Resultados de cada reactivo de acuerdo a la antigüedad de los profesores.

In this chapter I consider the existing research relating to the fostering and adoption of children by lesbians or gay men. Research which deals with this issue is scarce (Brown 1990, 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Ricketts 1991; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987, 1990; Skeates & Jabri 1988), and so I will address some related areas: studies of lesbian mothers, studies of gay fathers, and studies of children living with gay or lesbian carers. My justification for considering these related areas is that debates around the acceptability of lesbian or gay carers centre on the construction of knowledge-claims about lesbian/gay parents and their children, as much as about fostering and adoption specifically. Within each section, I will consider the major studies in detail, before going on to draw out the general themes emerging from the research. Finally, I will address knowledge produced by the existing studies, in order to consider how my own research questions are informed by the literature presented herein.

Empirical Studies of Fostering and Adoption by Lesbians and Gay Men:

The pioneering work of Jane Skeates & Dorian Jabri (1988) in Britain was to consider the experiences of lesbian and gay applicants to the fostering and

adoption process, and the response of local authorities to such applications. At base, their study argues for the fair treatment of lesbian and gay applicants from the position of a right of entitlement (1988:7). This means that lesbian and gay applicants should not be subject to a priori disqualification from the fostering and adoption process, but should be assessed, like anyone else, on the basis of their ability to provide good child care (1988:7). Skeates & Jabri argue that this

constitutes a lesbian and gay 'right', and one that does not contradict the rights of children (1988:8).

Their study is based upon two research aspects: first, interviews with thirteen lesbians and gay men who had been through the fostering and adoption process (specifically, three male couples, two female couples, a single man, and two single women); and, second, profiles of policy information requested from six inner-London boroughs. Skeates & Jabri note that it is difficult to draw firm

conclusions from their small interview sample, and that only one person was from outside London (1988:28). Of their sample group, three people had applied to a local authority as a 'single person' and had not been out as gay or lesbian, while the remaining ten had applied as openly lesbian or gay people (1988:31). In relation to the profiles of the London boroughs (1988:60-70), I believe their research is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the boroughs concerned are all inner-London, and all had reputations at the time of the study for

progressive, anti-discriminatory policies. Second, requesting policy information on paper from the boroughs allows them to present what I term 'practice in

theory'; that is, what they might like to achieve with lesbian and gay applicants rather than what was practised. Third, to focus on policy rather than social work practice does not present a picture of how social workers were dealing with lesbians and gay men in the boroughs concerned.

Skeates & Jabri provide a comprehensive list of what they term 'myths' about lesbians and gay men, which they argue have informed social work practice (1988:20/1). These include notions that lesbians and gay men are deviant, unable to provide proper gender role models to children, likely to sexually abuse children (more so for gay men), likely to bring their children up to be lesbian or gay, and not 'naturally' able to parent (1988:20/1). Skeates & Jabri question these assumptions, and make the following points: in relation to gender role modeling, they ask why fixed roles are held to be so important, and make the points that heterosexuals also provide diverse gender roles at times and that children also learn about gender from outside of the home (1988:21). They suggest that lesbians and gay men do not bring up their children to be lesbian or gay, and that sexuality is no indicator of good or bad parenting ability

(1988:22/3). They also point out statistics from the Metropolitan Police which show that 96% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual men, and yet gay men are still held to be more of a sexual risk (1988:23). They make the point that social work agencies need to question their use of such 'stereotypes', and also the construction of the 'ideal family model', in order to benefit the whole process of social work assessment (1988:24/5).

There are a number of themes that emerge from their interviews with lesbian and gay applicants, and they note that the assessment process is 'doubly

discriminatory' for lesbians or gay men who are also black and/or disabled

(1988:28/58). Their research found that social workers assumed applicants to be heterosexual unless told otherwise, and that, if the applicant was not out as lesbian or gay, then sexuality was not discussed at all (1988:31/36). One social worker made comments to indicate that there were suspicions that the applicant was gay, but he was never asked (1988:32).

For gay men, the 'corruption' response was common. There were concerns about why gay men would want to care for boys (1988:42), and suggestions that they had ulterior, sexual motives (1988:45). A single gay man, who was not out, felt that his social worker was worried that he would sexually abuse a child

(1988:32). Interestingly, a lesbian respondent reported that her social worker had said that lesbians were the safest placement for children (1988:40).

Most of the respondents felt that it was important to be out to a local authority, and many felt that social workers would be more likely to respond positively to honesty (1988:33/37). Nevertheless, the responses of the local authorities

concerned varied. One authority said that lesbians and gay men were covered by their policy of equal opportunities and that applicants would be considered on their merits (1988:47). Others said that they were unsure how to deal with such

applications (1988:42), that they had never assessed a gay couple before (1988:43), or refused to respond to such applicants (1988:45).

With regard to the process of assessment, two respondents reported that the experience was positive, but this was where the social worker either had gay friends (1988:40) and/or an understanding of lesbian and gay issues (1988:44). One gay couple felt that their social worker was misinformed about the issues, and higher management further scrutinized their application when they came to the attention of panel (1988:38). Another gay couple reported that their social worker expected them to have traditional gender role divisions within their home (1988:38). A lesbian couple said that their assessment was initially good, but when a second worker became involved she did not approve of their application, and did not want it to go to panel. They felt she had little knowledge of lesbian issues (1988:47/49).

Most applicants felt that the whole process was too long (1988:37), but it is very difficult to say whether this has anything to do with issues of sexuality. A gay couple reported further delay to their application when the borough concerned found out that they had been recommended for approval by a social worker. Their application was further scrutinized and the borough was unsure about how to handle the issues (1988:38). One woman noted that she had been approved for adoption by a borough, had children placed with her, and had been asked to run training groups for potential applicants. When she later came out as a

lesbian, she was withdrawn from the training courses (1988:34).

Skeates & Jabri (1988) provide the following conclusions regarding their interviews with lesbian and gay applicants. They suggest that those who were out as lesbian or gay received less favourable responses from local authorities (1988:49). They also believe that those who were out experienced more delay in the process of assessment, and that all lesbian and gay applicants face tougher questioning and scrutiny than heterosexual ones (1988:50). They also found that, where lesbians or gay men had children placed with them, they were more likely to be disabled children, or those termed 'hard to place' because of particular needs:

The most recurring reason for the allocation of a disabled child with a Lesbian or Gay parent is the belief that a child with for example, a learning disability, will not understand its parent's sexuality and will therefore not be influenced or corrupted by it. Moreover, there is also the belief that a child with a disability, like all people with disabilities, does not have sexual needs/sexuality, and could not

therefore possibly grow up to become Lesbian or Gay. (Skeates &

Jabri, 1988:57).

The second aspect of the Skeates & Jabri study was to request policy

boroughs, namely Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Lewisham, Lambeth and Camden (1988: 60-70). All of these boroughs reported that they had policies of equal opportunity that would not discriminate against lesbians and gay men, and that all applicants would be assessed on their merits as potential carers. Most also noted the need for training on issues of sexuality for their social work staff. Only three case examples are mentioned; a lesbian foster carer in Hammersmith & Fulham (1988:63), an application by a lesbian couple in Haringey (1988:65), and an approved lesbian carer, who had a disabled child placed with her, in Lambeth (1988:68).

Skeates & Jabri recognized the need for more detailed research to examine the social work practices of local authorities in relation to lesbian and gay carers (1988:74), and they were concerned that the implementation of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (Gooding 1992:290) might cause a number of local authorities to backtrack on their commitment to lesbians and gay men.

The research of Wendell Ricketts (1991), and Ricketts & Roberta Achtenberg (1987, 1990), has documented findings relating to fostering and adoption by lesbians and gay men in North America. Their research is noteworthy for its use of the case study method (Yin 1984), in particular the Boston Foster Care Case (Ricketts 1991:67; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:99, 1990:98), and is based upon interviews with lesbian and gay carers, young lesbians and gay men in care, and heterosexual young people living with lesbian or gay parents (Ricketts &

Achtenberg 1990:85). They suggest that there are hidden numbers of lesbian and gay carers who have not come out to social work agencies (Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:84), and that some social workers prefer to ignore issues of sexuality in assessments (Ricketts 1991:1; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:89, 1990:84). This poses a number of problems, however, for social work agencies, as increasing numbers of lesbian or gay carers are coming out (Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:93, 1990:87).

In terms of the social work assessment of lesbians and gay men, Ricketts & Achtenberg contend that "...homosexual applicants are scrutinized more carefully and are held to a higher standard than are their heterosexual counterparts"

(Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:104), and report that assessments of lesbians or gay men were more thorough and rigorous (Ricketts 1991:10; Ricketts &

Achtenberg 1990:98). Social workers often operated with a narrow concept of the 'family' in assessments (Ricketts 1991:8), and, for lesbians or gay men, sexuality came to dominate the inquiry to the exclusion of all other issues (Ricketts

1991:119). Like Skeates & Jabri (1988), Ricketts' (1991) research argues for a right of entitlement to assessment for lesbians and gay men.

Also like Skeates & Jabri (1988), they report a number of stereotypical views or 'myths' about lesbians and gay men held by social workers (Ricketts 1991:47/8; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:113), all of which are refuted by existing research (Ricketts 1991:49). In particular, they found concerns regarding lesbians' and gay

men's abilities to provide gender role models, which betray anxieties that the traditional gender system might break down. For example, Ricketts & Achtenberg (1990) report that a "...county-appointed lawyer suggested that [a] four-year-old would do better in a 'normal' family; later he asked whether two 'strong women' would be able 'to raise a little girl to be appropriately submissive'." (1990:111). Ricketts & Achtenberg also report that lesbians and gay men who do have children placed with them are often asked to care for 'hard to place' children (1990:104). They found that many lesbian or gay applicants felt they had to educate their social worker about lesbian and gay issues (Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:90, 1990:85/105), and they suggest that social work training should

address such concerns (Ricketts 1991:3; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:107, 1990:113).

The case study reported in their research is that of two foster carers in Boston, Massachusetts (Ricketts 1991:67; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:99, 1990:98). The case involved a gay couple, David Jean and Donald Babets, who were approved to foster, and had two children placed with them. Following exposure of their story in the local press, however, the children were removed from their care, and a review of fostering policy instigated. The research reports that the men's

assessment was twice the usual length, and that the policy review resulted in potential lesbian or gay carers being used only as a 'last resort' (Ricketts 1991:76; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:102, 1990:99). Ricketts & Achtenberg (1987:104, 1990:100) suggest that this case reveals that those lesbians or gay

men approved often possess special skills (both men worked in social care professions), that media attention distorts the potential for adequate policy consideration, and that lesbian and gay community opposition to such discrimination is important.

The work of Helen Cosis Brown (1990, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1998) is not empirically based, but she does consider how sexuality can be assessed by social workers in fostering and adoption. She notes that social workers often experience feelings of great responsibility when assessing people who will become the carers of children (1991:11), and when those potential carers are also gay or lesbian, workers feel there is an added 'spotlight' on their work. Many do not accept that lesbians or gay men should be assessed, but feel that they cannot say this for fear of contradicting policies of equal opportunity (1991:11). Others have assessed and recommended lesbian or gay carers, only to find that their managers will not back such a recommendation (1991:11). It is Brown's contention that opposing 'gay rights' to notions that 'children need normal

families' is unhelpful (1991:11), and she suggests that the proper assessment of lesbian or gay applicants, based upon children's rights to good placements that meet their needs, is the way forward. In this way, social workers need to avoid using either negative/discriminatory or positive/over-liberal stereotypes of lesbians and gay men (1990:8, 1991:15).

knowledge about children who live with lesbian or gay carers (1991:14, 1992b:214), as this addresses stereotypical concerns about the likely effects upon children. In contrast to what she terms an 'over-liberal' response (1992a:32) in assessments, where sexuality may not be discussed because this might not be 'politically correct', Brown advocates that sexuality needs to be firmly on the agenda in all assessments (1992a:30). This means that, in assessing lesbians and gay men, social workers need to consider and cover particular issues that do not relate to heterosexuals (1990:19, 1991:16). These include the lesbian or gay applicants’ experiences of their sexuality, their family reactions to this, how they feel about being lesbian or gay, their experiences of homophobia, their

relationships, how they will help a child to understand their carers are

lesbian/gay, and how they will relate such information to other adults in the child's life (at school, for example) (1991:16). She argues that carers need a clear sense of their own sexuality and sexual boundaries in order to be able to help children in their care (Brown 1992a:33).

In order to be able to carry out such assessments with confidence, social workers need to ask themselves what knowledge, what values, and what skills they

have/need in relation to lesbian or gay potential carers (Brown 1992a:31). Brown suggests that this should be addressed in the training of workers (1990:8), and gives the example of how attitudes towards single carers as fosterers or adopters have moved on in social work theory and practice (Brown 1992a:31). Brown also notes that social workers frequently raise the issue of the potential objections of

birth parents to such placements, and she suggests that they need to address this, rather than it becoming an excuse for the justification of discrimination against lesbians and gay men (Brown 1990:21, 1991:16). She notes that, where lesbians and gay men have been properly assessed as able to provide good child care, then social workers can feel confident in addressing birth parents' concerns. Some birth parents will support such placements, some will come to change their views over time, and the views of some will be overridden in

placement decisions (Brown 1991:16). Where a birth parent objects to placement with lesbian or gay carers, the social worker will have to make a decision whether to offer another placement, to withdraw the placement on the grounds that it is adequate, or to overrule the parents' wishes in favour of the child's needs (Brown 1990:21).

General Themes Emerging from Existing Research on Lesbian & Gay Fostering and Adoption:

Existing research suggests that social work theory remains largely discriminatory and pathologising in relation to lesbians and gay men (Brown 1992b:202), and that many lesbians and gay men who approach social work agencies are fearful of the power that social workers have to reject their applications (Romans 1991). Social work agencies are likely to operate a number of 'stereotypical' views about lesbians and gay men (Skeates & Jabri 1988:24). With regard to lesbian and gay applicants to the fostering and adoption process specifically, social work

agencies may have no policy on how to respond (Sullivan 1995; Taylor

1993:111), or may not know how to respond to such enquiries (Skeates & Jabri 1988:42/3; Smart 1991:17). Many social work agencies simply refuse to respond to lesbian or gay enquirers (Clarke 1991:17; Skeates & Jabri 1988:45).

Brown (1992a:30) reports that many social workers find it difficult to discuss issues of sexuality in an open manner. This may be due to a number of reported factors: general ignorance on the part of many social workers about lesbian and gay issues (Eaton 1986:6; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:105; Romans 1991:15), the operation of homophobic values (Appleby & Anastas 1998: 33; Martin 1993:132; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:88; Wisniewski & Toomey 1987:455), personal opposition to lesbian and gay fostering or adoption (Brown 1991:11; Martin 1993:141), and the holding of 'discriminatory' and 'stereotypical' beliefs about lesbians and gay men generally (Brown 1992b:214; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:113; Skeates & Jabri 1988:20/1). The implications of such findings have been that the issues of sexuality have often been ignored in assessment (Ricketts 1991:1; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1990:84), that the true number of lesbian and gay carers remains hidden (Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:89), and that lesbian and gay applicants frequently report that they find themselves in the position of having to 'educate' their social worker about lesbian and gay issues (Martin 1993:170; Ricketts & Achtenberg 1987:90, 1990:85/105).

assessment, or home study, upon lesbian and gay applicants. Although a