3.5.2 Beyond white wedded heteronormativity
As discussed in Chapter two the dominance of the biological paradigm ensured adoption limited to people who identified as heterosexual until the Adoption and Children Act 2002, came into force in 2005. This bias also intersects with research on adoption which explored genetic and inter-racial factors, (Barn & Kirton, 2012; Finkler, 2001;
Jansen & Ross, 2001; Skodak & Skeels, 1945; Taylor, Mapp, Boutté-Queen, & Erich, 2010; Wegar, 2000) and biological influence on parent-child adoptive relationships (Suwalsky et al., 2012; Suwalsky, Hendricks,
& Bornstein, 2008). Undoubtedly, the historical development of adoption and its interrelationship with parenting research aids the construction of who is an adoptive parent (Hendricks & Bornstein, 2008; Hepburn, 2008).
The issue of biological and non-biological relationships has also underpinned the legal developments of child adoption law, which empower the state to sever biological, familial bonds and replace them with adoptive relationships (Pustilnik, 2002). The appearance of being biologically related has also influenced the historical experience of adoptive families (Garn, Bailey, & Cole, 1976). However, there has been a counter-argument for the benefit of appearing different, with international adoptions making it visibly evident that there is no biological link. This issue raises a challenge to colour blind adoption policies developed on inherent views of white superiority that by default position BAME adopters as inferior (Fenton, 2001; Gillum & O’Brien, 2010; Sunmonu, 2000;
Wainwright & Ridley, 2012)
To explore what is often constructed as the unexplained absence of black adopters, Sunmonu (2000), conducted a mini-survey in the national black newspaper titled The Voice. He found that in addition to concerns such as racial matching and finance, other deterrents were cultural
63 acceptance and a belief by potential adopters that they would not be approved. These concerns of Black prospective adopters are longstanding and resonate in previous studies undertaken in America (Hirt, 1960).
Indeed, adoption policies in Britain have served to dismiss the ethnic needs of non-white children, and have therefore failed to do little to recruit black adopters (Wainwright & Ridley, 2012). In 2001, Fenton completed a small-scale study, which concluded that adoption agency responses to enquiries from Black adopters were poor. We should consider it an outrage that ten years on from Kaniuk’s (1991) study black prospective adopters continued to feel rebuked by adoption agencies. However, there is an absence of outrage, and a generation on from Kaniuk’s study we continue to have an absence of adopters from BAME communities. This concern rises further when we consider how BAME children continue to be disproportionality represented in our ‘looked after children’ figures (Owen
& Statham, 2009; Coram BAAF, 2016). This absence of Black adopters has led to legislative changes in the Children and Families Act 2014, which removed a duty for racial matching when placing a child with a prospective adoptive parent. While this measure may create some opportunity for children to be placed with adoptive families, it does not address the pervasive issue of increasing the recruitment of BAME prospective adopters.
It is essential that we do not consider Black adoptees and adopters to be a hegemonic group, we need to make their experiences visible and to understand the impact of white colonialism. Cuthbert, Murphy and Quartly (2009), deliver a feminist response as they consider the plight of Aboriginal families in Australia. They raise concerns about the lack of attention given to poor and disadvantaged non-European, women whose babies are likely to fill the statistics of state adoption targets. They raise concerns about the modern approach to expedite adoption for children other than babies and orphans actively pursued in Australia, America and the UK. Cuthbert et al. (2009) draw attention to the political use of language that purports the value of adoption while academic literature asserts an anti-adoption bias (Wegar, 2000). Although, feminist writers such as mother Bordo (2005), value adoption as a means of making
64 families, she recognises the pronatalist implications of women who are not mothers. Bordo’s representation of being a white woman who adopted a black female child is further interrogated by Cuthbert et al. (2009) who challenge what they describe as her lack of critical reflectiveness in the use of her language.
While arguments that interrogate discourses are valuable, alongside these, the likelihood of transracial adoption for BAME children in Britain has increased since the enactment of the Children and Families Act 2014.
The debate about the value of a family experience for children and the contest of inter-racial experience continues. Without a doubt, there is a need to look meaningfully at broader adoption constructs and practices that serve to alienate Black adopters. However, as transracial placements do exist, we can learn from research such as Barn’s (2013) exploration of how white adoptive mothers can be mindful of discourses that serve to improve racial and ethnic socialisation. These issues remain complicated when there is a need to challenge assertions of racial integration to validate placing BAME children with white adopters. That is of relevance when research demonstrates that commitment to racial and ethnic socialisation dilutes over time (Thomas & Tessler, 2007).
The Adoption and Children Act 2002 extended who could become an adoptive parent, via the inclusion of gay men and lesbian women as prospective adoptive parents in England, Wales and Scotland (Hicks, 2005). That decision simultaneously prompted a renewed interest in the transition to adoption research over the last five years. Studies predominantly originate in North America and Canada with a focus on lesbian (Ryan & Whitlock, 2007; and gay male adoptive couples (Berkowitz, 2011; Downing, Richardson, Kinkler & Goldberg, 2009;
Gianino, 2008) and comparative same-sex and heterosexual studies (Goldberg, Downing & Richardson, 2009; Goldberg & Smith, 2008, 2009).
Although notably there are British studies, undertaken by Hicks (2005) and Woods, (2015), these remain sporadic.
65 An ecological study considered the decision-making processes for 32 American gay male adoptive couples (Downing et al., 2009). The research focus was on the decision-making process in the type of adoption route chosen: international, public domestic or private domestic. They found that gay male couples’ decisions were akin to heterosexual couples about race, age and health of their adoptive child. However, converse to heterosexual couples, male same-sex couples’ decision making was also influenced by the anticipation of discrimination that they and the child could encounter. In particular, Downing et al. (2009) explain that most American states require adoptive couples to be married, yet there is no legal marriage provision for same-sex couples. They counted the frequency of participant responses and tabulated these under the heading of each route to adoption. Most frequent was ‘private domestic adoption’
and then ‘desire for an infant’ depicting the wish to bond with a child and influence their earliest development. Unfortunately, the limited ethnicity of the participants and the frequency, underpinnings of emergent themes, do limit the transferability of the learning from their study.
In Britain, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 permitted unmarried, gay male and lesbian women to adopt children. However, this legislation took a decade to be enacted across the whole of the UK. The legal, social and personal complexities of same-sex adoptive parenting extend beyond adoption laws; reflecting socio-cultural issues at local, national and international levels. Adoption researchers are now beginning to explore this phenomenon and are producing specific insight on adoption for gay men (Berkowitz, 2011; Downing, Richardson, Kinkler, & Goldberg, 2009;
Gianino, 2008,) and lesbian women (Goldberg, 2006; Golombok, 2002;
Ryan & Whitlock, 2007). Other studies include both homosexual and heterosexual adoptive parents to make comparisons (Farr & Patterson, 2009; Goldberg, 2009; Goldberg, Kinkler & Moyer, 2014; Goldberg, Moyer, Kinkler & Richardson, 2012). I note the use of language in this regard in that homosexual adults are defined in the research literature as ‘gay male’
and ‘lesbians’. However, heterosexual adults are referred to as a
‘heterosexual couple’, which I suggest negates the diversity that each gender brings to the parental relationship.
66 In addition to research studies categorising adoptive parents by their sexuality (Farr, Forsell, & Patterson, 2010), they are also distinguished by their marital status. The negotiation of personal choice for single women contemplating adoption was previously studied in Israel by Ben-Ari and Weinberg-Jurnik, (2007) in their phenomenological study of 13 adoptive mothers. All of their participants were aged in their 40’s when they adopted, and thus their reflections of choices they made are through a retrospective lens. Ben-Ari and Weinberg-Jurnik, (p. 827, 2007) suggest women consciously separate the choice between motherhood and intimate relationships leading them to distinguish between ‘man as parent’
and ‘man as intimate partner’. Furthermore, they couch this in terms of women being less dependent and more empowered in the choices they make to achieve motherhood and a perception of being strong enough to challenge dominant cultural norms. The experiences shared by participants in this study extend our understanding beyond heteronormative views of gender bias exploring the multifaceted choices of parenthood that participants experienced.