The kids are alright! Research continues to demonstrate the children of LGBTI parents are thriving

The results of what is reported to be the world’s largest study to date exploring the impact of LGBTI parenting on child health and development are expected in September 2013. 

The study is being undertaken by the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHESS).  The ACHESS is being conducted as part of the Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program at the University of Melbourne.  It is the first study in Australia to consider the health and wellbeing of children with same-sex attracted parents.

The ACHESS is based on data collected on five hundred children aged from birth to seventeen years old.  Focussing on mental, physical and social wellbeing, the study also interviewed 315 LGBTI parents.  The adult participants were asked to complete the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ).  The CHQ is a series of internationally recognised surveys designed to test for general quality of life. 

Whilst the full results of the ACHESS are still a couple of months away, an interim report is already available.  It suggests that children brought up by LGBTI parents are happier and healthier than their peers brought up by heterosexuals. 

 

On measures of general health and family cohesion, children aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex attracted parents scored significantly better when compared to Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts.  For all other health measures there were no statistically significant differences.

Unsurprisingly, however, the study confirmed that children with same-sex attracted parents continued to face discrimination in a variety of contexts.

Said Dr Simon Crouch, the lead researcher on the ACHESS on this particular finding:

“One of our hypotheses is that this experience of discrimination does have an impact on child health and well being.”

What is perhaps most significant is that this impact appears to be a positive one.  In the face of discrimination, children with LGBTI parents are developing at least as well as the children not exposed to it. 

A detailed description of the ACHESS protocol and background research can be found online.

 

It may be the world’s largest – and to that extent is doubtless an important study – but the trends emerging from the ACHESS duplicate those from similar research around the world.  Earlier this year, a British study undertaken by Cambridge University’s Centre for Family Research confirmed the adopted children of same-sex parents were thriving.  Same-sex adoptive parents were found to be raising children just as successfully as heterosexual ones.  Gay men were found to be faring particularly well in managing the parenting challenges presented by children who had negative and damaging experiences in early life.  There was no evidence to support speculation that children's masculine or feminine tendencies were affected by having gay or lesbian parents.  Family life and the quality of relationships were very similar for children regardless of their parents' sexual orientation.

Professor Susan Golombok, the report’s co-author, commented on the results: 

“Overall we found markedly more similarities than differences in experiences between family types.”

 

Quoted in the Independent at the time, she added: 

"What I don't like is when people make assumptions that a certain type of family, such as gay fathers, will be bad for children. The anxieties about the potentially negative effects for children of being placed with gay fathers seem to be, from our study, unfounded."

And a US study published in October 2012 undertaken by psychologists from the University of Central Los Angeles looking at welfare and development depending on whether adopted children were placed with gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents arrived at the same conclusion.  The children in that study ranged in age from 4 months to 8 years.  They presented with multiple risk factors at the time of adoption, including premature birth, prenatal substance exposure, abuse or neglect, and multiple prior placements.  The psychologists studied the children two months, one year and two years after they were placed with a family.  They found very few differences among the children at any of the assessments over the two-year period following placement.  All children achieved significant gains in their cognitive development, and their levels of behaviour problems remained stable.  This was despite the fact that the children adopted by gay and lesbian families had more risk factors at the time of their placement; out of nine risk factors, they averaged one additional risk factor, compared with the children adopted by heterosexual parents.

Said Letitia Anne Peplau, research professor of psychology at UCLA and co-author of the study:

"The children adopted by gay and lesbian parents had more challenges before they were adopted and yet they end up in the same place, which is impressive."

So let’s see what the final ACHESS report brings later this year, in terms of:

Ø                  whether further analysis of the data identifies the ways in which LGBTI discrimination affects children and their families, and

Ø                  characterising overall health and wellbeing in more detail.

But in the meantime, the evidence-led conclusion is unarguable.  The outcomes of all credible studies are consistent and support one conclusion:  children – whether they join the families through adoption, surrogacy or in some other way - brought up by LGBTI parents flourish!

The Iron Curtain closes - Russia's anti-LGBTI adoption agenda

A few months ago, I looked in one of my blogs at Anglo-Russian intercountry adoption developments.  This followed the vote in the Commons in this country in favour of marriage equality.  In response, Russian officials warned that there might be consequences for British nationals seeking to adopt Russian children.

It turns out that wasn’t just sabre-rattling.  True to their word, the Russian parliament adopted a bill on support for orphaned children in its third and final reading in late June 2013.  The new law imposes a ban on the adoption of Russian national children by same-sex foreign couples.  Head of the parliamentary Committee on Security and Resistance to Corruption, Irina Yarovava, said:

"The decision to prohibit foreign same-sex couples from adopting Russian children is a measure to ensure the children’s safety and constitutional rights.

"Attempts to simulate the institution of the family and demands for allowing adoptions by same-sex couples are unnatural from the standpoint of the laws of nature and the institution of family law."

On 3 July 2013, President Vladimir Putin signed off on the legislation.  The Kremlin said in a Statement that:

“the measure is aimed at guaranteeing a harmonious and full upbringing for children in adoptive families.” 

For good measure, the new law also forbids adoptions by unmarried individuals who live in countries with laws that permit same-sex unions.

Russia’s recent track-record on LGBTI issues is hardly a commendable one, with parliament voting in mid-June almost unanimously to pass a law to punish the “promotion” of homosexuality with fines and gaol terms.  The law bans what it calls the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” to minors. The word “homosexual” was removed from the text but in parliament one of the law’s backers said “traditional” relations were between a man and a woman.

“It outlaws the spreading of information aimed at forming non-traditional sexual attitudes among children,” said Duma deputy Elena Mizulina.  She also confirmed that it would become an offence to say that gay and straight relationships were equal, describing that as “a distorted perception”. 

Under the law people can be fined up to a maximum of over €2,000 if the offence is committed via the media.  Foreigners who promote homosexuality can be fined, detained for 15 days and deported.

That bill will now go to the Russian Senate before being signed into law by President Vladimir Putin – steps considered to be a formality.

Back to adoption:  according to New York’s Russian Children’s Welfare Society, there are currently more than 700,000 orphans in Russia.  This figure is increasing annually at a rate of 113,000 children.

Some of those hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children will be denied a chance to experience a loving family environment, on account of a prejudice about how worthy or otherwise prospective adopters are based upon their sexual equipment.  A view which runs contrary to all credible studies on topic, which consistently show the sexual orientation of adoptive or foster parents makes precisely no difference to the quality of the parenting they provide (see, for example, Cambridge University’s Centre for Family Studies’ research from March 2013).  

The real tragedy is that, whilst mewling about guaranteeing children a harmonious and full upbringing, the rule which excludes a particular group of individuals as potential adopters achieves just the opposite.  It only serves to narrow the pool of potential adopters and to ensure that vulnerable children in need of a stable family placement are denied one. 

From April's sweet showers, marriage equality flowers

Marriage equality to become law…

 

... in New Zealand at least, following a vote last week by the House of Representatives there.

By a majority of 77 votes to 44, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 2013 was passed on its third reading.  It received Royal Asset on 19 April 2013.

New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs now has four months to make the changes necessary for marriage licensing.  Marriage equality will be effective there from 19 August 2013.

New Zealand will be the first country in Oceania, and the second Commonwealth country (after Canada) to allow same sex-couples to marry.

New Zealand has a well-established pedigree for affording universal rights to groups denied them, and long before others follow their lead.  See, for example, the issue of women’s suffrage.  The Electoral Bill granting New Zealand women the franchise was introduced in 1893.  The same year, Elizabeth Yates was elected Mayor of Onehunga, the first time a woman held such a post anywhere in the British Empire.

Barely 25 years later, along shuffled the UK, with the Representation of the People Act 1918.  That Act – introduced after decades of campaigning, the highlights of which included (amongst other outrages) the force-feeding of imprisoned suffragettes - gave women over 30 who met minimum property qualifications the vote.  Ten years later, the Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age of 21, granting women the vote on the same terms as men.      



France's parliament on the vote



Closer to home, on Tuesday France's parliament also voted to enshrine marriage equality in law.  France’s lower house approved a marriage bill in a 331-to-225 final vote, following impassioned speeches by lawmakers for and against the legislation.

And earlier this month, the Uruguayan parliament approved a marriage equality measure.  That bill passed the lower house with a 92 / 71 vote majority.  The Uruguayan senate approved the bill in a 23-8 vote.  Now what is required is the signature of the President, Jose Majuica (who has already indicated he supports the measure) on the bill before it passes into legislation.

The response to the Uruguayan vote

Historically never especially fond of democracy, the conservative religious communities in the countries in question remained true to form.  In Uruguay, for example, the Roman Catholic Church described marriage equality as a harsh blow to the institutions of marriage and the family.  In France, a right-wing senator doomsayed that marriage equality would open the way to people being able to marry animals or objects (whatever gets you through the night, dear…)

But as the votes suggest, these dreary misanthropes are outnumbered by those who support marriage equality.  The New Zealand vote was greeted in parliament by cheers, applause and the singing of a traditional Maori love song "Pokarekare Ana” by some MPs and those in the public gallery (it’s worth checking out the video:  the genuineness of the reaction is really very beautiful and moving).

The scene in New Zealand's parliament after the vote

All of which makes the lumbering approach to marriage equality in England and Wales seem pretty dispiriting.  On 24 January 2013, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was introduced to the Commons.  On 5 February 2013, the bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons by 400 votes to 175.  The Bill was then examined in 13 sittings line-by-line, by Committee.  It completed its Committee Stage on 12 March 2013 and is due to have its report stage and third reading in the House of Commons on a day to be determined.  Whilst the majority of the public supports marriage equality (see the YouGov surveys from June 2012 and December 2012), I detect much hand-wringing yet to come to placate the vocal minority against, and particularly those who maintain their appointed deity has set his / her / its face against the concept.

Please don’t let it take the 25 plus years that British women had to wait after their New Zealand sisters got the vote for the universal human right of marriage equality to be afforded to same-sex couples here.

The line of succession and LGBT monarchs

Parliament is currently debating the Succession to the Crown Bill.  The proposed law is intended to update rules on succession to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

If passed, the Bill will (amongst other things) do away with the delightfully quaint concept of primogeniture, namely that a monarch’s firstborn son becomes King irrespective of whether there is an elder daughter.  It will also repeal the prohibition on a person succeeding to the Crown if he or she marries a Roman Catholic.

But what, pray tell, if a future Queen was a lesbian?  What if her child – born through surrogacy – were included in the line of succession?

These are the issues that blindside me at 3:30am many mornings….



Act of Settlement 1701



And I’m not alone.  Thankfully, some equally perspicacious Peers in the House of Lords raised just these questions during the Bill’s Report Stage last week. 

As matters currently stand, the law governing succession means only an heir to the body is included in the line of succession.  Featuring in the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1707, that phrase was intended to mean a direct biological descendent of the monarch. 

Lord True, a Conservative Peer, proposed changes to the Bill that would make it crystal clear that an heir to the body could only be the product of a heterosexual marriage.  As the Hansard account of Report Stage shows, Lord True was sufficiently vexed about “emerging legislation for same-sex marriage and the techniques of surrogate childbirth” that he proposed removing a child born to either from the line of succession. 




Elton John
(no relation of Lord Elton)

 

His was not the lone voice in the wilderness:  Lord Elton (tragically not John), a former Conservative minister whose wife is aide to the Queen, supported the proposal.

Said Lord True:

“What happens if we have a lesbian queen in a same-sex marriage who conceives using an egg implanted with donor sperm?  The law should be clear, but this is a question that has not been thought through in the Bill.”

He was only assuaged when he received confirmation existing laws meant only a Royal child born to heterosexual parents would be included in the line of succession.



Lord True didn’t go quietly, however, prophesying, “This may seem fanciful or long in the future, but I believe Parliament should reflect on it … I believe the question will inevitably arise.”

Richard I -
A gay man

So what if it does?  Will it really matter if a future King or Queen has a child with his or her same-sex partner / spouse via surrogacy?  Is it the surrogacy point that is the problem?  It must be, because it’s not as if LGBT individuals are unheard of in the Royal lineage.  William II (William Rufus) of England is widely recognised as gay.  He died without issue, but the proposals of Lords True and Elton (not John), if taken to their natural conclusion, would hold his children less entitled to succeed to the throne because of their father’s sexual orientation.  Likewise, on all counts, Richard I (the Lionheart). 



A gay or bisexual man (depicted here
as King James VI / I)



Edward II (he of the apocryphal red-hot poker inserted up his anus) had five children by Isabella of France.  He, too, is thought to have been gay.  Are his children any less entitled to participate in the line of succession by virtue of their parents' wedding having a whiff of lavender about it?  Or is the line of succession saved because he entered into a sham marriage? 

And let’s not forget James I of Great Britain, described alternatively as either gay or bisexual.  He had seven children with the woman who might or might not have been his “beard”, Anne of Denmark.  His sexuality did not end the line of succession. 



None of the nay-saying deals with the elephant in the room, namely that hereditary monarchy is unfair and elitist.  A much more relevant debate would be whether, in a modern and democratic society, anybody should be expected to defer to another simply because of accident of birth.  Given the absurdity of that system enduring, I wonder whether we don’t have better things to worry about than whether a future monarch is born to a gay King or lesbian Queen. 

In the meantime, I’m confident Lords True and Elton (not John) can rest a little easier knowing their concerns about the demise of the monarchy due to the problems visited by same-sex relationships are more “Chicken Licken’” – unwarranted fears the sky is falling - than founded in reality. 

The Succession to the Crown Bill is scheduled for its Third Reading in the House of Lords on 22 April 2013.

Here’s to the happy day when we see our first Queen and her Queen Consort, or King and his King Consort.

Civil Partnerships - A potted history and bluffers' guide

Earlier today, the Public Bill Committee finished its scrutiny of the English and Welsh Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2012-13.  That scrutiny involved a line-by-line consideration of the Bill, followed by a report to Parliament.  The Committee approved – without amendment – all eighteen clauses and seven schedules to the Bill.  One additional provision proposed related to making Civil Partnerships available to heterosexual couples.

 

The Bill will now return to the House of Commons for the Report Stage.  There, MPs will have an opportunity to consider further amendments or new provisions that ought to be added.  Report stage is normally followed immediately by debate on the Bill's third reading.

 

There is no set time period between the end of Committee Stage and the start of the Report Stage.  It is estimated that Report Stage should be concluded by the end of May 2013.

 

Given that Civil Partnerships will be with us for some time to come, then, this blog attempts a whistle-stop tour around the formalities for forming and ending a Civil Partnership, and the legal consequences of being in one.  The content is correct at the time of writing, but of course may need revision depending on what happens with the Bill.  Also, the information provided is particular to the English and Welsh situation. 

 

The Civil Partnership Act 2004

Prior to 2004, a same-sex couple might live together, and be entitled to certain (limited) legal recognition of their relationship by virtue of being cohabitants.  However, there was no mechanism equivalent to marriage through which that relationship could be formally recognised.

This changed with the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA).  The CPA introduced recognition for same-sex relationships.  Same-sex couples were able to register their relationship and acquire many of the same rights and obligations that married heterosexual couples have.

The CPA came into force on 5 December 2005, since which date Civil Partnerships have been available to same-sex (but not heterosexual) couples.

Forming a Civil Partnership

The CPA defines a Civil Partnership as a relationship between two people of the same sex, either: 

·                     formed by registration in England and Wales, or

·                     formed overseas and recognised in England and Wales.

The definition makes it plain that a Civil Partnership between a heterosexual couple is not currently possible.

In order to form a Civil Partnership in England and Wales, notice must first be given in the same way as is required for a marriage.  Notice is given at the couple’s local register office.  Notice must be given, and publicly displayed, for at least fifteen days before the Civil Partnership ceremony.  The proposed Civil Partners must have lived in the area in which they wish to give notice for at least seven full days before they will be eligible to give notice.

If the couple plan to hold the Civil Partnership ceremony other than where they live, they should also contact the register office responsible for that area to give notice. 

Once notice has been given, it is valid for up to twelve months.  However, if the couple decide to change the venue for their Civil Partnership, fresh notice must be given.

Both of the proposed Civil Partners must attend the register office in person.  No-one else can go for them, and one cannot go for the both of them. 

The following details must be given for each of the proposed Civil Partners in the notice:

·                    full name;

·                    age (the minimum age for a Civil Partnership in England and Wales is 16, and written consent of parents or guardians may be required for those under 18);

·                    address;

·                    nationality;

·                    current status (that is, whether single, divorced, widowed, etc);

·                    occupation, and

·                    intended venue for the Civil Partnership.

Documentary evidence will be needed to prove name, nationality, age and address.  A current passport or driver’s licence will be sufficient in many cases.  Alternative documents that might be suitable include birth certificates, national ID cards, bank statements and utility bills.  Proposed Civil Partners should check with the Superintendent Registrar in advance to make sure they have the necessary documents. 

So long as the notice requirements have been met, the Civil Partnership is formed on both parties signing a Civil Partnership document.  They must sign this document in the presence of one another, a Civil Partnership Registrar and two witnesses.

It is not currently possible to conduct a Civil Partnership ceremony on religious premises.  However, it is possible to arrange for the Civil Partnership to be blessed subsequently in a religious ceremony.  Whether it is depends on the particular tenets of the religion in question.

Frequently, people change their name when registering a Civil Partnership.  A copy of the Civil Partnership certificate will usually be sufficient proof of the change.

Recognising foreign Civil Partnerships

The CPA includes provisions about recognising here legal partnerships and same-sex marriages from other countries.  Schedule 20 to the CPA includes a list of countries and relationships that will automatically be recognised here as Civil Partnerships.

Even if a foreign relationship is not mentioned in Schedule 20, it will likely be recognised here as a Civil Partnership so long as: 

·                     the relationship is a legally exclusive one (that is, it is not available to those already in another marriage or legally-recognised relationship);

·                     the relationship is of indeterminate duration (that is, it does not end automatically after a defined period), and

·                     the effect of the relationship is that the parties are treated as a couple or as married.

As a general rule, so long as the formalities for a valid same-sex relationship have been observed in the country where the ceremony occurred, and the parties have legal capacity (that is, they are adults and not suffering from a disorder that impairs their ability to make sound decisions), the relationship will be recognised here. 

Civil Partnership Contracts

Civil Partners may decide to enter into an agreement that says how their property, income and other financial resources will be divided if the relationship ends.

The agreement may be reached either before or after the Civil Partnership ceremony.  If before, the document is called a Pre-Civil Partnership Contract (or Agreement).  If after, it is called a Post-Civil Partnership Contract (or Agreement).

Civil Partnership Contracts are treated in exactly the same way as Pre-Nuptial or Post-Nuptial Agreements (between husbands and wives).

In short, a Civil Partnership Contract is not absolutely enforceable.  However, its terms would be taken into account by any court considering what was a fair division of assets, income and financial resources on the breakdown of the Civil Partnership.

The consequences of Civil Partnership

Those in a Civil Partnership enjoy the same rights as those in a marriage.

So, a Civil Partner can acquire parental responsibility for his or her partner’s children by agreement or court order.  Civil Partners are generally treated as married people for the purposes of entitlement to welfare benefits.

If a Civil Partnership breaks down, the partners have the same claims to maintenance, lump sum payments, property transfer orders and pension sharing as husbands and wives enjoy.

Some other areas where Civil Partners enjoy the same rights as married heterosexuals include:

·                    for inheritance tax purposes;

·                    entitlement to claim from a Civil Partner’s estate;

·                    entitlement to the equivalent of a widow’s / widower’s pension from a Civil Partner’s fund;

·                    immigration / nationality considerations;

·                    entitlement to claim in the event of the Civil Partner suffering a fatal accident, and

·                    employment benefits.

Unless specifically stated, it ought to be assumed that Civil Partners’ rights mirror those that spouses have.

Ending Civil Partnerships

The processes for ending a Civil Partnership are virtually identical to those for ending a marriage.  There are only a few key differences:

·                    a Civil Partnership cannot be terminated through nullity on account of wilful non-consummation of the relationship;

·                    whilst a marriage ends with divorce, the corresponding label for Civil Partnership is dissolution;

·                    a Civil Partner may not rely on adultery to prove the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship when seeking a dissolution;

·                    the preliminary nullity or dissolution order is called a Conditional Order (in marriage cases, it is called Decree Nisi);

·                    the final order that ends the Civil Partnership is called a Dissolution Order (in marriage cases, it is called Decree Absolute).

Leaving aside these minor variations, the procedure for obtaining a dissolution is identical to that for obtaining a divorce.  The procedure for obtaining a financial order on dissolution is identical to that for obtaining one on divorce.