Sydney Star Observer - "Gay Dads Put Family First" by Ian Gould

A COMMUNITY INFORMATION NIGHT WILL LOOK AT HOW GAY MEN CAN BECOME FATHERS AND WHAT BEING A GAY DAD IS REALLY LIKE.

When Dominic Gili set up the Gay Dads NSW group last year, his main aim was to provide a social outlet for other gay fathers.

But as the group grew to include about 60 gay fathers and intending dads, its scope moved beyond dinners and picnics.

“I’m getting a lot of emails from men who are looking to be fathers but they don’t know how to go about it,” Gili told Sydney Star Observer.

“They’ve just been asking a lot of questions that I can’t personally answer.”

In response, Gili, himself a father of two children whom he co-parents with two mothers, is organising Gay Dads NSW’s first information night on 3 April.

The evening will include two expert speakers and two gay fathers, who will share their parenting experiences.

“I included two of the men in the group who have children, one via surrogacy and one via co-parenting, so it’s listening to personal accounts,” Gili said.

Providing expert advice will be Paul Boers, a family law solicitor, and volunteer at the Inner City Legal Centre in Darlinghurst.

Boers will discuss the options for gay men wanting to start a family and provide information on who can be a legal parent and how to acquire legal parental responsibility.

Dr Kim Bergman, co-owner of US surrogacy agency Growing Generations and co-chair of US LGBT parenting advocacy group Family Pride Coalition, will also talk about how gay men can become fathers through surrogacy.

Gili is hoping for a strong turnout next month after an impressive response to the Gay Dads NSW stall at Fair Day last month.

“At Fair Day we had a stall near Kidzone and we must have got a list of about 30 guys interested in joining us,” he said.

Gay Dads NSW plans to hold similar information nights every three months.

“The interest seems to be growing, I think, as the word is going out,” Gili said.

The Gay Dads NSW information night is on Monday 3 April from 6:45pm to 9pm at the Twenty10 office, 43 Bedford St, Newtown. All are welcome and admission is free. RSVP by 27 March to info@gaydadsnsw.com.au.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Watts McCray - "Is surrogacy an option for gay men wanting to be fathers in Australia?" by Jenni Millbank

A couple of years ago there was a documentary on SBS about two gay men from Melbourne who had a baby through a surrogacy arrangement in the US. It caused a big splash, but there hasn’t been that much information on surrogacy within Australia since then, even though the ACT has recently changed its laws to make surrogacy simpler (and specifically identified gay couples as eligible) and Victoria is currently considering surrogacy reforms. This article outlines some of the general issues for gay men considering parenthood through surrogacy, but anyone considering a surrogacy arrangement should get detailed legal advice on their plans before they begin.

The first thing to note is that surrogacy arrangements are just that -arrangements, not contracts. It is not possible to enter into a binding surrogacy agreement anywhere in Australia, or to enforce an agreement that has broken down. Any dispute about the child will be determined by the child’s best interests, not by the terms of an agreement.

Most Australian states prohibit payment for surrogacy (“commercial” surrogacy), advertising for a surrogate or facilitating a surrogacy agreement (eg through an agency). Even the ACT, which allows non-commercial surrogacy and has groundbreaking new laws allowing for parental status to be transferred from the birth mother to the commissioning parents, bans any form of advertising for a surrogacy arrangement. So in most of Australia, surrogacy arrangements have to be privately arranged and involve no fee or payment (although in some places the cost of medical expenses is allowed).

NSW is unusual because it does not currently have legislation on surrogacy. At the moment it is not illegal to advertise for or enter into either a commercial or non-commercial surrogacy agreement that takes place in NSW- but note that advertising in other states, or conceiving elsewhere, or even having an agreement with a surrogate who usually lives in another state, may still be an offence in those places.

Since 2003 the NSW government has had a law in draft form (the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2003) but it is not clear if it will be introduced. Even if this Bill did become law,it would only prohibit commercial surrogacy and advertising for commercial surrogacy in NSW.Non-commercial agreements would remain legal in NSW, as would advertising for them. This means that NSW is the most permissive of all Australian jurisdictions, and is likely to remain so even if the law changes.

Surrogacy may take place with the birth mother’s own egg (sometimes called “partial surrogacy”) or with a donor egg so that the birth mother is not the genetic mother (“full surrogacy”). Either way, the birth mother is still a legal mother.

If the conception is going to take place with a donor egg, then IVF is needed.This means two hurdles: finding an accessible fertility service, and a woman who will donate an egg in addition to finding a woman who will be a surrogate.

It is prohibited in all Australian states to pay an egg donor, although it is acceptable to cover medical expenses. It is legal to advertise for an egg donor in NSW (although note again it is an offence is some other states).

In most states, it is not possible to use fertility services to undertake a surrogacy arrangement, either because surrogacy is banned or because of laws limiting access to fertility services on the basis of clinical infertility (meaning the birth mother would need to have a fertility problem, defeating the purpose). The exceptions once again are the ACT and NSW, where it may be possible to access privately run fertility services even if not clinically infertile. But if classified as fertile, the parties would be ineligible for Medicare benefits – meaning that the cost per IVF cycle would be around $10,000. (If the birth mother were to be the genetic mother and a fertility service was only used for donor insemination rather than IVF the cost would be around $1800 per cycle.)

All states still require a sperm donor to sign a “lifestyle declaration”. Declaring that you have had male-male sex in the past 5 years may mean that the service refuses to use your sperm, or that they require additional storage time and repeat testing. This is up to the clinical judgement of each service, so is unpredictable.

Once a child is born, there is the further issue of parental status. Legally, the parents of any child born through assisted conception, whether surrogacy or otherwise, are the birth mother and her partner (in the ACT this includes a female partner). A commissioning parent, even if a biological father, is not a legal parent.

In the ACT the new surrogacy provisions allow for birth parent and commissioning parents to apply to the ACTSupreme Court for a change of parental status from the birth parents to the commissioning parents. These can be used by gay men, but only if: the commissioning parents live in the ACT, the child was conceived through IVF carried out in the ACT, the birth mother is not the genetic mother (ie full surrogacy and not partial surrogacy), at least one of the commissioning parents is a genetic parent, the birth mother and her partner both consent, and the baby is between 6 weeks and 6 months at the time of the application. So far the ACT is the only jurisdiction in Australia to introduce such provisions, but Victoria is considering something similar.

It is not possible to use adoption orders in NSW to gain parental status, because privately arranged adoptions are not permitted, and in any case same-sex couples are not eligible to jointly adopt.

But a lack of automatic parental status does not mean that commissioning parents have no rights or no way of gaining parental rights. Any person concerned with the care, welfare and development of a child can apply to the Family Court for orders; they do not need to be a legal or biological parent. It is possible for commissioning parents to apply to the Family Court for parental responsibility orders (these grant the right to make major decisions about the child, such as medical care, applying for a passport and so on) and for residence or contact orders. It is not exactly the same as parental status, for example it doesn’t flow through to areas such as inheritance, but it does say who is the person or people responsible for the care of the child and in charge of what happens to them until they turn 18. Such orders can also remove parental responsibility from the birth mother and her partner. Such orders can be applied for with the consent of all parties in a relatively simple process. The Family Court has made these orders in favour of gay men in recent years, including men who had a child from surrogacy arrangements made overseas. Importantly, these orders granted equal rights to the biological and non-biological father in a gay couple.

The upshot: surrogacy in Australia is very difficult and widely prohibited. The ACT and NSW are the most conducive to surrogacy arrangements, but prospective commissioning parents need considerable resources, would need to be very careful not to break the laws of their own and other states, and should consider obtaining parenting orders shortly after birth to formalise their legal status.

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview by Barry McKay

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other conference initiatives were:

· An Australian website and national publication to be launched.

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

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

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

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

GIZ WATSON, the case for . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN BARICH, the case against . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fathers and mothers interact differently with their infant children.

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

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

Mothers provide more expressive and nurturing child-rearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

Sydney Star Observer - "Teething Problems" by Myles Wearring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Link: Original Article]

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Link: Original Article]

Read More