The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSame-sex adoption: One adoptive mother's perspective
by Heidi Schlumpf on Sep. 02, 2011
I was on vacation this summer when the news broke about Catholic Charities in Illinois losing state contracts over the agency’s refusal to place adoptive children with same-sex couples. But that doesn’t mean I wasn’t following the story. As an adoptive mother, I have a few insights into the process, having spent five years adopting our two children.
What I learned is that choosing an adoption agency can be one of the most important decisions prospective adoptive parents make. Some make their choice based on the agency’s location, fees or something as random as it coming up first in a Google search. Likely, they learned about it through a personal referral. But often, prospective adoptive parents put quite a bit of thought into choosing an agency. I, for one, had a spreadsheet of dozens of agencies with criteria that included services, cost and estimated wait times.
Whether an agency had a religious background was not only unimportant, it made an agency suspect for us. Often religiously-based agencies came with additional requirements, such as proof of religious belief or church attendance, or with the baggage of proselytizing or problematic adoption attitudes (“Save a heathen orphan!”) Given the Catholic Church's sometimes unfair, but often deserved, reputation for being judgmental, Catholic Charities is probably avoided by a number of prospective adoptive families, besides the same-sex couples who would be automatically rejected.
Adopting can be very difficult, as I chronicled in my book While We Wait: Spiritual and Practical Advice for Those Trying to Adopt. Every aspect of your life is scrutinized by social workers, physicians, adoption agencies and governments—in more than one country if you adopt internationally. Some believe that adoption should be easier, not to mention less expensive. I don’t disagree.
But it’s also true that no one has the “right” to adopt—gay or straight. Today birthmothers have the right to choose the parents of their children, and countries and agencies have the right to exclude individuals and groups of folks from the pools of prospective adoptive parents. Most countries have age restrictions; Korea even has weight restrictions. Of course, a number of countries do not allow single parents or same-sex couples to adopt.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
The State of Illinois, however, does not have such limitations. And I am grateful for such openness in my home state, especially as I witness the generosity and love of so many gay and lesbian couples who welcome children of color, older children and sibling groups who can be more difficult to place for adoption.
I'm know Catholic Charities does lots of great work, including adoption-related services. They're wrong, however, on this issue.
Edit: Just to clarify, thanks to a question in comments, I am a heterosexual, married women, who happens to care about the fate of adopted and foster children, as well as the rights of gay and lesbian people.
Although I respect your
Although I respect your perspective, I think that it's important to realize that Catholic Charities does more than just adoptions. Most of these agencies have quite large foster care reunification programs. If the court system decides that reunification is not in the best interests of the child, then the agency looks for an adoptive placement, families first, and then the public. Shutting these programs down would mean that thousands of children would be put through the grueling transition process and most likely receive new caseworkers. Many of these children have had the same caseworker for over a year. Many of these children consider their caseworker to be the only stable part of their life thus far. While DCFS talks of a "seamless transition," this is simply not the way that DCFS works. Re-traumatizing children who have already been traumatized for political reasons is, in my opinion, grossly inappropriate and an abuse of state power. In addition, there are likely few same-sex couples that would even look to Catholic agencies for adoption purposes. The real question is: Should the state allow CC to respectfully refer the small sample of same-sex couples that contacted CC for adoption purposes to other agencies or unnecessarily disrupt the lives of thousands of already traumatized children? Since DCFS spokesperson, Kendall Marlowe, has had so much to say in the recent weeks concerning this subject, I would like Marlowe to answer this question for me please.
In the story I linked to
In the story I linked to above, it mentions that the transition was seamless in Rockford:
"Penny Wiegert, diocesan spokesperson, said in an earlier interview with NCR that the Youth Service Bureau of Illinois Valley hired all of the former Catholic Charities caseworkers, assumed leases on many of the buildings used in the 11-county area served and is handling the approximately 350 foster family and adoption cases previously handled by the church."
In another article, a DCFS
In another article, a DCFS spokesperson states that this would not be possible in rural areas that encompass most of middle and southern Illinois. In addition, I feel that it infringes on those caseworker's individual rights to CHOOSE where they would like work as opposed to the state imposing on them where they will work. This, in itself, may cause some caseworkers to pull out of the child welfare system so that they can actually choose which agency they work for. In order to be a successful caseworker, several factors must be in place (limited caseloads, family friendly environment, decent benefits, etc). On the whole, CC supplies these factors, while some other agencies may not. Foster care caseworkers must go through a lengthy DCFS training prior to working in the field. If multiple caseworkers choose to not transition to less hospitable agencies, new caseworkers will need to be hired and trained. In the meantime, existing workers will be overloaded with cases which will undoubtedly leave wards of the state vulnerable. While I personally believe in gay rights, I also believe in that the rights of children need to be tended to first.
The other side of the
The other side of the question is this: Should Catholic Charities give up helping children over this? There is a point at which what is given up is too great. The choice being made is to help no child if there is a chance that Catholic Charities may place a child with a gay couple. Even though that child is just as likely to end up with a gay couple now if Catholic Charities refers the gay couple to another agency. This isn't making a difference in the world. It is splitting hairs. Not helping any children is definitely refusing to make a difference in the world.
There would be some ground to stand on if there were any data to say that children placed with gay couples don't do as well as children placed with straight couples. And, in fact, the only studies that have been done show that kids do just as well with gay couples as with straight couples. It isn't about male and female households; it is about loving households.
Of course, I think the Church is mistaken in opposing equal treatment of gay people in a democracy founded on the ideals of equality. If we can legitimately discriminate against gays because of some faith belief, the U.S. can discriminate against Catholics if enough protestants think that is the way it should be. Or Latter Day Saints, or Muslims, or Hindus, or some other group, like slaves and women, who are now or used to be discriminated against.
I know my views are hopelessly secular. But I also think we are still trying to find the lines between where faith takes us and where democracy takes us.
People who consider it
People who consider it important to protect children from being placed in the custody of same-sex couples should not be excluded from playing any role in the child welfare process,and only same-sex couples intent on gaining custody of children,not children,gain from those people being excluded from that process.That people with no such scruples are also part of the process does not mean they should have a monopoly on it.
The title of Heidi Schlumpf's
The title of Heidi Schlumpf's article here strongly suggests that her book (see above, and use its link) deals prominently or primarily with same sex adoptions. Perhaps much in her book (describing the range of considerations and hurdles that she and her husband went through in adopting their children) might be of use even to same-sex couples, but I believe her book was not primarily for same-sex couples considering adopting. Yet that seems to be what the title of this article suggests.
(I wonnder whether Heidi drafted the title to this article.)
One of the anonymous comment writers mentions how a "seemless" transition from one adoption agency to another is going to be, since the childrens' case workers are going from one agency to another. This of course is focusing on one aspect of the adoptive process.
So many sexual orientation issues are coming to stage center at the same time. We have started to come to grips with discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere on the basis of sexual orientation. And the issue of whether some kind of legal (not necessarily religious) acknowledgement of gay/lesbian permanent public commitment to one another (call it marriage or othewise) with benefits that include employers' provision of spousal benefits to the employee's partner) is making its rounds among the states. And we are hearing the debate on the issue of adoption (dare I mention, the obvious: of children) by same sex couples.
I am in favor of barring discrimination anywhere based on sexual orientation: how one person gravitates sexually towards persons of one gender or the other. And same sex unions (call them marriages if you wish: the state has stepped into the marriage game since the early or mid-19th century, when the governments began licensing marriages).
But when we get into the adoption area, I seriously worry. Yes, adoption by single persons seems acceptable, provided that the agency looks into how the lone parent is going to cope, and [read all caps here:] whether the child will have a good chance. But I know that I am already setting myself up for the next problem, the problem at hand.
Whether the single adopting parent is "straight" or "gay" is an issue neatly avoided (when the single person in my understanding, expressed so simply above, approaches the adoption process). Yet a single person, once adoption has occurred, will have friends. Are single gay/lesbian persons to be barred from adoption? If same-sex couples are to be barred from adoption (generally or by some agencies), it is rather "logical" to exclude single gay/lesbian persons from adopting.
This area of current debate focuses, seemingly as a matter of logical course, on the rights of adults who are considering adoption (again, I add, of children).
All that I have read and understand at this point of my life (recently having passed another annual lap) tells me that we have to put the brakes on. We simply are not looking at the children. Not looking enough. I admit that I do not bow obediently before bishops as they pronounce or scoff about sexual matters, starting with Paul VI's rejection of Catholic theologians' recommendations on birth control, and other bishops' minimization of priests' sexual abuse of minors. But the adoption of children is not about the bishops. It is about the future of individual children.
There probably have been enough instances by now of children, having been adopted, living in homes with one or two gay or lesbian parents. Enough for studies to be conducted as to how the children have done. (I have a background in the social sciences, and am aware that everyone including corporations can do studies, and have the studies say what they want.) Nevertheless, we need to see the results of well-conducted studies.
The results of these studies must come after sufficient time. If we are talking ten or twenty years from now, it will not be on my watch. So I say that this is the conclusion I can offer:
I am opposed to the adoption of any child by gay or lesbian parents. Why make life any more difficult for a child? Is it okay to say, life will be difficult and what's one more problem in the mix of things? I also know that I remain ambiguous about a single gay or lesbian adopting. The thing is, we know and enjoy several gay/lesbian friends. But we do not know anyone who was raised by a gay or lesbian parent, or gay or lesbian parents: not a one. We need to find enough of them and start to debate the tentative conclusions. Let's not do this on any a priori basis (God prohibits gay/lesbian adoptions), and not on the basis of inherently flawed constitutional arguments (that gays/lesbians have the right to adopt).
Vincent (now a grandfather for the second time)
Vincent, Thank you for your
Vincent,
Thank you for your comments. I apologize for any confusion about my own sexual orientation or the focus of my book. I sometimes forget that readers of these blog posts may have not read my previous posts (in which I regularly mention my husband, for example). I am a heterosexual, married adoptive mother who cares about adopted and foster children, but who also cares about the rights of gay and lesbian people. I tried to be inclusive in my book, but it contains many of my own stories, which of course are from the perspective of a heterosexual person.
Two quick comments:
To your question: "If same-sex couples are to be barred from adoption (generally or by some agencies), it is rather "logical" to exclude single gay/lesbian persons from adopting." Yes, many agencies and countries already do that. In fact, some countries do not allow adoption by any single folks in an effort to avoid any placement with gay or lesbian people. Other countries allow adoption by single women, but not men, with the assumption that more single men adopting would be gay than single women.
And, yes, there has been research about children raised by same-sex families, most of which points to no increase in problems. In fact, any problems that children in these families do face would surely be lessened if discrimination against their parents was eliminated!
Finally, congratulations to you on your second grandchild!
just saw this on amazon: The
just saw this on amazon:
The economy is so bad that Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America.
Post new comment