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

The Australian - "Gays hit by society not mum and dad" by Michael Bachelard

THE main damage to children of lesbian and gayparents or people born of surrogates came not from their parents , but from society's prejudices.

The Victorian Government's Law Reform Commission report has found that ``overt prejudice'' from ``politicians, religious leaders, friends and even relatives'' was the factor most likely to harm children of unconventional relationships.

University of Melbourne academic Ruth McNair found that families created by artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilisation and surrogacy were, if anything, internally happier than other families.

``Mothers express more warmth toward their child, mothers and fathers are more emotionally involved and interact more with their child ... (and) children report less parental criticism than natural or adoptive children.''

In ``stark contrast'', the negatives come from outside: people who use donated eggs or sperm, surrogate mothers, who are gay, lesbian or infertile are ``all stigmatised'', Dr McNair found.

People in these categories had less support from extended family or society, were less likely to obtain information about self-insemination and were at risk of infection, and their children were subject to bullying and isolation at school.

She also found that children of lesbian or gay parents were no more likely to be homosexual themselves, but they were more likely to experiment with same-sex partners.

The state Law Reform Commission is examining the law surrounding these issues, including whether it should more easily allow women who are not biologically infertile but who are not in heterosexual relationships, access to reproductive technology.

It is also examining whether the children of donor sperm or eggs should be able to identify their biological parents. Dr McNair said secrecy surrounding the identity of donors was ``one of the most significant'' problems such children faced. Children should be told the truth well before puberty, and given the option of developing a relationship with the donor.

She said gay and lesbian parents tended to be much more open than heterosexual parents.

Read More

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy - "Lesbian parenting: insiders' voices" by Ruth McNair, Amaryll Perlesz

Lesbian parenting has entered the public arena over recent years via debates regarding access to fertility services and adoption, legal recognition of same-sex parents and children's rights (McNair, 2002). Research in the area has been published for over 20 years, with an increasing shift towards delineating diversity rather than proving the legitimacy of these families. The ANZJFT - the major mouthpiece for Australian family therapists - has made curiously little contribution to the literature on lesbian parenting. The lack of discussion leaves trainees and family therapists largely ignorant about the lived experience of lesbian family life. This paper goes some way to filling this gap. We present data gathered from 151 Australian lesbian parents who answered questions about their own and their families' perceived strengths. Despite the constraints and challenges of living within a heteronormative and homophobic society and dealing with discrimination and legal, political and social non-legitimation, this group of lesbian parents expressed great pride in raising welladjusted and happy children. They also described their families as thoughtfully planned, proud, accepting and celebratory of diversity and difference, flexible in gender roles, and as having interesting, supportive, extended kinship networks that included a wide range of positive role models for their children. (Journal abstract)

[Source: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy v.25 no.3 Sept 2004: 129-140]

Read More

Hume Moreland Leader - "Gays urged to consider being foster carers" by Isabella Shaw

GAY people can be caring parents and should be encouraged to become foster carers, a Hume agency worker says.

Donna Zander, manager of out-of-home care at Orana Family Services in Meadow Heights, says the recent furore surrounding the ABC's airing of a Playschool segment depicting two mums taking their daughter to the zoo highlighted public perceptions of parenting.

Ms Zander said Orana and other foster care agencies she knew of had several gay carers on their books.

The services all focused on the child and their needs ``regardless of the configuration of the family type''.

``We (Orana) have no hesitation whatsoever towards assessing somebody that is currently in a gay relationship or has been in a gay relationship or is intending to be or is a single gay person it is an irrelevant factor for us,'' she said.

``Obviously we would be looking at the match of the child to that relationship or to that person, just as we would around a whole range of other factors.

``They would go through the exact same selection process like anybody else to ensure that the child would be cared for in a safe and appropriate environment.

``When you think about what children actually need boundaries, love, structure, routine, consistency and a safe environment to me the sexuality of the person is irrelevant.''

Ms Zander said same-sex couples had limited options when it came to parenting.

``But foster care is one option and I believe a very good one,'' she said.

``Peter'', who did not want his real name used, is a 43-year-old single gay man living in Melbourne's north.

For the past eight years he has offered respite care to a mildly autistic boy.

Peter, who has a counselling background, is a registered carer for foster care agencies including Orana, Interchange North West, Berry St and Anglicare.

Over the eight years Peter said he would have opened his home to more than 20 children needing short-term care.

He said his sexuality had never been an issue when registering as a carer, a situation he applauded.

``I pour my heart and soul into these kids,'' he said. ``If you are willing to look after a child, and have got a clean background, it (sexuality) is nobody's business but your own.'' Foster Care Association of Victoria Centre president Janice Hughes said the centre's board had formally discussed the issue and it was ``perfectly happy'' with gay foster carers.

``To me it isn't about individuality as such it doesn't matter whether someone is grey or black or green or have got spiky hair or rings in their noses or painted fingernails or anything like that,'' she said.

For more information on becoming a carer, phone Orana on 9351 1311.

Read More

The Age - "Concern over 'Gay School" by Anna Krien

A popular children's show has a story to tell and it's not making some government ministers gay or happy.

The ABC's show, Play School, on Monday aired the story of a little girl and her two "mums" to its young viewers .

"I'm Brenna. That's me in the blue. My mums are taking me and my friend Meryn to an amusement park," the little girl says over images of her two mums smiling and waving.

Play School's 'Through the windows' segment usually explores families from different ethnic, social and religious backgrounds.

But the broadcaster's attempt to portray gay relationships - not often in children's literature and television programming - has sparked a backlash.

Children's Minister Larry Anthony said he fears the ABC was becoming too politically correct.

"I think it's important for those program producers to ensure they are not just responding to minorities," he said.

"I think Play School has been an excellent program but I wouldn't like to see it become politically correct."

Communications Minister Daryl Williams also had concerns, asking ABC managing director Russell Balding they be passed on to the board.

"The government understands that parents would expect a program like Play School to deal with issues which are appropriate for the age of its audience," Mr Williams said.

"In particular, Australian parents should be able to choose when to explain concepts such as same-sex couples to their young children," he said.

But Tracey Cocks, one of over fifty members in the Lesbian Mothers & their Children Playgroup, praised Play School for its 'controversial' move.

"You really feel it when television show families of various ethnicities and localities, but no same-sex parent families," she said.

Miss Cocks shares the upbringing of her three-year-old daughter with her lesbian partner and two fathersl.

"We haven't found any discrimination at all, if anything our daughter is someone to be jealous of at kindergarden. Once a child with a single parent complained 'Why don't I have a dad when she has two of each?"'

Bill Muehlenberg from the Australian Family Association said he was outraged that Play School didn't issue a warning prior to screening the segment.

"The show pushed the message that all relationships are equal. That there is nothing special about the mother and father," said Mr Muehlenberg, adding that the ABC had no right to push its social agenda on to children.

Other 'Through the window' segments have explored a child's christening, a Muslim family, and a child as bridesmaid at her grandmother's wedding.

But Mr Muehlenberg said he drew the line at "sexual preferences and alternative lifestyles".

"I don't see anything wrong with something as innate as race... Now this is a different kettle of fish," he said.

Australian Democrats senator Brian Greig said the ABC had a mandate to reflect modern life and culture.

"Gay and lesbian taxpayers, who pay their eight cents a day to the ABC, have a right to have their family structure seen in local content just like everybody else," he said.

"I would hate to see us turn the clock back to a time where minorities were censored from Australian television as Aborigines and Asians and people with disabilities were once excluded from representation on TV."

ABC's Children's programmer Claire Henderson denied was any emphasis of focus placed on any social issue.

"Any such constructions are adult constructions," she said.

Back in Fitzroy, Tracey Cocks agreed. "It's not a big deal for little kids. It's just the adults who have a problem with us," she said.

Gay activists lauded the ABC, saying it was Play School's role to educate children about their world.

Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome said for an increasing number of Australian children, their world included gay parents or friends with gay parents.

"The ABC has a responsibility to represent Australian society as it is, not as the government might want it to be," he said in a statement.

"Responsible and effective children's programming does not wrap children up in cotton wool. It educates and informs children in a way which helps them develop intellectually and emotionally."

- with AAP

[Link: Original Article]

Read More