Christian couple loses adoption rights

[Irvine511]

came across this story out of the UK:

Anti-gay Christian couple lose foster care case


A Pentecostal Christian couple have lost their high court claim that they were discriminated against by a local authority because they insisted on their right to tell young foster children that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Eunice and Owen Johns, who are in their sixties and have fostered children in the past, claimed they were being discriminated against by Derby city council because of their Christian beliefs, after they told a social worker they could not tell a child a "homosexual lifestyle" was acceptable. The couple had hoped to foster five- to 10-year-olds.

The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters' right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple's lawyer's claims as "a travesty of reality".

"No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, ... the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy."

Outside the court, Eunice Johns said: "We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled. All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need, but because we are Christians with mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics, we are apparently unsuitable.

"We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing. We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society."

The CLC's lawyer, Andrea Minichiello Williams, said: "How can judges get away with this? The law has been increasingly interpreted by judges in a way which favours homosexual rights over freedom of conscience. Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance to religious belief."

The judges in their ruling said they were not ruling against beliefs but against the discriminatory effects of those beliefs and that one set of beliefs could not take precedence in a pluralist society.

Derby city council said it had never taken a view on the Johns' application, adding: "It would be inappropriate for the council to approve foster carers who cannot meet minimum standards. It would be difficult and impractical to match children with Mr and Mrs Johns if they feel that strongly."

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights' charity Stonewall, said: "In any fostering case the interests of the 60,000 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."

this is interesting to me because i feel 100% certain that the anti-marriage Right is going to latch onto this story as an example of the "unintended consequences" of SSM, and they're going to use it as an example of how they, really, are the persecuted ones and the ones being discriminated against for simply holding a religious conviction.

and they may have a point. is this acceptable grounds to disqualify someone from foster care? should we allow white supremacists to be parents? anti-Semites? fat people for fear that their eating habits will put their foster children at risk?

thoughts?

 

[yolland]

Foster children *might* be somewhat of a special case, in that often they aren't actually available for, or even slated to be available for, permanent adoption by their foster parents. That aside, however--no, I'm not inclined to see this couple's beliefs about homosexuality as grounds for barring them from fostering children. You perhaps could (and actually, I would) make a kind of broader ethical argument about parenthood in general, that parents have an obligation to equip their children to be upstanding members of civil society, and that instructing them to view homosexuality strictly as disease, 'perversion' or immoral 'act' compromises their future fitness for that role, etc. ...but, I don't really see it as reasonable to suggest that that kind of lapse rises to the level of fundamental unfitness for parenthood, foster or otherwise. Especially given the enormous numbers of foster children needing a home out there, as the article points out.

Of course, there's the retort that for foster children who are themselves gay, such parental 'beliefs' amount to nothing short of abuse. But we don't separate biological families for that reason. Maybe that's a question better left to gay people raised by parents morally 'opposed to' homosexuality to answer?

(ETA--I also find it a little weird that the decision appeals to the UK being a 'secular state,' then turns around and cites Church of England doctrine as a relevant example...)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Foster children *might* be somewhat of a special case, in that often they aren't actually available for, or even slated to be available for, permanent adoption by their foster parents. That aside, however--no, I'm not inclined to see this couple's beliefs about homosexuality as grounds for barring them from fostering children. You perhaps could (and actually, I would) make a kind of broader ethical argument about parenthood in general, that parents have an obligation to equip their children to be upstanding members of civil society, and that instructing them to view homosexuality strictly as disease, 'perversion' or immoral 'act' compromises their future fitness for that role, etc. ...but, I don't really see it as reasonable to suggest that that kind of lapse rises to the level of fundamental unfitness for parenthood, foster or otherwise. Especially given the enormous numbers of foster children needing a home out there, as the article points out.

I'd have to agree with this. I certainly wouldn't like the idea of a child growing up in such a home, either, and definitely see the side of those who are okay with this decision, but at the same time, unfortunately, whether biologically yours or not, in every family you will encounter beliefs you may disagree with. Even if these foster parents were okay with homosexuality, the kids could still hear relatives and friends of those parents say those sorts of things.

And sometimes children do go against their parents' belief systems and develop their own line of thinking, too, so these kids could very well reject that belief as they get older.

Course, however...

Of course, there's the retort that for foster children who are themselves gay, such parental 'beliefs' amount to nothing short of abuse, but we don't separate biological families for that reason. Maybe that's a question better left to gay people raised by parents morally 'opposed to' homosexuality to answer?

...this is a good point, and maybe this decision is a way to show the anti-gay side just how offensive it is to be denied the right to adopt children simply because they don't agree with the way you live your life. I read this quote from the couple:

We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society.

and I can't feel sympathy for them, all I can think instead is, "Well, guess now you have a bit of an idea of how same-sex couples feel, don't you?"

Angela

 

[the iron horse]

As a Christian, I believe that Pentecostalism (the sect they are following) is a false teaching.

I do agree their view on homosexuality is correct according
to the scriptures.


That aside, I think it is very wrong that the couple was denied adoption.

 

[Irvine511]

As a Christian, I believe that Pentecostalism (the sect they are following) is a false teaching.

oh, good, because, as a Christian, you'd obviously know.

i'm sure you've got the correct view of Christianity and are on the "good" list.

 

[Dalton]

As an asshole, I feel compelled to tell you that you're all wrong and I'm right.

 

[the iron horse]

oh, good, because, as a Christian, you'd obviously know.

i'm sure you've got the correct view of Christianity and are on the "good" list.

I said what they are teaching is wrong. It's a lie.

Go view Benny Hinn, Ernest Angley or Paul Croach and so many others on "so called Christian television."

What do you think? Are they representing the message of Jesus?

In my view, they are false teachers.


Note: I did not mean to imply that all of Christian television is filled with false teachers,
but you do need to be careful.

*a new thread idea

 

[Jive Turkey]

nm

 

[BVS]

I said what they are teaching is wrong. It's a lie.

Go view Benny Hinn, Ernest Angley or Paul Croach and so many others on "so called Christian television."

What do you think? Are they representing the message of Jesus?

In my view, they are false teachers.


Note: I did not mean to imply that all of Christian television is filled with false teachers,
but you do need to be careful.

*a new thread idea

Yes but I think the point is that you, we, me - we all need to be careful about stating we have the absolute teaching and they have the false teaching. You have made some statements about faith that do not show up in the Bible, so I think it's wise to show some humility in that aspect.

 

[yolland]

is this acceptable grounds to disqualify someone from foster care?

What did you think about this? Just curious.

 

[mobvok]

I wonder what the rate of suicide is for gay children being raised in a home with fundamentalist parents who can't accept homosexuality?

Dan Savage says it's eight times higher than normal LGBT kids.

"We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

Good for the judge. We know what this "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric leads to, and it's injust.

 

[yolland]

The list of environmental factors positively correlated with suicide in teenagers is very long. Even taking Savage's unsourced stat at face value, do we really want to get into evaluating legal fitness for parenthood based on whether or not you possess characteristics associated in studies with higher suicide rates in teens?

As I said earlier, foster parents should perhaps be considered as a special case. Still, I'm bothered by the thought that if such-and-such trait of the prospective foster parents legally constitutes an abusive environment, then logically biological families ought to be broken up and their children placed in state custody also, when that trait pertains.



ETA--I should add that for all we know, the legal reasoning behind this decision (which the article doesn't really explain) might boil down to something as narrow as, the state gives foster parents some public funds to support their service, and therefore they must meet comparable nondiscrimination criteria to what, for example, state agencies must observe in hiring. As opposed to a child welfare-based argument per se. In which case, probably neither the homophobes nor their opponents should be treating this as some sweeping defeat/victory in the "culture wars."

 

[Irvine511]

with mild reservations, i agree with Dan Savage.

we'd remove a child from his parents if they refused medical care and believed that they'd be healed through faith alone. putting a state-supported child into the arms of parents who aren't merely unaccustomed to homosexuality but who are actively and clearly opposed to it's existence does seem to me ample grounds to refuse their right to foster a child.

take this comment from Savage's post:

Haha, yeah, I aged out of the foster care system last year after having been placed with a fundamentalist Christian organization for eleven months. One of their rules was that you HAD to attend church, and so I was required to sit through innumerable hours (these were the kinds of sermons that take three hours at least) of people wailing passionately about the evils of Muslims, homosexuals, Hindus, other miscellaneous non-Christians, Jews, and so forth. They also wouldn't let me hang out with my friends because, as an out queer girl, it was assumed that I was having sex with them. Even though I'd been out and proud for months, it drove me up the wall to have to be constantly on the defensive about my sexuality and religious affiliation, and to be unable to interact with the people I was closest to outside of school--at a time when I was supposed to be cared for after having been removed from an abusive family environment, no less.

and if i hear about "practicing" homosexuality again i'm going to put my fist through a wall.

 

[yolland]

^ I think that might be kind of different--placing an out lesbian 17-year old with a fundamentalist organization not of her own affiliation (I'd never even heard of a foster 'organization' before) would alienate her from the get-go and almost inevitably result in intense conflicts, clearly not good for an already traumatized child's development. As for couples who'd refuse a sick child medical care, that would pose a grave and immediate threat to the child's health if they got sick. But the couple in question were looking to foster 5-10 year olds, probably few of whom have articulated a sexual orientation or are ready to. Is there a child-welfare argument against them (as opposed to the use-of-public-funds argument)?

 

[mobvok]

These two quotes drove me fucking batty for hours because I initially read it very callously:

Even taking Savage's unsourced stat at face value, do we really want to get into evaluating legal fitness for parenthood based on whether or not you possess characteristics associated in studies with higher suicide rates in teens?

As I said earlier, foster parents should perhaps be considered as a special case. Still, I'm bothered by the thought that if such-and-such trait of the prospective foster parents legally constitutes an abusive environment, then logically biological families ought to be broken up and their children placed in state custody also, when that trait pertains.

Ok, so you're talking prospectively? Like, "as far as we know you haven't caused any current harm to the child, but this quality (hate homos!) indicates you probably would psychologically ravage the little critter. Denied!"

Total Minority Report situation, yeah?

Well, I'd say two things:
A) parents rejecting homosexuality DOES tend to harm gay kids (to a specific extent yet undetermined in this thread)
B) the "coping mechanisms" fundamentalist Christians like this couple likely would embrace for homosexuality are abysmal failures. They don't work. The best case scenario likely involves the gay kids rejecting the negative influence of their parents and finding a support structure outside their parents that actually accepts and sustains them. Which means the foster agency pretty much failed at their task of finding a good home. At medium, the kid survives but abused/hurt to some degree by a forced attempt to psychologically repress his nature. At worst, the kid commits suicide.

An overweight couple can, through diligence and hard work, inculcate nutritional discipline in their foster children. The odds that a couple who hates homosexual activity would non-abusively steer a gay child through puberty I find to be vanishingly thin, and so I find the prospect as likely as a Christian camp "curing" wayward gays.

This is, of course, a somewhat different issue than the specific ruling that prompted this thread. I will add a link to it and quotes in my next post.

 

[mobvok]

Text of the ruling for you lawyer nerds and select quotes:

In our initial discussion on this issue, when asked if, given their views, they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative.

"In relation to their expressed views on same sex relationships, Sally stressed that these views did not equate with the Fostering Standards which require carers to value individuals equally and to promote diversity. Eunice and Owen were not able to acknowledge that their very strong beliefs in this area would be likely to impact on their ability to support and reassure a young person who may be confused re their sexual identity. Having read the report, Eunice disputed that she had said that she could not support anyone who was having such difficulties. She felt that her beliefs would not affect how she was able to care for a young person, and stated that we were really saying that they could not be foster-carers because they are Christians."

The materials relied on by Mr Weston, including in particular the various policies set out in the National Minimum Standards for Fostering, the Statutory Guidance and the defendant's own documents, all go to emphasise the need to value diversity and promote equality and to value, encourage and support children in a non-judgemental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference. That duty does not apply only to the child and the individual placement, but to the wider context, including the main foster carer, a child's parents and the wider family, any of whom may be homosexual. In these circumstances it is quite impossible to maintain that a local authority is not entitled to consider a prospective foster carer's views on sexuality, least of all when, as here, it is apparent that the views held, and expressed, by the claimants might well affect their behaviour as foster carers. This is not a prying intervention into mere belief. Neither the local authority nor the court is seeking to open windows into people's souls. The local authority is entitled to explore the extent to which prospective foster carers' beliefs may affect their behaviour, their treatment of a child being fostered by them. In our judgment the local authority was entitled to have regard to these matters; indeed, if the local authority had failed to explore these matters it might very well have found itself in breach of its own guidance and of the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance to look no further.

Second, as the literature submitted with the Commission's case and the material referred to by Mr Diamond in riposte shows, there is no consistent opinion as the desirability or benefit of same-sex couples fostering children. The material submitted by the Commission is not strictly evidence. But it does show a body of opinion which considers that a child or young person who is homosexual or is doubtful about his or her sexual orientation may experience isolation and fear of discovery if their carer is antipathetic to or disapproves of homosexuality or same-sex relationships. The material also indicates that there is support in the literature for the view that those who hide their sexual orientation or find it difficult to "come out" may have more health problems and in particular mental health problems. Whether those views are 'right' or 'wrong', whether the claimants or the Commission have the preponderance of expert opinion on their side, is not the point – and it is not a matter on which we express any views. But in the light of such literature, together with the steer given by the National Minimum Standards, it cannot be said that an examination of the attitudes to homosexuality and same-sex relationships of a person who has applied to be a foster carer is Wednesbury unreasonable.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

B) the "coping mechanisms" fundamentalist Christians like this couple likely would embrace for homosexuality are abysmal failures. They don't work. The best case scenario likely involves the gay kids rejecting the negative influence of their parents and finding a support structure outside their parents that actually accepts and sustains them. Which means the foster agency pretty much failed at their task of finding a good home. At medium, the kid survives but abused/hurt to some degree by a forced attempt to psychologically repress his nature. At worst, the kid commits suicide.

An overweight couple can, through diligence and hard work, inculcate nutritional discipline in their foster children. The odds that a couple who hates homosexual activity would non-abusively steer a gay child through puberty I find to be vanishingly thin, and so I find the prospect as likely as a Christian camp "curing" wayward gays.

Great post in general, but these arguments in particular were excellent .

I think it's just insane we still have to have this discussion at all, really. The anti-gay crowd needs to grow up and get over this stuff.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

Is there a child-welfare argument against them (as opposed to the use-of-public-funds argument)?

would we let white supremacists be foster parents?

 

[yolland]

would we let white supremacists be foster parents?

In my state, and so far as I know in most states, prospective foster parents are allowed to express racial and ethnic preferences concerning the children they might foster. If they wish to foster white children children only (as a white supremacist, for one, would), that does not disqualify them; on the contrary, it's when they express specific interest in fostering children across racial or ethnic lines that closer questioning about their knowledge, attitudes and social experiences kicks in. Also, foster system workers are supposed to take older foster children's own possible preferences in foster parents into account. I don't think there is some general screening for white supremacist views which all prospective foster parents must pass. And they certainly don't grill overweight prospective parents about their nutritional goals.

I'm only going on what friends of ours who foster children have said about the process, so I can't swear to the above. But it doesn't really seem to me like quite the right analogy, because homophobic foster parents by contrast would be coming from the standpoint that homosexuality is "just" a sinful or unhealthy behavior which can be "corrected" if it appears. Which I suppose in a way makes them more dangerous. Obviously, I'd rather neither white supremacists nor homophobes existed let alone become parents, but that's beside the point.

These two quotes drove me fucking batty for hours because I initially read it very callously:

Ok, so you're talking prospectively? Like, "as far as we know you haven't caused any current harm to the child, but this quality (hate homos!) indicates you probably would psychologically ravage the little critter. Denied!"

Total Minority Report situation, yeah?

Well, I'd say two things:
A) parents rejecting homosexuality DOES tend to harm gay kids (to a specific extent yet undetermined in this thread)
B) the "coping mechanisms" fundamentalist Christians like this couple likely would embrace for homosexuality are abysmal failures. They don't work. The best case scenario likely involves the gay kids rejecting the negative influence of their parents and finding a support structure outside their parents that actually accepts and sustains them. Which means the foster agency pretty much failed at their task of finding a good home. At medium, the kid survives but abused/hurt to some degree by a forced attempt to psychologically repress his nature. At worst, the kid commits suicide.

This is, of course, a somewhat different issue than the specific ruling that prompted this thread. I will add a link to it and quotes in my next post.

Thank you for posting the link to the ruling.

I can see where what I was saying would sound callous, because I was focusing more on the implications for biological families rather than on whether parents--foster, biological or adoptive--who believe homosexuality is "sinful" could fully support a hypothetical gay child's maturation into adulthood: that's a no-brainer; they couldn't, ever. I'm not familiar with Minority Report, so I'm afraid your sarcasm there was lost on me. I don't feel qualified to say how parents of 5-10 year olds who think being gay is a "practice" compares to other common parental shortcomings for potential emotional scarring, and I indicated that from the beginning. I also acknowledged repeatedly that foster children are probably a special case, since they've already been through the trauma of abuse/neglect followed by separation from their birth families, and foster parenting as service to them is more about supporting a timebound transition than providing a permanent "new family," though the latter sometimes happens. So maybe this is a question of holding foster parents to a higher standard because the structural justification to do so is there. But biological parents' rights are hardly absolute, so I don't see why it's unreasonable to examine a standard applied to foster parents' fitness in terms of what it might imply about biological parents. Abuse is abuse no matter what the specifics of the relationship between parent and child. If this couple's views constitutes "tortur[ing] foster kids to death" (per Savage), then that doesn't sound like something biological or adoptive parents should be allowed to do either.

 

[Irvine511]

Abuse is abuse no matter what the specifics of the relationship between parent and child. If this couple's views constitutes "tortur[ing] foster kids to death" (per Savage), then that doesn't sound like something biological or adoptive parents should be allowed to do either.

a quick Google search pulled up these stats from PFLAG Phoenix:

SUICIDE & DEPRESSION

* Suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth. (1)
* Gay and lesbian youth are 2 to 6 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth. (1)
* Over 30% of all reported teen suicides each year are committed by gay and lesbian youth.

REJECTION

* 50% of all gay and lesbian youth report that their parents reject them due to their sexual orientation. (2)
* 26% of gay and lesbian youth are forced to leave home because of conflicts over their sexual orientation. (1)
* In a study of 194 gay and lesbian youth, 25% were verbally abused by parents, and nearly 10% dealt with threatened or actual violence. (12)

HOMELESSNESS

* Approximately 40% of homeless youth are identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. (3)
* Service providers estimate that gay, lesbian and bisexual youth make up 20-40% of homeless youth in urban areas. (18)
* In a study of male teenagers self-described as gay or bisexual, 27% moved away from home because of conflict with family members over sexual orientation. Almost half had run away from home at least once. (2)

PFLAG Phoenix:� Today's Gay Youth:� The Ugly, Frightening Statistics

parental homophobia is abuse. people who kick their kids out of the house should be brought up on abuse charges.

while i admired aspects of the "it gets better" project, it appeared to focus only on bullying in schools sidestepping the fact that the worst bullies, those capable of inflicting not just psychological damage but financial and physical damage as well, are parents.

i think a clear, verbalized opposition to sexual orientation that's rooted not in unfamiliarity but in fully aware religious opposition absolutely has the potential for abuse.

i think potential adoptive or foster parents should be asked about how they would handle it if a child came out.

 

[yolland]

Yes, I certainly agree parents who kick minors out should be brought up on abuse charges. But it's more that 50% 'rejection' statistic that catches my eye. I'm assuming those parents fall into the "clear, verbalized opposition" category, even though the majority of them continue to provide for the child's basic needs, aren't sending them off to 'conversion therapy' camp, and aren't consciously seeking to harm them. What about those parents? What response to them would be best for the child? I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically.

 

[mobvok]

The Minority Report quip wasn't sarcastic. One basic question of that movie was whether it was fair to arrest people based on psychic predictions of things that hadn't happened yet, which seemed relevant to this issue. More of an apropos pop culture reference.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, I certainly agree parents who kick minors out should be brought up on abuse charges. But it's more that 50% 'rejection' statistic that catches my eye. I'm assuming those parents fall into the "clear, verbalized opposition" category, even though the majority of them continue to provide for the child's basic needs, aren't sending them off to 'conversion therapy' camp, and aren't consciously seeking to harm them. What about those parents? What response to them would be best for the child? I'm asking seriously, not rhetorically.

i honestly think that would be up to the child. if there isn't quantifiable physical abuse -- i.e., getting kicked out of the house, beatings -- then getting help in such a situation appears to fall on the shoulders of the child who really can't do much to get rid of his biological parents nor does the state have much power to intervene. i'd imagine that many of the practices described by our Tiger Mom from a few weeks back might inculcate the same feelings of worthlessness and rejection that a gay child might feel from a parent, but we're not taking Amy Chua's kids away from them. the same would probably apply here. we may not like it, but a "response" would be worse. and this is usually why kids wait until the are in college or out of the house to come out. those that come out early usually have supportive parents and are confident themselves (or are so "obvious" they don't even bother trying to pass). the issues usually arise when kids are "discovered" by parents our outed by friends and relatives.

i suppose the next question would be whether or not the UK couple in the article might be the same -- they'd disapprove of such a "sinful" "practice" but continue to feed and clothe a gay teenager. and that might be true. but since -- as has been pointed out in gay adoption threads -- adoption seeks to put a child in the "best possible" environment, it still seems to me that such a negative situation could be prevented by the screening process.