of children" are met by NSW's adoption laws.

This was because it would broaden the pool of applications from which the most appropriate parents for a child were selected.

It would also allow those children currently in foster care with same-sex couples to be adopted.

"This reform will also address discrimination against same-sex couples and their children, removing one of the final areas of NSW law where discrimination against gay and lesbian people has been allowed to remain," Ms Robertson said in a statement.

However, the committee has recommended that on the basis of religious freedom, an amendment should also be made to the Anti-Discrimination Act in relation to faith-based adoption agencies and same-sex couples.

Faith-based agencies would therefore be allowed to pass on the details of a same-sex couple to another adoption agency to assist them.

Liberal upper house MP John Ajaka issued a dissenting statement in the report, recommending that if same-sex couples are allowed to adopt, they should only be allowed to adopt children that are known to them.

Labor's Greg Donnelly went against the committee's findings, saying he held the view it is the birthright of every child to be raised by a mother and a father.

Read More

Essential Baby - “Same-sex parenting, our story” by Nicole Salinas

My name is Leanne and I’m in a same sex relationship. I have been with my partner for over 11 years and we decided early in our relationship that we wanted children.

My partner and I are the proud parents of a 3-year-old son who was conceived via IVF with a known donor. I am ‘mummy’ and my partner is ‘Omi’, short for other mummy.  Our Donor, ‘donor sperm dad’, is a close friend who is happily married. It was his wife who actually volunteered him for the job!

His wife has 5 grown children from a previous marriage, but our donor has no biological children of his own. We wanted a known donor for a few reasons. The main one, so our future children would know their father and where they came from.

This was a cause for a few people to voice their opinions and ‘what ifs’. Little did we know, many people had many opinions on “people like us” having children.

We discussed all the details with the donor and his wife
It was something we talked about extensively with our donor and his wife, for hours. Their involvement in our future kids lives and how we would explain to them once they got older.

Everything was on the table, there were no hidden agendas. We wanted children and had planned for it for years. We were financial and didn’t want anything from him, other than his swimmers of course. His name would not be on the birth certificate and he would have no claim on the children at all. He would have as much or as little involvement in our family as we wanted. He had his family and he was giving us the greatest gift of all. He and his wife understood what we wanted.

Our family was unsure
Our families were more hesitant. They were concerned that the donor would lay claim to future children and tried to talk us into using an unknown donor. While they supported us in the fact that we wanted children (my father got teary) they couldn’t really grasp the fact that someone we knew would be the father and he didn’t want any part in the children’s life.

Our IVF journey began
Our IVF journey has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. When we first started 6 years ago, we rang a fertility clinic recommended to us by friends who had gone to them and were successful. When I spoke to them, I told them right from the beginning that we were a same sex couple with a known donor.

They asked a few questions and whilst on the phone I overheard the nurse asking various doctors who would be willing to see us. After a few minutes and what seemed like lots of doctors, one doctor finally said yes. I couldn’t believe we had difficulty in finding a fertility doctor that would see us. I didn’t think that being a same sex couple cause a problem.
A few days later we got a phone call from the clinic. “So sorry, we will not be able to see you as your donor is too old” they told us. “You could continue with an unknown donor if you would like”. Our donor was 43 and known donors have to be under 40. We knew that because we were a same sex couple it was going to be an uphill battle, but to be knocked back on the age factor was a blow.

After all we had been through so far, an unknown donor wasn’t an option for us. We were all in this together and eventually we found another clinic and doctor willing to help. Our clinic now has most of their paperwork now saying patient and partner. I think we were one of their first same sex couples and our nurse was fantastic.

Our second cycle was a success
As it turns out, I have endometrioses (where the uterine lining grows outside the uterus) and had to have a laparoscopy to remove as much as possible. This was done after our first IVF cycle failed. I did not respond well so we had no frozen embryos to use and had to start again with IVF. Our second IVF cycle gave us our son.

My pregnancy went well, though a scan at 30 weeks showed our baby was measuring a little on the large side. We decided that a Caesarean Section was best. We just wanted a healthy baby. Again we had to defend our decision, this time to the midwife doing our antenatal class. She pulled us aside during lunch and asked if we were making the right choice. We were the only same sex couple in the class and the only ones having a planned Caesarean Section

Support and judgment
My partner was wonderful throughout the pregnancy. She came to most appointments and every scan. She treated me like a queen. She actually had more morning sickness than me! If I was glowing throughout my pregnancy, so was she. We got the usual “those types shouldn’t be having children, they will be disadvantaged as the child will not have a father”. Sorry, but our child has a father!
That was part of the reason we wanted a known donor. Our friends were a great support. Anyone who passed judgment on us we decided weren’t worth a response. Who cares what strangers think? At our antenatal classes, apart from being stared at to begin with, most people were accepting and those that weren’t kept their distance.

I wanted another!
As soon as I heard our son's first cry I told my partner I wanted to be pregnant again. We had planned for a couple of children and I was to have the first (due to my age) then her. She said yes straight away. The plan then was I had one, she has the next and we’d take it in turns.

So, when our son was one-year-old we decided that we would look at getting my partner pregnant. Unfortunately her first cycle of IVF was cancelled due to hyper-stimulation. She wasn’t well and spent several days on bed rest. We were disappointed but we knew there would be a next time.

With next cycle we found out she has polycystic ovaries. It was six months before this was discovered and a decision had to be made. Our son was nearly 2. We wanted our children to be relatively close in age and I was getting older. It was decided I would try again. My partner would take a break, lose some weight, get her body right and then try again herself. We knew I could get pregnant and with my partner it was a bit of an unknown, but not impossible.

That was December 2007. Since then I have had six IVF cycles and a pregnancy that resulted in a blighted ovum and a curette at eight weeks. After that it was back to the drawing board. It’s no use beating yourself up about it, all you do is make yourself feel bad and that’s just a waste of time. We think ourselves lucky it was at eight weeks and not 20. We took it as another failed attempt which must have been for a reason. We are thinking forward to our next cycle and look at the big picture. At least I can get pregnant.

We understand that people can be cruel, sometimes even if it is unintentionally. One well meaning friend actually asked after numerous IVF failures, why I just didn't go out, pick up and then lie there thinking happy thoughts. I asked if they would like their partner to be with someone else and haven't said much to them since.

Our son is very loved
Our son has two loving parents plus the love of his father and extended family. We have a wonderful network of family and friends. Friends with children and without, same sex couples and single friends, all who dote on our son. We understand that when he goes to school most children will have a mum and a dad. But also lots of children will live in one parent households, or some with their grandparents or even foster parents. Some of those children might even have aunties or uncles that are in same sex relationships.

Everyone’s definition of a “normal” family is different. We believe that children in general are very accepting and it’s the parent’s views that influence how other children will treat our son. Slowly, we believe, those views are changing.

We have had comments on how well behaved and adjusted our son is. He is a normal little boy who loves cars and dinosaurs. He is very laid back and takes most things in his stride. All the carers at his day care know that he has a mummy and Omi and we have found them to be very open and understanding.

I guess I’m one of the lucky one. My life is good and I have a wonderful family. Our donor is a part of our life and to our son, he is daddy.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Equal Love: A Childish Response

Read More

Brisbane Times - “Gay parents welcomed. Just not for adoption” by Conal Hanna

Katherine Eastaughffe and Una Harkin are lesbians.

They're also mothers, to six-month-old Daniel, whom Katherine gave birth to after undergoing fertility treatment.

The Queensland Government has no problem with lesbians using IVF to have children.

Neither do they have a problem with taking on Katherine and Una as registered foster carers.

But they draw the line at gay adoption, meaning Una cannot be legally recognised as one of Daniel's parents.

The Bligh Government's refusal to consider same sex adoption is being used as part of a renewed push for federal laws preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians.

A Galaxy poll released today reveals 85% of Australians support the case for a national law on the issue.

Ms Eastaughffe told brisbanetimes.com.au the State Government's Adoption Bill 2009, reintroduced to Parliament in April, was clearly discriminatory.

"It was a joint decision to have Daniel. He is very much both of ours," Ms Eastaughffe said.

"If Una was a man, there'd be no issue either way. Either by having her name on the birth certificate or by being able to adopt him as a step-parent.

"It doesn't make sense to me. A man might not be the biological father but he is still treated as the parent, but not if it's a woman who's the "non-biological parent". That just seems outright discrimination."

Ms Eastaughffe said she and Ms Harkin, who've been together nine years, were completely open when applying to be foster carers for the State Government last year.

"We were quite honest and they were fine about that. In fact the foster care agencies see gay and lesbian couples as quite a resource to use," Ms Eastaughffe said.

"It smacks of somehow we're good enough to look after children who've had a difficult life - and they're the ones in some sense that need the best parenting - but not deemed good enough to be able to adopt, either our own children or other children."

Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, Graeme Innes, said he was eager for a national law, similar to those governing discrimination on the basis of race or gender.

"Frankly, this is a demonstration of why we need such a law because all the research indicates there's no difference in terms of the impact on the child as to whether their couples are same sex or opposite sex orientation," Mr Innes said.

"There's no basis to discriminate on someone just because of who they love."

Mr Innes described Section 8 of Queensland's Adoption Bill, which says the new law would apply "despite" the state's own Anti-Discrimination Act, as very unusual.

"There are laws and principles of non-discrimination that Australia has committed to for a long time and unless there's clear evidence which indicates that discrimination is necessary, then no, the principle of non-discrimination should apply," he said.

Queensland Child Safety Minister Phil Reeves said same sex parenting was a "complex and sensitive" issue.

He said the government was planning to conduct a review on the status of children being cared for by same sex parents, but it appears unlikely to change the government's view on the issue of adoption.

"In an environment when you have such a small number of babies and such a large number of couples seeking to adopt, the onus is on the state to make a judgement about the best possible placement for a child and the prospect of that being anything other than opposite sex couples, we think is very low," Mr Reeves said.

But Corey Irlam, of the Australian Coalition for Equality, who commissioned the 1100-person Galaxy poll, said there were far more same-sex parents looking to adopt the children they already raised than strangers.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

MCV – “IVF Setbacks” by Rachel Cook

Rachel Cook discusses the delays for accessing IVF to same-sex couples – a delay of up to 5 months.

Delays in police checks will mean that same-sex couples requiring IVF treatment could be waiting five months.

Lesbians and single women gained access to IVF last December when the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill was passed. However the bill also introduced police checks as part of the screening process for prospective IVF recipients.

The checks are designed to ensure that people seeking fertility treatment are “fit to parent”, having no history of violence or sexual assault.

As reported in the Herald Sun last week, a doctor from Melbourne IVF has voiced his concerns that the government has failed to ensure the infrastructure is in place to cope with high numbers of police checks.

Dr John McBain said, “The bureaucracy isn’t in place in the relevant department to screen the very large numbers of people who will be trying to get police checks.”

Co-convenor of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Hayley Conway, said providing increased resources to cope with the swell in police checks should have been done “many many years ago”.

“This demonstrates the lack of seriousness this government has in terms of providing equal access to services for the LGBTI community,” Conway said.

“They will hide behind anything to prevent LGBTI families to access the same services heterosexual families will use. While it may not be malicious, in regards to the police checks, [before the introduction of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill which allowed lesbians to access IVF] heterosexual couples were not subjected to these checks.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Human Services told MCV that the bill was “close” to being proclaimed:

“Part of making sure that the necessary arrangements are in place for the Act to be successfully implemented is that there is work that still needs to be done. Work that will make sure people can access the programs that are covered by the Act is still underway.”

The spokesperson added:

“These measures have been debated for a long time. For ten years this has been in the mix and the important thing is that we have in place the right procedures and the right infrastructure to support the bill. We want get it right.

He also said that the Herald-Sun’s claim that the Act was to be proclaimed July 1 was incorrect:
“The Act will be proclaimed automatically on January 1, 2010, if it is not proclaimed sooner, we did not say it would definitely be proclaimed July 1.”

To access IVF couples also have to pass a Child Protection Order Check. Melbourne IVF states on its website:

‘Melbourne IVF (and all IVF Clinic in Victoria) is currently working with Department of Human Services (DHS) to develop a process for undertaking the Child Protection Order Checks. This process is yet to be finalised.’”

[Link: Original Article]

Read More