Same-Sex Parenting: the Right to Paternity for Gays and Lesbians

LGBT people experience in contexts that are normatively

A Review of Literature Research by Woodford et al found that lesbian adoptive co-parents are likely to experience identity incongruencies that are unique to their particular social identities. The study described being in same-sex relationships and choosing to adopt as affecting their experience as mothers, stemming from the cultural view of a mothering identity as mismatched with a lesbian identity or relationship. These incongruencies were not only internally felt but emerged in social contexts through encounters with others, such as family members, friends, and even social workers. The participants described how, in their social lives, they used normalization and resistance strategies to respond to experiences of heterosexism and homophobia in their daily lives. 

Although normalization and resistance are often theorized as a conceptually polarized binary, the participants' narratives suggest that the coexistence of these strategies may not be incompatible in daily life. Woodford et al. indicate that lesbian mothering is complicated, in part, because of social and cultural expectations that are associated with heterosexual mothering, Not only was lesbian mothering challenging because of identity incongruence for the participants but the participants reported that being adoptive, rather than biological, parents also undermined their feelings of legitimacy as mothers. The participants described how adopting as a couple enabled both partners to feel legitimately empowered as parents in ways that biological parenting could not have. Thus, adopting as a couple may have legitimated their relationship and mutual parenting identities in ways that single-parent adoption or biological parenting may not have allowed. In the face of both internalized and externalized experiences of heterosexism and homophobia, the lesbian couples in this study used a range of strategies to address these situations. Wood in her research revealed that there was no immediate refusal of services based on sexual orientation and neither was there a need to conceal their sexuality. 

Similarly, participants did not feel as though their sexuality was necessarily over or under focused upon when they were being assessed and all felt that professionals recognized that they were entitled to be considered for an assessment. Whilst it has been found previously that gay and lesbian applicants were more likely to be matched with those children perceived as difficult to place, this issue did not arise in this study. Participants were sometimes asked to consider those children outside of their initial specifications outlined during their application, but this was often related to their skills set, usually as a result of professional experiences. The study found that fixed ideas around identity and parenting may be entrenched within the adoption and fostering processes. Many participants recognized that their sexual identities or the gendered nature of their relationships challenged how the adoption or fostering processes were conducted. Several articulated that they felt subjected to a ‘professional gaze', which made them consider how their lives may be viewed or interpreted by social workers. 

Many participants reported that they were subject to scrutiny during the assessment process and as part of wider training days. During these days, participants suggested that they were inadvertently coerced into modifying their behaviors to fit with what they believed social workers wanted to see. Many critiqued the performance that this elicited. This necessity for performance was also identified through how the panel was organized and conducted. Participants suggested they were sometimes required to present themselves and their families in ways that may be recognized or ‘read' by assessing professionals. This occurred so that they could assert both their suitability as applicants and the legitimacy of their families and relationships. Findings within this study similarly indicate that familial displays to services were sometimes complicated by a participant's sexuality or the gendered nature of their relationships, as their situated experiences were either rendered invisible due to a ‘heterosexual assumption’ or viewed as potentially problematic. All participants disclosed their sexuality early in the process and, although they did not necessarily anticipate overt hostility, they were aware of the likelihood of encountering everyday instances of heterosexism. Their family and relationship displays were configured by the need for participants to demonstrate excellence in their capacity for parenthood and prove their validity as potential carers. This was ratified by some professionals who warned applicants that their sexuality was likely to be addressed during the panel and approval stages. 

Many felt that they needed to exceed professional expectations, to countermand any negative connotations associated with their sexuality. Participants' relationships and families, therefore, appeared to be rendered unintelligible within the heteronormative context of the adoption and fostering assessment. Notions of ‘risk' were also identified as challenging for men and male foster carers. This is sometimes related to safer caring recommendations posed by agencies to prevent abuse and ensure that foster carers protect themselves from allegations. Participants suggested that they felt pressure to provide an overstated display of their suitability, but this was particularly necessary for males who were expected to overcome any associations with risk or inexperience. It was suggested by participants that an exaggerated performance was necessary so that they could assert their caring abilities or prove that members of the opposite gender featured in their lives. Messina and D’Amore in their study revealed that participants reported that one of the first questions they asked themselves was whether their family structure could harm the child's well-being. Furthermore, they reported that their biggest concern was the possibility that their children would be discriminated against by their schoolmates due to their family structure. 

Many parents also informed that they feared that the child could be affected or influenced by the negative stereotypes towards homosexuality and same-sex parenting, experiencing a feeling of being 'different' and part of an illegitimate family. Also, some parents had an issue with whether the child would feel shocked discovering that he/she was adopted by LG parents. They worried that their children could have a negative perception of same-sex parenting and consequently reject them as parents. Some participants also reported experiencing a feeling of guilt due to the impossibility of offering a mother or a father to their children. These parents wondered about the impact of such an absence in their child's life. Further to this other concerns raised regarding guilty feeling relates to the fact that they felt responsible for causing additional difficulties in the life of a child already marked by difficult life circumstances. Brown envisaged that Factors that support prospective LGBT into being or becoming adoptive or foster parents With adoption and fostering, there have been notable changes in legislation within the last decade that have helped remove some of the structural barriers to this route to parenting for gay men and lesbians. This includes the introduction of the 2002 Adoption and Children Act, the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, the 2007 Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, the 2013 Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, and the repeal of section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act. The 2002 Adoption and Children Act 2002 is significant to adoption and fostering social work, as it decrees that unmarried couples, including those within same-sex relationships, can adopt jointly and receive full parental status. 

Similarly, it was established that some practitioners focused excessively on an applicant's sexuality, therefore potentially distorting the outcomes of the assessment. Challenges experienced by LGBT before or during the process of being an adoptive or foster parent might be referred to their prejudices and beliefs and to common myths and stereotypes that perpetuate misinformation about and negative social attitudes towards LGBT people. Research carried out by xxx identified that gay and lesbian applicants were often associated with a degree of ‘risk' and were closely scrutinised during the assessment. Many agencies were reluctant to consider gay and lesbian candidates, as it was unlikely that they would be approved by the adoption or fostering panel. Furthermore, many were matched with children who were considered more difficult to place, such as sibling groups, older children or those with additional needs. Hicks identified that gay and lesbian applicants were often coerced into emphasizing their suitability in distinct ways, such as outlining how they could provide ‘gender role models’. To be approved within a child-care context, Hicks identified that gay and lesbian applicants were constructed in particular ways. Individuals were often obliged to downplay certain aspects of their gender or sexual identities to emphasize ‘safer' versions for the final approval panel. These were usually characterized as gender-normative, integrated, monogamous, non-political, and middle-class. 

Hierarchies amongst potential parents based on their sexuality were still perceived to exist and were in some cases verbally confirmed by social workers. Gaps in Literature Research into LGBT adoption and fostering is not a new phenomenon and can be dated back to 1991. However, there are limited research available Studies involving children growing up with gay fathers are less common. There is far more literature available in the United States of America concerning the experiences of lesbian and gay prospective adopters and foster carers, as well as the outcomes for children adopted and fostered by lesbians and gay men. Summary Lesbian and gay men have experienced a period of unprecedented change in their social and legal position in the UK over the last twenty years. Those changes have been reflected in them being able to adapt and foster children on equal grounds as their heterosexual counterparts. Following the introduction of the 2002 Adoption and Children Act, the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, the 2007 Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, the 2013 Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, and the repeal of section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act. Marking a watershed in lesbian, gay and bisexual people’s access to services…”. Conversely, Brown and Kershaw state that regardless of positive legislative deviations, homophobic attitudes, prejudice, and discrimination still exist. It further states that legislation does not force people to change their views; however, it does require them to be more tolerant and treat people alike.