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. 

Going underground – When parents defy the court process

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a US international custody dispute.  That case involved a Virginian Amish-Mennonite pastor, who was sent to gaol for his part in abetting a parental child abduction.

The phenomenon is not unique to the US.  According to an article in Australia’s Courier-Mail on Tuesday, Church and domestic violence support groups there are actively helping parents breach court orders and go on the run with their children.  Those groups, the article reported, helped
recalcitrant parents operate under the radar and evade detection by the authorities.

One parent claimed a domestic violence group and others had helped a former spouse hide two children from the courts and police.  When six officers finally found the children - who had been missing for a month - they had been given new SIM cards for their phones and access to a number of different computers.  The parent who had illegally taken the children had limited funds at the time, so the implication was others were underwriting her financially.

The problems identified resonate with those we face here, too.  I’ve had a number of cases over the years which have required steps to be taken to find children taken by a parent in defiance of court orders.  For the most part, those steps have been successful.  Our courts are extremely sympathetic to requests for the disclosure of information to help locate missing children.  Any lawyer experienced in managing child abduction cases will know the classes of information that best pinpoint where and how parents seeking to evade detection are operating.

But I have had a small cohort of cases where even the most intensive efforts to find a missing child have not been successful.  Each of those has had the fingerprints on it of a network of supporters conspiring to help the abducting parent defy the court process.  Often family members are implicated, and in some instances punished, for their support – however well-intentioned – in helping a parent avoid detection.  This third party support is virtually inevitable:  it is neither easy nor cheap to run one’s life without leaving an information footprint of some description that can be used in the detection process.  These have been some of the most difficult and sad cases of my career.

 

Family law experts in Australia claim the problem there is compounded by the justice system being under-resourced.  The Courier-Mail article features comment from several sources to the effect that the issue is partly on account of courts not properly managing, and taking into account in their decisions, factors such as domestic violence or abuse.  Thus, it is claimed, parents have to take the law into their own hands. 

If those working in the Australian Family Justice System need an illustration of how underfunding fails children and families, they should have a word with me.  With the decimation of our Family Justice budget (with further swingeing cuts promised), and the all-but-in-name extinction of Legal Aid, most lawyers here agree that the service we are able to offer some of the most vulnerable is no longer fit for purpose. 

Rather pessimistically, I suspect we’ll see more and more cases of the type described above.  With parents increasingly denied effective access the court system, of course there will be the temptation to take the law into their own hands and go underground.  Some will do so with good reason, others will do so out of malice or spite.  If in the latter categories, under-resourcing represents a total failure of the left-behind parent. 

 

On either side of the equation, the individuals who will be most let-down will be the children affected. 

But we’re all in this together…

I’d like to hear what others think.  Can a parent ever be justified in going on the run with a child in defiance of court orders?  If yes, in what circumstances?  Likewise, is it ever justified for family members, churches, support groups and others to help parents in these situations evade detection and due process?  I’d also love to hear from parents who, having been through the court process and obtained an order, have nevertheless been denied a relationship with their child because the other parent has gone underground. 

Surrogacy arrangements: Who pays the piper?

In my native Australia, two women from Queensland are campaigning for surrogacy costs to be subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.

Melissa Delaware, 35, and Jillian Spears, 40, cannot bear children following their respective battles with cancer which required the removal of their uteruses.  They are each trying for a child using a surrogate mother.

The Australian publicly funded universal health care system is called Medicare.  It allows Australian citizens and permanent residents to receive subsidised treatment from medical practitioners, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals.  Medicare covers the lion’s share of the treatment fee, and patients then pay the balance. 

IVF is provided under Medicare, irrespective of the patient’s income, the number of cycles and whose genetic material is used.  However, Medicare does not presently cover any of the expenses incurred by a Commissioning Parent seeking to have a child through surrogacy.

The two women say this is discriminatory and are petitioning the Australian Federal Government to change the regulations.  Mrs Delaware said while babies born through surrogacy were recognised for tax purposes and paid parental leave, any treatment leading to their birth was not recognised by Medicare.

"Any other woman could do this four times for the same money we're spending on just one cycle," said Mrs Delaware.  "A woman without a uterus or the ability to carry a pregnancy for medical reasons is treated less favourably than other women who can."

Figures show a single cycle of IVF in Australia incurred out-of-pocket expenses of between AU$3,400 (£2,350) and AU$4800 (£3,300).  Mrs Delaware expects her costs to reach more than AU$50,000 (£34,400).

On top of these IVF costs, Commissioning Parents using surrogacy also face legal and counselling costs and their surrogate's health, insurance and travel costs.

Mrs Delaware estimated the average cost of legal surrogacy to be around AU$60,000, (£41,200). 

A spokesman for the Federal Health Minister said the Australian Government would consider the matter.

So much for the Australian angle – what about the situation here?  Well, as in Australia, surrogacy in the UK can be costly.  Whilst commercial surrogacy is illegal, it is perfectly proper – and common – for expenses to be paid to the surrogate.  The precise payment made varies, but tends to range from about £7,000 to £15,000.  There is no upper cap on the amount that may be paid, but an English Judge asked to make a Parental Order following a surrogacy arrangement is likely to need some persuading that expenses exceeding £15,000 were reasonable. 

It may appear cheaper to enter into a surrogacy arrangement overseas, but the costs associated with then dealing with some of the complications that such arrangements tend to bring may make this a false economy.  These include:

·                    the child’s nationality, if born abroad to a non-British / EU citizen;

·                    the child’s entry clearance – if not an EU national, he or she will need a visa to enter the UK;

·                    different approaches abroad to the commercialisation of surrogacy – in some countries, payments in addition to expenses are legal and required;

·                    the fact that a surrogacy arrangement might be enforceable abroad but not in the UK, and

·                    differences between countries about who is treated as a surrogate child’s legal parents.

On top of the costs payable to the surrogate, if the surrogacy is performed at a HFEA-licensed clinic, there will be additional fees for the IVF procedure – between £15,000 and £20,000. 

Last, there potentially are the legal fees associated with obtaining a Parental Order, which I considered in a recent blog.

It might be possible for some of the costs associated with the IVF procedure to be met by the NHS.  However, the provision of IVF treatment varies across the country.  It often depends on local policies.  Priority is often given to childless couples.  In many areas Primary Care Trusts (PCT) refuse to fund surrogacy-IVF because the resulting embryo will be implanted in the womb of a surrogate.  Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that where the reason for infertility is known, patients should be fast-tracked for NHS-funded IVF treatment.  However, the Guidance goes on to exclude surrogacy from its remit. 

Following a trawl through Google, I’ve not been able to find any private health care insurance that would cover the costs of IVF treatment (although most will fund investigations into the underlying causes behind an inability to become pregnant).

At present, much as in Australia, there is no entitlement to look to the NHS for a contribution to the surrogacy expenses. 

The commercial reality is that many Commissioning Parents here have to save or borrow (either through personal loans or by mortgaging property) to meet both treatment costs and surrogacy expenses.  Another common option is to rely on credit cards.

Should we be more ready here to fund the IVF procedures associated with surrogacy arrangements on the NHS?  There is force behind the line taken by Mesdames Delaware and Spears in Australia, namely that treating women (and the funding of their IVF) unable to carry a child for medical reasons differently is inherently discriminatory. 

To those who have been through the surrogacy experience, I’d love to hear:

·                    who your PCT was, and their attitude towards NHS funding of the IVF, and

·                    what arrangements you had to make to fund the process. 

New Indian surrogacy law risks making children stateless

Indian children born through surrogacy risk being left stateless following a legal change. 

So reported a number of sources in Australia early this week.  India has been for some time a popular destination for prospective parents from Australia, the UK and elsewhere who seek to have a child through surrogacy.

Shortly before Christmas 2012, the Indian government – with little consultation or notice – banned foreign gay couples, unmarried heterosexual couples and single individuals from entering into surrogacy arrangements with Indian mothers.

Now, those seeking to have a child via surrogacy with the help of an Indian woman require a medical visa.  The Indian government has said it will only issue such a visa to a man and a woman who have been married for at least two years.

The sudden change has left many expectant parents awaiting the birth of their babies in breach of Indian law.

Some surrogate children, when born, will not be entitled to Indian citizenship, and may not be entitled to citizenship of the countries where the commissioning parents live.  They may therefore be prevented from travelling abroad and find themselves stranded in India with a surrogate mother who may have no ability or resources (or even desire) to care for them. 

The Australian coverage includes personal accounts of the anguish the change has brought.  One such story is that of Paul Taylor-Burn and his partner, Josh, who live in Perth, Western Australia.

"When we went [to India] in July, we were under the impression that everything was absolutely fine.  You [could] enter into this as a gay man with absolutely no restrictions on what we were doing," Mr Taylor-Burn said.

They now find themselves operating outside Indian law.

Mr Taylor-Burn:  "We know that we don't meet the new criteria. We know our contracts have been signed after the cut-off date, but we don't really know what's going to happen."

"I think the biggest worry is really: what's going to happen when we get there? Are the babies going to actually get their visas to exit the country?  What can happen?  Is there any possibility of the babies not being able to leave?  Are we potentially going to be prosecuted?"

Ironically, the recent change was in part motivated by cases where surrogate babies born to gay parents were unable to leave India because countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan refused to grant the children citizenship.

So, in addressing this limited cohort of cases, the Indian government has potentially consigned many more children to the unhappy fate of not being citizens or subjects of any country.  Those children will accordingly be denied the protection of any government. 

Attempting to justify the change, Dr Ranjana Kumari from India’s Centre for Social Research said the law was put in place for the safety of the children.

"There have been reports of gay couples coming and taking children.  There have been reports of single parents coming and taking children," she said.

"[It's] for the safety and security of these children that the government doesn't want to be held responsible for, and especially India doesn't want to be held responsible for whatever happens to these children later in some time.

"You see, one has to understand that there are various possibilities. The possibility is that a child is produced like that who's loved by the parents and parents really want their own children, so they want to have this child.

"[The] other possibility could be that these children are misused. They are sold in the market - their organs are sold in the market. Who knows? I'm just talking about a very, very bad scenario, but it is possible."

This rather curious attempt at rationalisation seems to proceed from the logical fallacy that there is a qualitative difference between married heterosexuals seeking to have a child via surrogacy, as against a gay couple or cohabitants.

Whilst reported as an Australian-centric issue, the ramifications of the change to Indian surrogacy law are far-reaching.  India has long been a popular destination for UK-resident parents who seek to have a child through surrogacy.  Many of the issues affecting those like Mr Taylor-Burn and his partner will impact on expectant commissioning parents here.

Surrogacy has always involved complicated legal issues, and international surrogacy all the more so.  As the Indian situation reminds us, the legal framework continues to evolve, both here and abroad. 

Those considering surrogacy – whether as commissioning parents or surrogates – should seek specialist advice as early in the process as possible.  If there are potential problems with a surrogacy arrangement, early identification and management will help ensure a positive outcome. 

Men yearning to become single-parent fathers

Jake Docker and his three week old twin daughters Pippa and Millie

According to a report last weekend in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, a growing number of Australian men are becoming single fathers via overseas surrogates. 

Support group, Surrogacy Australia, said single men were longing to be fathers.  They were not deterred by a commercial surrogacy ban introduced in New South Wales in 2010.

The report featured the story of Jake Docker, 27.  Jake had just recently brought home his three-week-old twin daughters Pippa and Millie, born to an Indian surrogate in early January.

Said Jake:  "I just wanted to be a dad as long as I could remember… It was now or never, go it alone or don't do it at all, so I only just scraped in.”.

Mr Docker, who is gay, said there was no other way for him to pursue fatherhood in Australia.

Hundreds of Australian couples - gay and heterosexual - and single men have opted for Indian surrogates because they are a quarter of the price of an American surrogate, which can cost up to AU$200,000.

Surrogacy Australia spokesman Sam Everingham said: "We are seeing hundreds of men lining up for surrogacy overseas, some are gay, some are heterosexual but I've been amazed by the number of single men walking through our doors. They are taking on the responsibility of having a kid on their own, but women have done it for decades."

What is the situation in England and Wales?  Well, the law does not prohibit single people of either gender pursuing surrogacy.  However, they cannot then seek a Parental Order under the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008; that route is only open to a couple who are married or in a civil partnership, or who are living in an “enduring relationship”.  So, single people who have a child through surrogacy need to look to other mechanisms to ensure they are legally recognised as the parent or carer for their child.  The most obvious alternative is adoption proceedings, which themselves may be protracted and difficult.  

It seems anachronistic that a single person is entitled to adopt a child, but cannot be recognised as a parent.  This makes surrogacy unavailable as a route by which a single person may fulfil a yearning to have a child.  This differing approach based upon the relationship status of the individuals concerned cannot be justified, and must be reconsidered.