Lesbian and gay foster care and adoption A brief UK history

Stephen Hicks presents a history of foster care Council/Children, Families & Social Care, 2004). and adoption by lesbians and gay men in the UK Fostering law and policy in England, since 1988. He reviews key research, policy, law and Wales and now operate debates about lesbian and gay carers and discusses an equality position that rejects discrimi- key changes and developments in this field of nation on the basis of an applicant’s practice. The article discusses a number of common sexuality (National Foster Care Associa- tion, 1999a, 1999b; Department of Health, arguments that surface in debates about this topic, 2002). In Scotland, however, unrelated, including the idea that the children of lesbians and unmarried adults of the same sex who live gay men will suffer psychosocial damage or develop together cannot foster due to the Fostering problematic gender and sexual identity. In addition, of Children (Scotland) Regulations 1996. the author critiques the notion that children do best Adoption in England and Wales is gover- in ‘natural’ two-parent, heterosexual families and that ned by national standards (Department of Health, 2001) and by the Adoption and lesbian or gay carers should not be considered or Children Act 2002. This Act allows should be used only as a ‘last resort’. Although the unmarried couples, including lesbians and number of approved lesbian and gay carers has gay men, to adopt jointly. In Northern been increasing and there has been a range of Ireland and in Scotland, however, only positive changes in this field, it is argued that a married couples are able jointly to adopt. Although some of these changes can series of homophobic ideas remain a key feature of be regarded as positive, the story of this debate. The article asks how much things have lesbian and gay foster care and adoption changed since 1988 and what social work can do to in the UK is not a straightforwardly suc- contribute to an anti-homophobic practice. cessful one. There has been, and contin- ues to be, evidence that some lesbian and gay applicants are rejected outright on the basis of their sexuality (Hicks and Stephen Hicks is a Introduction McDermott, 1999) and it is also clear that Senior Lecturer in The adoption or fostering of children by right-wing moral opposition to all forms Community, Health lesbians and gay men is now firmly estab- of gay parenting (Morgan, 2002) has Sciences & Social Care at the Univer- lished in some regions of the UK. Several influenced debates such as those which sity of Salford. He local authorities have a small number of took place in the Houses of Parliament is also a link foster approved lesbian or gay carers on their over the Adoption and Children Act 2002. carer and Chair of books, and the total number of lesbians In addition, there are still hostile press the Northern Sup- port Group for and gay men caring for fostered or adop- reports that suggest gay or lesbian carers lesbian and gay ted children has been gradually rising are exploiting children, making a ‘mock- foster carers and since the 1980s. Although the actual ery’ of family life or are unable to provide adopters. number of such carers is not known, there children with correct gender and sexual are now at least two national support identity roles. The Daily Express piece, Key words: lesbians, gay men, foster care, groups in the UK and a growing body of ‘Scandal of the Gay Dads: how could adoption, sexuality, autobiographical evidence from lesbian couple be allowed to adopt three little social work and gay foster and adoptive parents and children?’, for example, was a front-page their children (Hicks and McDermott, headline story (Baron, 2004). 1999; Saffron, 2001; Alderson, 2004). In Finally, even where lesbians and gay addition, some UK agencies are begin- men are accepted as potential foster carers ning to openly address this area of prac- or adopters, they will still encounter a tice and issue guidance for social workers whole range of heteronormative ideas. (Romaine/BAAF, 2003; Manchester City ‘Heteronormativity’ has been defined

42 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 as a situation in which heterosexuality is lesbian and gay foster care and adoption taken to be: in the UK. I intend to ask how things have changed, whether they have changed for the elemental form of human association, the better and, crucially, whether they as the very model of inter-gender rela- have changed much at all, taking the year tions, as the indivisible basis of all com- 1988 as my starting point. This is a brief munity, and as the means of reproduction history, not a straightforward ‘factual’ without which society wouldn’t exist. history but rather a history of ideas, (Warner, 1993, p xxi) practices and events. There are many others who would probably write a very These ideas manifest themselves in and different version and I hope to provoke through the practices of fostering and further debate about this important but adoption work. This means that lesbian little researched topic. and gay applicants’ assessments are far from straightforward, there may be A history of lesbian and gay foster care problems at panel level and they may face and adoption in the UK since 1988 lengthy delays in waiting for children to be placed. Much of this is because The late 1980s notions of family, kinship and parenting The year 1988 was something of a ‘water- are governed by a dominant and hetero- shed’ in the UK history of lesbian and gay normative account that insists upon the foster care and adoption for a number of superior ‘nature’ of the two-parent, reasons. Although a few lesbians and gay heterosexual model. men had been successful in their fostering I have been researching lesbian and or adoption applications, many of them gay foster care and adoption since 1991 had not ‘come out’ about their sexuality when, while studying for a Diploma and and so the practice was largely hidden Masters in Social Work, I first contacted from view (see, for example, Brennan, and met with members of the Lesbian & 1994). In 1988, however, Skeates and Gay Foster & Adoptive Parents Network Jabri produced their report on fostering (LAGFAPN). At that time, my interest in and adoption by lesbians and gay men, the debate had been sparked by my read- the first ever UK publication to deal with ing of Jane Skeates and Dorian Jabri’s this issue (Skeates and Jabri, 1988). pioneering publication (Skeates and Jabri, In brief, Skeates and Jabri argued that 1988), by Pratibha Parmar’s important opposition to lesbian and gay foster care short film for the Channel 4 ‘Out on and adoption was founded upon a number Tuesday’ series (Parmar, 1989) and also of stereotypical and discriminatory by my involvement in challenging assumptions. They suggested that, for paragraph 16 of the consultation paper on many, the categories ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’ family placement practice under the were associated with gender deviance and Children Act 1989, which had stated that the idea that children would be subject to ‘ “equal rights” and “gay rights” policies various forms of social-psychological have no place in fostering services’ trauma and abuse. Skeates and Jabri (Department of Health, 1990, para 16). opposed such ideas by challenging the I went on to co-organise a national assumptions behind them and by quoting conference for lesbian and gay carers in Metropolitan Police figures on the sexual Manchester in 1994, was a founder assault of children which showed that ‘96 member of the Northern Support Group per cent of all such attacks are perpetra- established that same year and subse- ted by heterosexual men against children quently became a link foster carer. In within their own households’ (Skeates and addition, I have written a number of Jabri, 1988, p 23). Nevertheless, they also pieces based upon my own research in suggested that such discriminatory ideas this field (Hicks, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, about lesbians and gay men were present 2000, 2003, 2005a, b, c; Hicks and within social welfare organisations. This McDermott, 1999). Here, then, I wish to was responsible for the outright rejection give an account of the recent history of of many fostering and adoption applicants

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 43 on the basis of their sexuality alone. cies nervous about such carers, but also The small group of lesbian and gay allowed the justification of homophobic respondents who featured in the study ideas and practices among those social comprised 11 white and two black people, workers and others who were already none of whom were disabled. Most of the opposed to gay parenting. individuals were ‘out’ as gay or lesbian Nevertheless, part of the response to when they applied but three were not. among lesbians and gay men Skeates and Jabri found that those who who were interested in foster care or were open about their sexuality did not adoption was a coming together to cam- receive positive responses from agencies paign on this issue and to support one in the main and most respondents another. Late 1988 saw the formation of reported some prejudicial attitudes. Of the national Lesbian & Gay Foster & those who had been successful, a dispro- Adoptive Parents Network (LAGFAPN), portionate number had been allocated a based in , which organised the disabled child (Skeates and Jabri, 1988, first conference for such carers in 1989 p 56). This was seen by some as sending (Clarke, 1991). LAGFAPN was estab- out the message of ‘second-class children lished in order that lesbians and gay men for second-class carers’ (Parmar, 1989). interested in fostering or adopting could The London boroughs in Skeates and support one another, but also to campaign Jabri’s study reported on attempts to for the right to be treated fairly and develop equal opportunities policies for openly by social welfare agencies and lesbians and gay men, but there were just others. Some LAGFAPN members had two known lesbian carers on their books been directly involved in the production in total. Finally, the authors argued for the of the Skeates and Jabri report and also equal treatment of all foster care and adop- participated in Pratibha Parmar’s ground- tion applicants and for challenging the breaking film (Parmar, 1989). discrimination faced by lesbians and gay Parmar’s film featured Dorian Jabri men (Skeates and Jabri, 1988, pp 74–5). stating that, although lesbian and gay Although Skeates and Jabri’s report foster care and adoption had been going was a positive intervention into the de- on for some time, the issue of sexuality bate, 1988 was also the year that Section was often hidden or denied, a position of 28 of the Local Government Act 1987/88 ‘tacit acceptance’. Jon Elderton and Don was made law in the UK, remaining on Smart talked about the kinds of ‘institu- the statute in Scotland until 2000 and in tional prejudice’ they had faced as gay England and Wales until 2003. This piece men in being rejected by some agencies, of legislation was instituted by Margaret and overall the film argued for the right Thatcher’s Conservative Government and of lesbian and gay applicants to be it stated that local authorities should not assessed like anyone else. Professor ‘promote the teaching in any maintained Derek Russell Davies at Bristol Univer- school of the acceptability of homosex- sity dismissed the myth that lesbians or uality as a pretended family relationship’ gay men would be likely to sexually abuse (Smith, 1994, p 183). children. Judith Weeks and Pat Romans, a Section 28 was the first time in UK lesbian couple who had cared for over 50 law that lesbian and gay families had children since the early 1970s, reported been specifically mentioned. Their being that they had been expected to take mainly labelled ‘pretend’ rather than ‘real’ was disabled children and they repeated the an attempt to legalise discrimination assertion that they felt like ‘second-class against such families, but it also had the carers for second-class kids’. Like the reverse effect of galvanising many les- Skeates and Jabri report, the film noted bians and gay men, including parents, to there were very few black lesbian or gay ‘come out’ openly and join public demon- applicants coming forward, and this was strations and other efforts to oppose the seen as due to institutional racism as well Section. This was a difficult time in the as homophobia. Babs, the birth mother of history of lesbian and gay foster care and Eddie, also talked very positively in the adoption as Section 28 made many agen- film about the respite care provided to her

44 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 by Marion and Sylvia, a lesbian couple. and ‘gay rights’ policies have no place in Finally the film made the point that fostering services. (Department of Health, lesbian and gay foster carers and adopters 1990, para 16) should be able and supported to declare their sexuality openly in the future. Many lesbian, gay and childcare organi- sations and individuals protested against The early 1990s paragraph 16, and the ‘gay rights’ phrase During the early 1990s, lesbians and gay was eventually removed from the subse- men who were interested or involved in quent published guidance on family foster care or adoption reported a very placement (Department of Health, 1991). different set of concerns from those of However, the ‘chosen way of life’ state- today. Many did not, or had not, come out ment remained and continued to allow as openly gay or lesbian when approach- some social workers to interpret a lesbian ing agencies because there was a great or gay sexuality as inappropriate for fear that they would be rejected on the foster care (Hicks, 1998). basis of their sexuality (Hicks, 1993, It was at the time of paragraph 16 that 1996). There was also a justifiable fear of the Positive Parenting Campaign was media exposure or intrusion as some gay established in Manchester. Positive carers had been hounded by the press Parenting was set up to support and (Hicks and McDermott, 1999). In addi- campaign on behalf of lesbian and gay tion, articles such as the Sunday Express foster carers and adopters, and the exposé, ‘Stop This Outrage’, argued that organisation went on to work alongside children were ‘being handed over to local authorities, particularly Manchester homosexual couples . . . despite expert City Council, to provide training and advice that the youngsters may grow up advice on these issues. Examples of to become sexually deviant themselves’ Positive Parenting’s work during the (Sunday Express, 1990, p 1). 1990s included television appearances Lesbians and gay men who had been such as the BBC’s ‘Heart of the Matter’ successful in gaining approval from series, working with Manchester to agencies also reported that they did not produce a leaflet welcoming applications have children placed with them, were by lesbians and gay men, providing expected to take disabled children or to training for social workers and organising provide only short-term fostering and a national conference and open evenings. respite care (Hicks, 1993, 1996). Adop- The early 1990s also saw the publica- tion was rare at this time, although there tion of some important articles relating to were occasional examples, and this was lesbian and gay foster care and adoption. largely because agencies were far less Helen Cosis Brown published two papers likely to consider placing younger child- in this journal that examined ways in ren with lesbians or gay men or because which social workers could go about their panels refused to consider such assessing lesbian and gay applicants both applications (Hicks, 1998). thoroughly and fairly (Brown, 1991, In 1990, the Government published a 1992). She argued that many social consultation paper on family placement workers felt particularly anxious about under the Children Act 1989 (Department working with lesbian and gay carers, of Health, 1990). In relation to foster sometimes because management did not care, this paper specifically addressed support them or because they were aware sexuality but argued that it would be: of wider antagonism expressed about this topic, but also because some did not wrong arbitrarily to exclude any particu- themselves support the ‘rights’ of lesbians lar groups of people from consideration. and gay men to be considered. But the chosen way of life of some adults Brown argued that the rights of child- may mean that they would not be able to ren to good-quality placements and the provide a suitable environment for the rights of lesbians and gay men to be fairly care and nurture of a child. No one has a assessed and considered were not incom- ‘right’ to be a foster parent. ‘Equal rights’ patible because many lesbians and gay

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 45 men were indeed capable of proving “normal” families are best’ (Clarke, 1991, excellent foster or adoptive homes. How- p 16). Community Care also ran a debate ever, Brown also pointed out that social between Richard Whitfield, the Chair of workers needed to become more aware of the National Family Trust, and Don the stigmatisation of lesbians and gay Smart, a gay foster carer. Whitfield men, and to avail themselves of relevant suggested that consideration of lesbian or research that demonstrated gay parenting gay carers actually promoted an adult did not have adverse effects upon child ‘cause’ over ‘children’s rights to and development (for example, Golombok et psychosocial need for both a father and a al, 1983). Brown therefore noted that mother’ and he went on to make the case there should be no reason ‘to exclude a that children have a ‘natural’ need for potential group of carers on the grounds ‘role models from each gender’ within the of their sexual orientation’ (Brown, 1991, home. For this reason – one that I will p 15). later discuss in terms of the very limiting She went on to advise social workers views of gender and ‘gender-acquisition’ to avoid stereotypes about lesbians and it presents – Whitfield argued that discri- gay men, be those either negative or mination against lesbian and gay carer indeed positive, and outlined a number of applicants was ‘entirely appropriate’ important areas that any assessment of a (Whitfield, 1991, p 16). It is interesting to lesbian or gay applicant ought to consider note two ‘classic’ objections in Whitfield’s (Brown, 1991, p 16). Brown emphasised argument: he suggested that gay parenting that lesbians and gay men should be represented an adult and political ‘cause’ offered a fair but adequate assessment, whereas two-parent, heterosexual parent- and she made the important point that: ing was ‘natural’, and he also inferred that lesbians and gay men would transmit no adult rights – whosoever they are – inappropriate gender and sexual identity have a place in fostering and adop- roles to children. tion ... children have the right to good Don Smart’s reply argued that discrim- placements – adults do not have the right ination on the basis of sexuality alone to those children. (Brown, 1991, p 13) was unfair and that carers should be judged on their ability to meet the stated In a later piece, she also made the point needs of children. Don and his partner, that ‘the subjects of gender, sex and Jon, had cared for a boy with Down’s sexuality need to be firmly and perman- Syndrome but their subsequent adoption ently placed within the assessment pro- applications were turned down by various cess’ for all applicants, not just lesbians agencies. They were also expected to or gay men (Brown, 1992, p 30). These undergo psychiatric testing, something were important articles because some which heterosexual applicants did not social workers had felt they could not ask have to do. Jon commented: lesbian or gay applicants questions about sexual identity or sexuality for fear of People say that we would make good being seen as ‘discriminatory’. Brown’s parents but we are not given the chance work provided areas to think about when to try. How come? (Smart, 1991, p 17) assessing lesbians and gay men, but also required social workers to think through In 1992, LAGFAPN sent out a question- the ways that they assessed sexual and naire to its members asking them about gender identities with all applicants. their experiences. This was written up as The debate about the suitability of gay an advice sheet for lesbians and gay men or lesbian carers also surfaced in the and was sent out to enquirers by the social work press of the time. Janet National Foster Care Association Clarke’s piece argued that lesbians and (NFCA). Looking back at this leaflet now, gay men were ‘an enormous pool of it is interesting to note the concerns of potential resources for fostering and lesbian and gay carers in 1992/93. adoption’ but that social work agencies Although all recommended being open were operating ‘with the notion that really about sexuality from the start, they also

46 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 advised ‘shopping around’ to find circumstances where adoption by a single agencies that were receptive to lesbian person may be sensible’ (Department of and gay applicants. Many felt that they Health et al, 1993, p 9). This recommend- had to educate their own social workers ation upheld the position under the on lesbian and gay lives and also advised Adoption Act 1976 that lesbians and gay others not to let sexuality dominate the men were able to adopt but only as ‘single assessment to the exclusion of all else. At people’ in the eyes of the law. It also that time there were still very few gay or reinforced the view that lesbian and gay lesbian adopters and most respondents placements should be used only as a last felt that longer-term and permanent resort (Hicks, 1996). However, the adop- placements were rarely sanctioned. Most tion White Paper did not progress any recommended joining a support group, if further due to the prioritisation of other possible, as many had experienced their issues and the eventual change in application as a long and drawn-out government. process. While this may be true of many The second national conference for foster care and adoption applications, lesbian and gay foster carers and adopters lesbians and gay men felt that their took place in 1994 in Manchester and it sexuality caused additional delay was from this event that the Northern (LAGFAPN, no date/1993). Support Group (covering Greater Man- chester, Merseyside, Lancashire, York- The mid-1990s shire and around) was established. This The year 1992 also saw the Conservative group was established partly because the Government publish a consultation paper numbers of lesbians and gay men in- on adoption law which argued that: volved in foster care and adoption was growing, but was also a response to the The security and stability which adopted need for regional groups outside of children need are still more likely to be London. During that same year, however, provided by parents who have made a it was reported in the national press that publicly recognised commitment to their The Children’s Society was operating a relationship and who have legal responsi- policy that rejected all applications by bilities towards each other. gay or lesbian foster carers (Pilkington, 1994). Gay and lesbian workers within However, it did not: The Children’s Society had decided to participate in a press leak in order to propose any changes to the law relating expose and challenge this policy, and to single applicants, including lesbians some even left the organisation in protest and gay men. There are examples of (Pallot, 1994). The Children’s Society did extremely successful adoptions, particu- eventually reconsider this policy in favour larly of older children and children with of equality of opportunity for all applic- disabilities, by single adopters. (Depart- ants but this did not happen until 1999. ment of Health and Welsh Office, 1992, In 1996, the Positive Parenting pp 49–50) Campaign held a national conference on lesbian and gay foster care and adoption The Junior Health Minister, Tim Yeo, for social workers and other social repeated the arguments used previously in welfare agencies at Manchester Town relation to fostering, saying that ‘. . . Hall. At about this time, I also published equal rights and gay rights have no place two articles, based upon an analysis of whatsoever in adoption work’ (Commun- interviews carried out with lesbian and ity Care, 1993, p 2). The subsequent gay applicants, which reported rejection White Paper made no recommendations or discriminatory statements about to change the law regarding sexuality and sexuality by social work agencies (Hicks, adoption, but issued ‘a strong presump- 1996, 1997). Applicants felt that the tion in favour of adoption by married assessing social workers knew very little couples’, with the proviso that there might about lesbian or gay lives or, in some be ‘a small number of other exceptional cases, avoided discussion of their sexual-

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 47 ity altogether. Social workers were con- surest foundation for raising children and cerned about the gender role models that remains the choice of the majority of lesbians or gay men would provide and, in people in Britain’ (Home Office, 1998, some cases, there was a suspicion that gay p 4). In my view, this is one example of men, in particular, might sexually abuse the ways in which ‘New Labour’ promo- children (Hicks, 1996). Overall, lesbian ted a dominant discourse that supported and gay applications were subject to heteronormative ideas about the family tougher forms of scrutiny than others, but also introduced a range of other something that was confirmed in other measures which expanded the possibili- research of the time. In the US, for ties for lesbian and gay parenting. Such example, lesbian and gay applicants were contradictory messages were also a ‘scrutinised more carefully and . . . held feature of the 1980s (Brown, 1998) and to a higher standard than . . . their remain central to this debate today. heterosexual counterparts’ (Ricketts and Members of the Positive Parenting Achtenberg, 1990, p 104). Campaign, LAGFAPN and the Northern I argued that there was no basis for the Support Group came together during the idea that a lesbian or gay sexuality posed mid-1990s to oversee the production of a ‘risk’ to the care of children and that, in the book on lesbian and gay fostering and my view, ideas about problematic gender adoption that I co-edited with Janet roles or social development were actually McDermott (Hicks and McDermott, about maintaining and promoting tradi- 1999). This project sprang from a desire tional views of both the family and the among group members to tell their stories roles of men and women. I also suggested in their own words, to provide evidence of that social work assessments that focused the possibility and successes of lesbian on sexuality to the exclusion of all else, and gay foster care and adoption, to raise or those which avoided questions of awareness of the issue and even to edu- sexuality, were equally dangerous. This cate social workers and other childcare was because neither was able to place the professionals. The book was partly made proper discussion of lesbian and gay possible by the greater numbers of lesbian issues within the context of an adequate and gay carers. We published stories by assessment of childcare abilities. As one 27 adults caring for 40 children and applicant noted: young people, whereas Skeates and Jabri (1988) had included just 13 adults, some I don’t think the social worker handled of whom did not have children placed. the issues to do with our sexuality well ... Looking back at the book’s themes she wanted to be so non-discriminating now, it is worthwhile noting the concerns that she just treated us like she would a raised by the contributors in the late heterosexual couple ... and on one level 1990s. Many of them had been influenced that was good because she focused on by their own professional work within child care, but we also needed to talk children’s and other caring organisations, about the specifics of being lesbian but also had derived inspiration from a adopters, and there are many issues we greater public awareness of lesbian and all needed to think through. (Hicks, 1997, gay foster care and adoption and an p 34) increased likelihood, in some quarters at least, that agencies would be prepared to During the mid-1990s, work was also consider them fairly. The contributors being done to promote UK national stand- emphasised their commitment to foster ards on foster care and adoption (event- care and adoption as a first choice, rather ually published as Department of Health, than as a second-best route to parenting. 2001, 2002) all of which emphasised However, it was notable that the gay men equality of opportunity for all applicants, also talked about barriers they faced due regardless of their sexuality. However, the to the public perception that men are not, new Labour Government also published or should not, be the carers of children its Green Paper, Supporting Families, and that gay men posed a sexual risk. On which argued that ‘marriage is still the the other hand, by 1999 there were one or

48 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 two examples of gay men who had been men have been expected, or allowed, to successful in their applications to adopt, care for either boys or girls has been an something that had not even seemed area in which there has been great possible in the 1980s. Interestingly, the anxiety, inconsistency and some limiting gay men also noted that it was from and traditional views about gender roles. within their own ‘community’ that they Gay men, for example, felt they were met sometimes faced the most hostility or with suspicion if they asked to care for opposition to the idea of parenting. boys or with opprobrium if they asked to We were pleased to be able to include care for girls. In addition, most lesbian contributions by a number of black and gay applicants were routinely asked lesbians and gay men, and this indicated whether they knew members of the that lesbian and gay foster carers and opposite sex and how they would ensure adopters were becoming more diverse and that their children came into contact with also that black applicants were more a range of both men and women. In some likely to come forward. However, our examples, panels applied their own contributors talked about forms of institu- traditional ideas about men and women to tional racism that they had faced, and we lesbians and gay men, being concerned, argued that there was a danger of social for example, that gay men would not be work: able to do the laundry (Hicks, 2000). In my view, many of these ideas rest adopting rigid and stereotypical defini- upon very limited views of gender and tions of communities, cultures and sexuality that assume that men and religions that are actually diverse and women perform essentially distinct roles. continually changing ... Social workers Lesbians and gay men are assumed to be should not use narrow and racist defini- gender ‘deviants’, trapped within their tions of what is acceptable in order to gender so much that they cannot perform discriminate against black lesbian and tasks usually associated with the opposite gay carers. (Hicks and McDermott, 1999, sex, or to have no contact with the oppo- p 154) site sex. In addition, these concerns seem to rest on very limited ideas about how In one example, social workers had used a children learn about gender (Golombok very narrow and rigid definition of ‘the and Fivush, 1994) and betray an anxiety Hindu community’ in order to reject a to ensure that children are ‘properly lesbian couple, one Asian and one white, gendered’. This is an area that I have who had been assessed as able to meet the discussed elsewhere (Hicks, 2000) and I stated needs of a sibling group of seven do not believe that these ideas have Asian girls. The authority in question changed very much over the years. justified this by claiming that a lesbian A 2003 court judgement in Manchester, relationship ‘is not recognised in the for example, approved the view of a Hindu faith’ (Hicks, 1998, p 365). children’s guardian and a psychologist The book’s contributors were involved that a boy needed both a male and female in the full range of care options, from link ‘role model’ at home, thus ruling out a or respite foster care through to perman- lesbian couple who were being consid- ent placements including adoption. This ered for the placement and, by extension, was also a significant and positive change all lesbians and gay men (personal from the 1980s when short-term care was communication from Assistant Director, dominant. Some of those lesbians and gay Manchester Social Services). Judith men who felt they were made to prove Butler has critiqued this viewpoint, themselves in the 1980s by doing short- arguing that it rests on the belief that: term and respite care had also themselves progressed to longer-term placements. culture itself requires that a man and a One significant feature of the woman produce a child and that the child narratives was that many talked about the have this dual point of reference for its gender concerns raised by social workers own initiation into the symbolic order, and/or panels. Whether lesbians and gay where the symbolic order consists of a set

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 49 of rules that order and support our sense ever, there were also a number of dele- of reality and cultural intelligibility. gates who had not yet approached (Butler, 2002, p 29) agencies and were still very fearful of the potential response. This was an important All of the carers in our book were open reminder that there is still much work to about their sexuality and recommended be done and that lesbians and gay men are this from the start of the application still affected by the many negative atti- process, and this is certainly a major tudes about gay parenting that pervade change. Lesbian and gay applicants are our society. now far more likely to be open about their Looking back at the conference report sexuality with social work agencies, (Hicks and Walker, 2002), some key social workers are more likely to expect issues were raised. Delegates recognised this and applicants also expect it to be the need to ‘shop around’ for agencies to taken seriously. In addition, the lesbian approach, stating that while some were and gay carers talked about how compli- known for their positive approach, others cated being ‘out’, in fact, is since this clearly were not. Some agencies were involves a constant and sometimes known by delegates to reject gay or difficult process of deciding how and lesbian applicants and some had been told when to tell social workers, children, by social workers that panels would not birth families, schools, relatives and so consider them favourably or at all. Of on. those who had been assessed by social Another major change from the 1980s workers, there were vastly different was the much greater experience of experiences – some good, some bad. Gay actually having children in placement, men, in particular, felt there was still a lot sometimes for a number of years. Many of prejudice against the idea of their of the dilemmas raised were about how to caring for children. care for children and deal with placement The year 2000 also saw the launch of difficulties, as opposed to the question of the national ‘Pink Parents UK’ organisa- whether such placements were actually tion, the relaunch of the National Foster possible. Contributors highlighted the Care Association as ‘Fostering Network’, need for support, talking about the crucial the Network’s All About Fostering pub- role of national support groups, their own lication which aimed to attract more support networks and also social workers. foster carers and featured a lesbian couple However, social work support was seen as (Fostering Network, 2000), and Henrietta something of a lottery, with positive and Bond’s article, ‘Double dealing’, which negative experiences being reported. featured some national support group Many felt that some social workers were members (Bond, 2000). Bond’s piece unsure about lesbian or gay lives, about argued that the reasons behind the small how to assess them adequately and, while numbers of lesbian and gay carers were outright rejection was less common than far subtler than simple outright ‘bans’ by in the 1980s, it was still a possibility agencies. Helen Cosis Brown argued that (Hicks and McDermott, 1999). Thus, social work assessments were still over- although there was much to celebrate in or underplaying sexuality, and I empha- terms of successes, the social welfare sised that social workers displayed great agency response was patchy. concern about the idea of male and female ‘role models’. The lesbian and gay The year 2000 and beyond couples interviewed also talked about the In the year 2000, Lottery funding helped need for great tenacity in the face of the Northern Support Group to run a third prejudice, delays by agencies and the national conference in Manchester. Most need for more support groups. delegates had moved on from the ‘Is In the last two years, a number of other lesbian and gay foster care and adoption important events have added to the debate possible?’ question to consider many of about lesbian and gay foster care and the day-to-day post-placement issues adoption. The parliamentary debates over affecting those caring for children. How- the Adoption and Children Act 2002

50 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 focused quite a lot of attention on family sociologists had recognised the lesbians and gay men. In many ways this important contribution that lesbians and debate demonstrated that some ideas gay men had been making to redefining haven’t changed very much: some argued ideas about kinship, intimacy and that adoptions by lesbian and gay couples parenting (Weston, 1991; Stacey, 1996). should be outlawed, some that it was These ‘do-it-yourself family’ approaches supportable only as a last resort, some were termed ‘everyday social experi- that the married heterosexual couple is ments’ by Anthony Giddens (1992, p 8), always best for children, some that and there has been recognition that lesbians and gay men made good carers lesbians and gay men have helped to only in particular circumstances, such as redefine contemporary ideas about the for children with disabilities, and some family (Williams, 2004). In 2001, that lesbians and gay men are ‘just like’ important publications gave space to the heterosexuals and so should not be treated issue of foster care and adoption by any differently. Lord Alli’s speech in the lesbians and gay men (Saffron, 2001; Lords, for example, supported gay adop- Weeks et al, 2001). For example, the UK tion but still argued that ‘married couples Families of Choice project noted that should have priority over unmarried openly gay or lesbian parenting ‘is couples’ and ‘unmarried couples should relatively recent, and marks a radical have priority over gay couples’ (House of change in the relationship between non- Lords debate on Adoption and Children heterosexuals and child care’ (Weeks et Bill, 16 October 2002, col 874). This al, 2001, p 159), and also that, since the heteronormative argument was a consist- mid-1980s, ‘the issue of fostering and ent feature of the debate. adoption by openly non-heterosexual The focus in the Houses of Parliament people has gained a much greater pubic upon whether gay and lesbian couples profile’ (Weeks et al, 2001, p 167). should be allowed to adopt jointly also On the other hand, right-wing oppo- seemed to overshadow the fact that sition to lesbian and gay foster care and lesbians and gay men had been adopting adoption was mobilised through organi- for a number of years. Several lesbian and sations like the Christian Institute gay adopters reported public confusion, (Christian Institute, 2002a, 2002b). It with the assumption that adoption by funded publications which argued that lesbians and gay men had not been poss- gay and lesbian parenting was damaging ible prior to the Adoption and Children to children. Patricia Morgan’s book, for Act 2002, when in fact the question was example, claimed ‘homosexual adoption about whether unmarried couples should is now unquestioned in social work be allowed to jointly adopt. This very orthodoxy’ (Morgan, 2002, p 9) and that point was raised by Lord Hunt of Kings children should not be placed with Heath, who pointed out that: lesbian or gay carers because they would suffer stigma and/or psychosocial or The debate is not about gay adoption: gay sexual damage. In addition, the Christian men and lesbians can already adopt ... A Institute funded campaigns to oppose the recent book, entitled ‘Lesbian and Gay recognition of gay and lesbian adopters in Fostering and Adoption’, tells the stories the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and of 17 households, comprising 27 adults sent a paper to all UK foster care and caring for 40 children or young people adoption panels that argued the children through fostering or adoption ... I say of lesbians and gay men are stigmatised that from that book comes some anecdotal and more likely to become gay (Holloway, evidence that gay adopters might be 2002). Even though most of the claims willing to take on particularly challeng- made by these authors can be easily ing children. (House of Lords debate on disputed (Hicks, 2003, 2005a), their Adoption and Children Bill, 16 October arguments cannot be so easily dismissed 2002, col 907) as they draw upon and reinforce homo- phobic ideas about gay parenting held by During the 1990s, a number of prominent many, including some social work pro-

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 51 fessionals. In that sense, I argue that the tion and Fostering (Romaine/BAAF, approval of gay and lesbian adoption is 2003). Although these are isolated far from a ‘social work orthodoxy’ examples, progressive practice has also (Hicks, 1998, 2000). been developing in Bradford, Sheffield, Calderdale, Merseyside and some inner- So what’s changed since 1988? London boroughs, but the national picture This article began life as a talk given at is still very patchy. the fourth national conference for lesbian Although an equality position has and gay carers, held in Sheffield in 2003. been adopted in law and guidance, there I hope it has demonstrated that there have is still a need to move on from ‘sameness’ been many changes in the field of lesbian models, which argue that lesbian and gay and gay foster care and adoption in the carers are ‘just like’ heterosexuals, UK since 1988. There is a move towards towards acknowledging the different ‘equality’ for all carers, summed up in the experiences that being a lesbian or gay new competency model of assessment, as foster carer or adopter brings. Lesbians well as policy and law. There are now and gay men are less defensive about this greater numbers of lesbians and gay men now and do not feel so bound to argue a applying, gaining approval and having ‘no differences’ position. However, there children placed in their care, although are many situations in which this does this tends to be concentrated in certain occur and this is because an ‘implicit inner city or progressive authorities. heteronormative presumption’ governs There is also a greater diversity among discourse on lesbian and gay parenting lesbian and gay applicants, with more (Stacey and Biblarz, 2001, p 160). black people coming forward. In addition, Lesbian and gay carers themselves now support groups have grown and devel- feel more able to talk about issues like the oped, as have many web-based groups and potential bullying of children or how to discussion forums. In the future, it will be ‘come out’ to schools, birth parents and important to see what research has to tell so on. us about the placement experiences of the This also impacts on social work and children and also what those children the assessment process and it is important have to say as their own accounts begin to to remember that assessing lesbians and emerge. gay men is not just ‘the same’ as assess- There are now more long-term ing heterosexuals. There are areas part- placements, including some adoptions by icular to living as a gay or lesbian family gay men as well as lesbians, and most in the UK that need consideration and applicants are now likely to be open about discussion. Perhaps as lesbian and gay their sexuality from the start. Indeed, carers have gained more experience, they some authorities now expect and welcome feel less need to argue they are simply this, recognising that openness and clear ‘just as good as heterosexual carers’ and, boundaries about sexuality issues are in instead, can point to their differences. fact good qualities for any foster or Developing new ideas about family and adoptive carer. Some agencies now ask kinship practices in everyday life is an lesbian and gay carers or support/cam- important example of this from which paigning groups to provide training or many others might learn. In addition, advice. In Manchester, for example, the social workers are beginning to under- Positive Parenting Campaign has worked stand that many lesbians and gay men are with the city to organise some training for skilled at dealing with prejudice and social workers and has published an discrimination in positive ways and that advice leaflet for lesbians and gay men such skills are important attributes for (Hicks and Positive Parenting Campaign, foster carers and adopters that can be 2003). In addition, Manchester Social passed on to children. Services has produced guidance for social In comparison to the late 1980s, there workers (Manchester City Council/ is now a wealth of writing and research Children, Families & Social Care, 2004), on these issues. In addition to narratives as has the British Association for Adop- by lesbian and gay foster carers and

52 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 adopters (Hicks and McDermott, 1999), the language used suggests that the gay there are now stories by children and couple in question ‘exploited a legal young people who have grown up with loophole to adopt three small children’ lesbian and gay parents (Kaeser and and that the children are being harmed Gillespie, 1999; Howey and Samuels, rather than protected (Baron, 2004, p 1). 2000; Saffron, 2001; Snow, 2004). Other Despite the fact that the gay couple in research indicates that sexuality is no question have been together for 21 years, determinant of parenting ability have fostered the three children ‘from a (Golombok, 2000; Mallon, 2000; Brooks broken home’ for some time, reunited the and Goldberg, 2001), but there are still girls with their brother who was formerly many indicators of homophobic ideas and placed elsewhere and, in fact, do not see practices among social work professionals themselves as ‘crusaders for gay adop- (Ryan, 2000; Ben-Ari, 2001; Brooks and tion’, the piece still manages to suggest Goldberg, 2001). that having ‘two daddies’ is a problem The first ever survey of gay adoption and that the children might ‘become gay’ in the US showed that 1.6 per cent of all (Baron, 2004, p 2). Further, there are still placements are now made with self- agencies that reject lesbians and gay men identified lesbians or gay men and that outright and arguments made by the 37.7 per cent of agencies had made such a Christian right (Holloway, 2002; Morgan, placement (Brodzinsky et al, 2002, p 14). 2002) have also influenced or confirmed However, 15 per cent of respondents said the views of some within social welfare, their agencies had rejected lesbian or gay so that, for many, lesbians and gay men applicants. The authors found that public are still viewed as a risk to children rather agencies, those who dealt with ‘special than a resource for their care. needs’ children or international adoptions, My involvement in the Northern and female workers were all more likely Support Group, national conferences and to be positive about gay or lesbian appli- research has convinced me of the great cants. Private or Christian-based agencies, determination, flexibility, skill and those who dealt with younger children, resourcefulness of the gay and lesbian and male workers were all more negative carers that I have met. Many of them have (Brodzinsky et al, 2002, pp 16–17). taken on the care of children with some In the UK, national standards as well very difficult problems and have managed as practice guidance from BAAF and to stick with those children so that they Fostering Network all operate an equality have been able to turn themselves around position that opposes rejection of and make full use of better life chances. applicants on the basis of their sexuality As Janet McDermott has noted, many (National Foster Care Association, 1999a, lesbian and gay foster care and adoptive 1999b; Fostering Network, 2000; Depart- families have been: ment of Health, 2001, 2002; Romaine/ BAAF, 2003). However, lesbian and gay ... pioneers in re-defining ‘relationship’ applicants report a patchy response from and ‘family’, and ... have a tremendous foster care and adoption agencies as well amount to offer children who will always as many examples of both institutional be different and will have to carve out and individual discrimination by some very complicated identities from difficult social workers (Hicks and McDermott, and challenging histories ... There is no 1999). This highlights a pressing need for rulebook on how to be a lesbian or gay pre- and post-qualifying social work foster or adoptive parent, so we are all training to examine ideas about lesbians do-it-yourself families, following our own and gay men and for a more critical instincts and drawing on our own skills approach to theories of ‘sexuality’ within and resources to re-invent ourselves and the social work profession (Hicks, 2005b). create new definitions of ‘family’. The standard ‘myths’ about lesbian (McDermott, 2004, pp 7–8) and gay parents persist today but they take different forms to those of the 1980s. It is my suggestion that contemporary In the Daily Express piece, for example, forms of lesbian and gay parenting prac-

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 53 tice have much to teach all of us about the PinkParents Magazine 14, March 2004 ways in which our ideas about intimacy, Baron C, ‘Scandal of the Gay Dads: how could care, family and human relationships can couple be allowed to adopt three little child- be expanded (Hicks, 2005c). A foster care ren?’, Daily Express, 4 October, pp 1–2, 2004 or adoption practice which does not rely Ben-Ari A T, ‘Homosexuality and heterosexism: upon traditional ideas about kinship and views from academics in the helping profess- parenting is a positive step in my view, ions’, British Journal of Social Work 31:1, and I think that lesbian and gay carers pp 119–31, 2001 display a number of important skills that

can help children to renegotiate and rede- Bond H, ‘Double dealing’, , 3 May, pp 2–3, 2000 fine their ideas about who they are, their place in the world, how they deal with Brennan F, ‘Mum, what’s a lesbian?’, Woman, ‘difference’ and how they make sense of 31 January, pp 32–33, 1994 past relationships with adults (Hicks and Brodzinsky D M, Patterson C J and Vaziri M, McDermott, 1999; McDermott, 2004). ‘Adoption agency perspectives on lesbian and Perhaps as we begin to discuss lesbian gay prospective parents: a national study’, and gay foster care and adoption more Adoption Quarterly 5:3, pp 5–23, 2002 openly, as we examine its history and as Brooks D and Goldberg S, ‘Gay and lesbian we research further into its parenting adoptive and foster care placements: can they practices, we will be able to question the meet the needs of waiting children?’, Social most limiting and constraining of domi- Work 46:2, pp 147–57, 2001 nant discourses about ‘the family’ that Brown H C, ‘Competent child-focused practice: characterise contemporary life. working with lesbian and gay carers’, Adoption & Fostering 15:2, pp 11–17, 1991 Acknowledgements and resources Brown H C, ‘Gender, sex and sexuality in the This paper is based upon a talk given at assessment of prospective carers’, Adoption & the fourth national conference for lesbian Fostering 16:2, pp 30–34, 1992 and gay foster carers and adopters, organ- ised by the Northern Support Group and Brown H C, Social Work and Sexuality: Working held in Sheffield, 21 June 2003. I would with lesbians and gay men, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998 like to thank all delegates for their feed- back on my ideas, but especially Rob, Butler J, ‘Is kinship always already hetero- Owen, Anne and Mary for helping with sexual?’, differences: A Journal of Feminist the conference, and Jill and Janet for all Cultural Studies 13:1, pp 14–44, 2002 their hard work in organising such a great Christian Institute, Adoption Law: Sidelining event. stability and security, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: There are two national support groups Christian Institute, 2002a; www.christian.org. for gay and lesbian foster carers and uk/html-publications/adoption_briefing2.htm adopters: the Lesbian & Gay Foster & Christian Institute, Same-Sex Parenting is Bad Adoptive Parents Network (LAGFAPN) for Kids, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Christian is based in London, c/o Stonewall, Institute, 2002b; www.christian.org.uk/press 46–48 Grosvenor Gardens, SW1W 0EB; releases/2002/february_06_2002/htm [email protected]. The Northern Clarke J, ‘Fit for a family’, Community Care, 5 Support Group meets in Sheffield and has April, pp 16–17, 1991 a satellite group in Manchester: PO Box Community Care, ‘Gay couples approved in 2078, S2 4YQ; www.nsgroup.org.uk. The Hampshire’s foster policy’, Community Care, Positive Parenting Campaign can be issue 951, p 2, 1993 contacted via www.positiveparentingcampaign.free Department of Health, Foster Placement servers.com; and Pink Parents UK via (Guidance and Regulations), Consultation Paper No. 16, London: HMSO, 1990 www.pinkparents.org.uk Department of Health, The Children Act 1989: References Guidance and Regulations, Volume 3: Family Alderson L (guest ed), ‘Special Edition – placements, London: HMSO, 1991 Choosing our families: adoption and fostering’, Department of Health, Adoption: National

54 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 Adoption Standards for England, London: The Hicks S, ‘The Christian right and homophobic Stationery Office, 2001; www.dh.gov.uk/ discourse: a response to “evidence” that lesbian assetRoot/04/01/47/01/04014701.pdf and gay parenting damages children’, Sociological Research Online 8:4, 2003; Department of Health, Fostering Services: www.socresonline.org.uk/8/4/hicks.html National Minimum Standards, Fostering Services Regulations, London: The Stationery Hicks S, ‘Is gay parenting bad for kids? Office, 2002; www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/ Responding to the “very idea of difference” in 35/66/04073566.pdf research on lesbian and gay parenting’, Sexualities 8:2, pp 153–68, 2005a Department of Health and Welsh Office, Review of Adoption Law: Report to Ministers of an Hicks S, ‘Sexuality: social work theories and Interdepartmental Working Group, Consultation practice’, in Adams R, Dominelli L and Payne Document, London: HMSO, 1992 M (eds), Social Work Futures, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005b Department of Health, Welsh Office, Home Office and Lord Chancellors’ Department, Hicks S, ‘Queer genealogies: tales of Adoption: The future, London: HMSO, 1993 conformity and rebellion amongst lesbian and gay foster carers and adopters’, Qualitative Fostering Network, All About Fostering, Social Work 4:3, 2005c Nottingham: Fostering Network, 2000 Hicks S and McDermott J (eds), Lesbian and Giddens A, The Transformation of Intimacy: Gay Fostering and Adoption: Extraordinary yet Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern ordinary, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, societies, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992 1999 Golombok S, Parenting: What really counts?, Hicks S and Positive Parenting Campaign, Are London: Routledge, 2000 You Lesbian or Gay? Thinking about fostering Golombok S and Fivush R, Gender Develop- or adopting a child? Manchester: Positive ment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Parenting Campaign, 2003 1994. Hicks S and Walker M, ‘Positive outlooks: a Golombok S, Spencer A and Rutter M, ‘Child- report on the 3rd national lesbian and gay ren in lesbian and single-parent households: fostering and adoption conference’, PinkParents psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal’, Magazine 6, pp 2–4, February 2002 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 24, Holloway J, Homosexual Parenting: Does it pp 551–72, 1983 make a difference? A re-evaluation of the Hicks S, The Experiences of Lesbians and Gay research with adoption and fostering in mind, Men in Fostering and Adoption: A study of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Christian Institute, 2002; impact of the process of assessment upon pro- www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/ spective carers, Economic and Social Science, homosexualparenting.htm University of Manchester: MA thesis, 1993 Home Office, Supporting Families: A Hicks S, ‘The “last resort”?: lesbian and gay consultation document, London: The Stationery experiences of the social work assessment Office, 1998 process in fostering and adoption’, Practice 8:2, Howey N and Samuels E (eds), Out of the pp 15–24, 1996 Ordinary: Essays on growing up with gay, Hicks S, ‘Taking the risk? Assessing lesbian and lesbian, and transgender parents, New York: St gay carers’, in Kemshall H and Pritchard J (eds), Martin’s Press, 2000 Good Practice in Risk Assessment and Risk Kaeser G (photographs) and Gillespie P (ed), Management 2: Protection, rights and respon- Love Makes a Family: Portraits of lesbian, gay, sibilities, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, bisexual, and transgender parents and their 1997 families, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Hicks S, Familiar Fears: The assessment of Press, 1999 lesbian and gay fostering and adoption LAGFAPN (Lesbian & Gay Foster & Adoptive applicants, Applied Social Science, Lancaster Parents Network), Advice for Lesbians and Gay University: PhD thesis, 1998 Men Considering Fostering and Adoption from Hicks S, ‘“Good lesbian, bad lesbian . . .”: Lesbians and Gay Men who have been through regulating heterosexuality in fostering and the Process, London: National Foster Care adoption assessments’, Child & Family Social Association, no date but 1993 Work 5:2, pp 157–68, 2000

ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005 55 Mallon G P, ‘Gay men and lesbians as adoptive Saffron L, It’s a Family Affair: The complete parents’, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social lesbian parenting book, London: Diva Books, Services 11:4, pp 1–22, 2000 2001 Manchester City Council/Children, Families & Skeates J and Jabri D (eds), Fostering and Social Care, Practice Guidance on Assessing Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men, London: Gay and Lesbian Foster Care and Adoption London Strategic Policy Unit, 1988 Applicants, Manchester: Manchester City Smart D, ‘A chance for gay people’, Community Council, 2004 Care, 24 January, p 17, 1991 McDermott J, ‘Jigsaws, tapestries and sticking Smith A M, New Right Discourse on Race and like glue’, PinkParents Magazine 14, pp 6–8, Sexuality: Britain, 1968–1990, Cambridge: March 2004 Cambridge University Press, 1994 Morgan P, Children as Trophies? Examining the Snow J E (ed), How it Feels to have a Gay or evidence on same-sex parenting, Newcastle- Lesbian Parent: A book by kids for kids of all upon-Tyne: Christian Institute, 2002 ages, New York: Harrington Park Press, 2004 National Foster Care Association, Code of Stacey J, In the Name of the Family: Rethinking Practice on the Recruitment, Assessment, family values in the postmodern age, Boston: Approval, Training, Management and Support of Beacon Press, 1996 Foster Carers, London: NFCA, 1999a Stacey J and Biblarz T J, ‘(How) Does the National Foster Care Association, UK National sexual orientation of parents matter?’, American Standards for Foster Care, London: NFCA, Sociological Review 66:2, pp 159–83, 2001 1999b Sunday Express, ‘Stop This Outrage’, Sunday Pallot P, ‘12 quit charity in battle over gay Express, 30 September, p 1, 1990 fostering’, Daily Telegraph, 29 October, p 9, 1994 Warner M (ed), Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer politics and social theory, Minneapolis: Parmar P (director), Fostering and Adoption by University of Minnesota Press, 1993 Lesbians and Gay Men, film for Channel 4’s ‘Out on Tuesday’ series, 1989 Weeks J, Heaphy B and Donovan C, Same Sex Intimacies: Families of choice and other life Pilkington E, ‘Anger at gay foster ban’, the experiments, London: Routledge, 2001 Guardian, 28 October, p 9, 1994 Weston K, Families we Choose: Lesbians, gays, Ricketts W and Achtenberg R, ‘Adoption and kinship, New York: Columbia University Press, foster parenting for lesbians and gay men: 1991 creating new traditions in family’, Marriage & Family Review 14:3/4, pp 83–118, 1990 Whitfield R, ‘Don’t give in to pressure’, Com- munity Care, 24 January, p 16, 1991 Romaine M/BAAF, Assessing Lesbian and Gay Foster Carers and Adopters, Practice Note 44, Williams F, Rethinking Families, London: London: BAAF, 2003 Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (UK Branch), 2004 Ryan S D, ‘Examining social workers’ placement recommendations of children with gay and lesbian adoptive parents’, Families in © Stephen Hicks 2005 Society: the Journal of Contemporary Human Services 81:5, pp 517–28, 2000

56 ADOPTION & FOSTERING VOLUME 29 NUMBER 3 2005