It was with a heavy heart that I read of a landmark ruling earlier this month that gives religious charities the freedom to ban gay foster parents.
The New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal found that Wesley Dalmar Services, the foster-care arm of Wesley Mission, was within its rights to knock back a gay couple who applied in the early 2000s to become foster carers, because their "lifestyle was not in keeping with the beliefs and values of Wesleyanism".
The charity, a part of the Uniting Church assembly, had successfully argued that its decision was necessary to circumvent damage to its "religious susceptibilities".
As far as rulings go, it was a classic case of exploiting a loophole. The tribunal intimated that its hands were tied due to "the very broad exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act relating to religious groups".
Following the passing of the Equal Opportunity Bill in Victoria this year, which allows religious groups to continue to discriminate on the basis of "sexuality or marital status if it is in accordance with their beliefs", the NSW directive is clearly portentous for Victorian gay couples hoping to foster.
Of course, it is a grave disservice to tar all Christian foster-care agencies with the same bias. Uniting Care Burnside, part of the Uniting Church, has long held progressive attitudes towards homosexuality, as has Barnardos. Both have a non-discriminatory policy when looking for safe environments in which to place foster children.
Wesley Mission belongs to a Methodist order of the Uniting Church. It has a long and worthy history of social justice, but the central tenet of its orthodoxy, that marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of family, sits uneasily in a contemporary world.
As many civil liberties groups have been quick to point out, charities such as Wesley that rely on government funding should not be allowed to show such prejudice. It is likely to become more of an issue in NSW over the next four years, as private agencies take over all the foster-care programs run by the Department of Community Services.
But there is something else amiss here, and it's a trap ready-made for religious charity groups. By putting its charter ahead of its charges, Wesley Mission undermines its mission. While it may indeed have the legislative right to discriminate, the only time it should exercise that right is when a child - and not its doctrine - is at risk.
Furthermore, I can't understand how a charity can so easily turn a blind eye to the fact that we have long been crying out for foster carers.
In 2005, lobby group the Australian Foster Care Association warned that foster care in Australia was at a crossroads. It urged states and territories to work together to improve "their recruitment strategies to increase the number of foster carers" and put strategies in place to retain them.
And with good reason. Foster care isn't for the faint-hearted. In addition to the logistical hoops prospective carers are required to jump through (such as police checks and working-with-children checks), different agencies have their own criteria.
While there is some financial recompense for carers, it isn't a patch on the physical, emotional and spiritual investment of welcoming an often damaged little stranger into your home.
Just think, on the one hand you are encouraged to support and bond with the child. On the other, you must be prepared to let them go, sometimes at a moment's notice, and knowing the cycle of abuse and neglect will most likely begin anew. Surely, this is the biggest ask of all.
Over the past year, it was estimated that about 34,000 children moved in and out of state care, and the number is growing. For the lucky few - and they are few - there is a happy ending.
Eight years ago, a young sister and brother arrived at the door of Silke Bader and her partner, Tanya Sale. Now aged 11 and 12, the two siblings have had the kind of safe and secure upbringing their 10 brothers and sisters could only dream about.
As Bader told The Sydney Morning Herald: "The argument over same-sex adoption is whether the couples are suitable . . . in this case we certainly stand out as being more suitable."
Earlier this year, after surveying several children placed with same-sex couples, a NSW parliamentary inquiry found that, above all else, "stability and security" were crucial in fostering a child's development. The findings led to the same-sex adoption bill being passed in September.
This is why the latest ruling seems not only curious but retrogressive. While definition of family is constantly evolving, one thing remains forever the same: every child has a right to be loved.
Surely it's time we put children's rights where they belong - above and beyond all others.
Jen Vuk is a freelance writer.
Posts
.jpeg)