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