Federal Court to Re-Hear Same-Sex Couple’s Challenge After Louisiana Refuses to Respect Out-of-State Adoptions

 Lambda Legal, January 14, 2011

Five-year-old son raised by two fathers still without accurate birth certificate.

(New Orleans, January 14, 2011) – The full 16-member U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, January 19, 2011, regarding the New York adoption of a Louisiana-born baby boy by a same-sex couple.

Lambda Legal represents Oren Adar and Mickey Smith in their case against Louisiana State Registrar Darlene Smith. Adar and Smith are a gay couple who adopted their Louisiana-born son in 2006 in New York, where a judge issued an adoption decree. When the couple attempted to get a new birth certificate for their child, in part so Smith could add his son to his health insurance, the registrar’s office told him that Louisiana does not recognize adoption by unmarried parents and so could not issue it.

Lambda Legal filed suit on behalf of Adar and Smith in October 2007, saying that the registrar was violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to recognize the New York adoption judgment because the child’s parents are unmarried.  The Constitution requires that judgments and orders issued by a court in one state be legally binding in other states. Further, a state may not disadvantage some children over others simply because the child’s parents are unmarried. The Louisiana attorney general disagreed, and advised the registrar that she did not have to honor an adoption from another state that would not have been granted under Louisiana law had the couple lived and adopted there. In 2009, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey ruled against the registrar and issued a summary judgment ordering her to issue a new birth certificate identifying both Oren Adar and Mickey Smith as the boy’s parents, saying her continued failure to do so violated the U.S. Constitution. In 2010, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the judgment. The attorney general requested a rehearing by the full Court of Appeals, which was granted.

WHO:          Kenneth Upton Jr., Supervising Senior Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal

WHAT:        Oral Arguments, Adar v. Smith

WHERE:          John Minor Wisdom U.S. Court of Appeals Building
                600 Camp St.
                New Orleans, Louisiana

WHEN:        Wednesday, January 19, 2011
                9:00 a.m.

in Adoption / In the News / Legal / Second Parent Adoption  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Wisconsin court leaves stand a parentage order for a nonbio mom but precludes such orders in the future

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 – Beyond Gay and Straight Marriage – Nancy Polikoff

The most horrific part of last month’s North Carolina Boseman v. Jarrell opinion against second-parent adoption was that it said the court that granted the adoption lacked “subject matter jurisdiction,” which means that the order was void, along with all second-parent adoption orders, the moment it was granted. That wiped out every second-parent adoption in the state.

Well, within days of that opinion a Wisconsin appeals court ruled in Dustardy H. v. Bethany H. that the state does not allow a nonbio mom to obtain a parentage order, but it refused to vacate the order that a court had granted in 2004. The trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction, the appeals court ruled, and therefore, although the order was erroneously granted, it remains in effect because the bio mom did not challenge it in enough time.

Wisconsin does not permit second-parent adoption. So when Dusty and Beth had a child, Christian, by donor insemination in 2004 they filed a parentage petition and obtained an order from a trial judge that Dusty, the nonbio mom, was also Christian’s parent. The trial court had two theories. First, it applied the state’s donor insemination statute, which makes a husband the legal parent of a child born to his wife using donor insemination. It also used the “de facto parent” standard established in a 1995 visitation case and named Dusty a legal parent because she met that standard. These are both plausible theories supporting recognition of both of the Christian’s parents. The couple’s lawyer clearly sought some mechanism to protect Christian’s emotional and economic security and the intent of this couple that their child have two parents.

When the couple split up they informally shared custody of the child, but in 2008 Dusty filed for joint custody and Beth responded by asking that the parentage order be declared void. Beth won, and Dusty appealed.

The appeals court said Beth was right on the law. It limited the insemination statute to husbands, and it said the “de facto parent” test could only support a visitation order, not a parentage petition. On the insemination issue, I blogged a little over a year ago about an Oregon appeals court ruling interpreting a similar statute to apply to the lesbian partner of a woman who gave birth through donor insemination. Unfortunately, the Wisconsin court ruled differently.

But — and here is where it differed from the North Carolina court — the Wisconsin court said the trial court that issued the parentage order DID have subject matter jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, it was a valid order unless appealed or unless Beth used a different statute to file for relief from that order within a “reasonable time,” which she did not do. So Dusty remains Christian’s mother. And similar parentage orders from Wisconsin courts, at least if they are several years old, cannot be challenged by a bio mom trying to get rid of her child’s other parent. And if the couple remains together and has such an order it is valid for purposes of determining the right to government benefits, inheritance, or other matters flowing from the parent-child relationship.

It’s worth mentioning again that this bio mom has destroyed a source of legal security for children of lesbian couples in Wisconsin while gaining nothing for herself. In the North Carolina case, the court vacated the adoption but ruled that the nonbio mom met the standard for obtaining a visitation order for her child, so the bio mom didn’t get what she wanted there either. Instead she wiped out every second-parent adoption in the state, even for happily-still-together families.

And a note for gay male couples: Wisconsin has a surrogacy statute that allows a nonbio dad to obtain a parentage order when the child is born using a donor egg to a gestational surrogate. One of the country’s most reputable surrogacy agencies is The Surrogacy Center in Madison, and they happily work with gay male couples.

in Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Supreme Court lets stand New York ruling for Debra H.

Beyond Gay and Straight Marriage – Nancy Polikoff – January 11, 2011
I wrote extensively about the dreadful New York Court of Appeals decision last year that refused to recognize parentage of a nonbio mom based on the couple’s creation of a two-parent family. That court did, however, find that Debra H. was the parent of the child born to Janice R. because the couple was in a Vermont civil union when the child was born. The fact that a child in New York has two parents if the couple is married or in a civil union but otherwise has one parent, no matter how much that couple planned for and raised the child together, was a major impetus for the conference I’m hosting in March on the “New Illegitimacy.”

Anyway, Janice asked the US Supreme Court to hear her case, claiming that granting parental status to her civil union partner violated her Constitutional right to raise her biological child. Yesterday, the Court denied her petition. That’s what I expected. The Court hears very few cases at all, and very few specifically in the area of family law, which is generally a matter of state law and varies so much from state to state. Other nonbio moms have also been turned away when they’ve asked the Court to hear their cases. Refusing to hear a case — which is called a denial of certiorari in legal-speak — has no legal significance. In other words, it doesn’t add anything to the New York ruling or make it more meaningful in any way. It just leaves it alone.

in In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Landmark State Supreme Court decision establishes parentage for Gay Parents

Boston, Massachusetts January 7, 2011 — In an unprecedented decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that two gay men could be recognized as legal parents on the birth certificate of their twins born through surrogacy. This is the first time in U.S. history that a state high court has acknowledged the parentage of two men while stating the relevant statute “confer(s) parental status on an intended parent who is a party to a valid gestational agreement irrespective of that intended parent’s genetic relationship to the children.” It “has created a new way by which persons may become legal parents.”

“This is the single most important decision in the history of gay men having children through surrogacy,’ said John Weltman, Esq., president of Circle Surrogacy, and author of an amicus brief in the case. “For a state high court to recognize the right of two gay men to be legal fathers of a child from the outset of the surrogacy process sets an incredible precedent. Furthermore, it positions Connecticut as one of the best states in the country for couples – gay and straight – to pursue gestational surrogacy with egg donation to create their family.”

Anthony Raftopol and Shawn Hargon, an American couple residing in Hungary, had a daughter through surrogacy, and were both recognized as her child’s legal father on the birth certificate. They then had twins in April 2008 through the same gestational surrogate and egg donor. When the couple petitioned the court to be named as the children’s legal parents, the court granted their petition. However, this time the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Health, attempted to block the creation of the birth certificate, stating that parentage could only be established through conception, adoption or artificial insemination.

The Supreme Court rejected this claim, noting that according to the Department of Health’s argument, a child born to an infertile couple who had entered into a gestational agreement with egg and sperm donors and a gestational carrier would be born parentless. “The legislature cannot be presumed to have intended this consequence,” the Court declared, “which is so absurd as to be Kafkaesque.” The revolutionary decision acknowledges that entry into a valid gestational agreement creates a fourth method to establish parentage, regardless of biological relation.

in Legal / Parenting / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

LGBT Parenting Roundup

Mombian – January 4, 2011

I’m still recovering from the holidays, so let’s be different and start with some celebrity news before diving into politics:

Celebrity News

  • Elton John and his partner David Furnish are now proud parents. “Elton John and David Furnish became first-time fathers on Christmas after welcoming a baby boy via a surrogate,” says the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Just once, though, I want to see a newspaper headline say, “[Male celebrity] and [Female celebrity] welcomed their new baby via sexual intercourse.”Much coverage of the new dads has also mentioned that John is listed as “Father” and Furnish as “Mother” on the child’s birth certificate, as if that somehow explained their parental roles. Fact is, of course, it may or may not coincide with their roles—but they might just have filled them out at random, as the forms clearly haven’t caught up with the reality of families today. “Parent” and “Parent” really isn’t that hard, folks.
  • Meanwhile, Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka spoke with People about raising their twins (and After Elton has a copy of the adorable photo spread).
  • Jane Lynch, lesbian mom and Glee actor, and Dan Savage, gay dad and “It Gets Better” campaign founder, talk with Newsweek about gay rights and being parents.

International News

  • Eleven-year-old Aspen Drewitt-Barlow, son of the first gay couple in Britain to have a baby via surrogate, has a sweet piece in the Mirror about life with his two dads. In a separate story, his parents are planning to set up a surrogacy center focused on same-sex couples.
  • The U.K.’s Guardian newspaper profiles four lesbian couples with children.
  • Since the U.K. changed its law requiring fertility clinics to consider a child’s “need for a father” before providing services, the number of lesbian couples seeking in vitro fertilization (IVF) has doubled, and the number of single women has tripled. The number using donor insemination at registered clinics has stayed about the same.
  • In Argentina, a baby girl was registered with the last names of both her biological and non-biological mothers, as the first child of a legally married lesbian couple in the country.
  • A gay couple in Johannesburg, South Africa gay has won a seven-year-battle for permission to have a child via a surrogate.
  • On a similar note, the Jerusalem Family Court ruled that a baby born to a surrogate may be adopted by the biological father’s partner.
  • Volker Kauder, the parliamentary leader of Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats, said same-sex couples have no right to have children.

U.S. Politics and Law

  • I’ve done an in-depth piece for Keen News Service on the recent awful North Carolina Supreme Court ruling that has jeopardized all existing second-parent adoptions in the state.
  • From the Dallas Voice, via Pam’s House Blend, comes the tragic news of lesbian mom Debie Hackett who died by suicide after losing a custody lawsuit with her former partner. As Pam points out, “It’s hard to pinpoint any one cause other than a person in crisis didn’t get the help she needed in time,” but the stress of the custody battle likely did not help her emotional state. I’ll take a cue from the Dallas Voice and provide a link here to the LGBT-friendly American Foundation for Suicide Prevention’s Warning Signs for Suicide.
in In the News / Legislation / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Eleven LGBT Parenting Resolutions for 2011

Mombian.com – January 1 2011

(Happy 2011 to all! I’ll be back on a regular posting schedule next week. In the meantime, here’s a piece that was originally published as my Mombian newspaper column. Feel free to add your own resolutions in the comments.)

The end of November through early January is one big party in our multi-celebration family, with Thanksgiving leading to Hanukkah, Christmas, New Year’s, and my spouse’s birthday in quick succession. In between finding room for our son’s new Lego sets and making sure the cats don’t eat the tinsel off the tree or knock over the menorah, however, I like to think about resolutions for the coming year. Here are 11 for 2011 that I offer as suggestions for other parents as well—some generic, some with an LGBT twist.

Travel someplace new. One of the great joys of parenting for me is sharing new places with our son. And while I like taking him to places I already love, I also think there are lessons to be learned when we go someplace new to all of us—local or farther afield—and get to explore it together. If your child is old enough, have him or her help with the planning.

Teach someone something about your family. We don’t all have to be outspoken advocates 24×7—but if we each commit to saying even one thing during the year that helps a non-LGBT person better understand LGBT families, we’ll be making progress. Share what it means to have books and other media that reflect LGBT families. Explain how a certain piece of legislation would affect you. Suggest how another parent might discuss your family to her/his kids.

See more things from your child’s perspective. It is a cliché to say that parenting helps one see the world through a child’s eyes, but it is also all too easy to spend so much time in “responsible parent” mode that we forget to do so. Make a point of trying to see your child’s view. Even if you don’t agree, it will help you communicate more effectively.

Take time for your partner/spouse/a date. I often joke that if the right wing wants to stop gay sex, they should be encouraging us all to become parents. I also firmly believe, however, that a healthy relationship between parents leads to a happier, healthier home environment. A little time away from the kids (whether in bed, at the movies, or otherwise) helps us refresh and recharge. And if kids think that becoming a parent means giving up the rest of one’s life, then they’ll never want to become parents themselves. Set an example of good balance.

Help another LGBT family. Whether in-person or online, share something that has helped you as an LGBT family—a referral to a friendly lawyer or doctor, an approach to discussing donors, surrogates, or birth parents with your child, an inclusive book you have loved. Whatever stage you are at in your parenting journey, someone else is less far along, and might benefit from your advice.

Read a book about a different type of family. Pick out one—or one for yourself and one for your children—about a family of another race, religion, nationality, or that brought children into their lives in a different way. LGBT parents often urge others to learn more about us; we should return the favor.

Volunteer at your child’s school. At least once each year, raise your hand to help out in the classroom, at the book fair, on field day, or with a fundraiser. Yes, it’s hard if you’re also employed full-time, but your kids will appreciate the effort—not to mention that having LGBT parents who are visible, valuable members of the school community helps us all.

Support a small LGBT cause. Support the big organizations, too, if you wish, but don’t forget the smaller ones like local community centers and youth groups, HIV/AIDS service organizations, health initiatives like the Mautner Project (mautnerproject.org), and youth education organizations and initiatives like Groundspark (groundspark.org) and the Family Acceptance Project (familyproject.sfsu.edu).

Build things with your kid(s)—often. A paper airplane, a cake, a tower of blocks, a new deck—whether a one-time affair or an ongoing project, creating things together can be a world of fun—as well as an exercise (for both of you) in how to follow directions, share, overcome frustration, and ask for help.

Make sure your legal documents are up to date and accessible. Are your wills, powers of attorney, and other legal documents in order? Have there been any major life changes (like moving to a new state or becoming married or civil unioned) since you last made out your wills? Do you have copies of your powers of attorney and adoption papers or parentage orders that you bring with you when you travel? A new year is a good time to check all of this and see a lawyer if necessary.

Thank your family. However you define it, whoever is included, make sure to tell them that you value their role in your life, despite the annoyances, arguments, piles of laundry, and tacky holiday gifts.

in Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Politicians refuse to act after churches win right to discriminate against gay foster parents

The Australian – December 27, 2010

BOTH the NSW government and opposition have ruled out any changes to the state’s anti-discrimination laws in the wake of a ruling that charities could bar gay couples as foster carers on religious grounds. In a decision that will open the way for other religious charities to refuse gay couples access to their services, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled that Wesley Mission’s foster care arm, Wesley Dalmar Services, had proved an exemption under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act allowing it to discriminate against homosexual couples, reported The Australian. Wesley Mission, part of the Uniting Church assembly, argued that providing foster care services to gay couples would put at risk its financial and volunteer assistance from members of the mission who adhered to the doctrine that a monogamous heterosexual partnership was “the norm and ideal of the family”.

The decision overturned a ruling that ordered Wesley Mission to take steps to eliminate unlawful discrimination after refusing services to a gay couple.

NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Act – along with similar acts in most states – provides a series of exemptions for religious bodies. The exemptions apply specifically to the ordination and training of priests and ministers.

However, an extremely broad, non-specific exemption also applies to “any act or practice” of a religious body that conforms to that body’s doctrines.

The Administrative Decisions Tribunal described the ability of a religious group to prove an exemption to the act as “singularly undemanding” and noted that “this may be a matter which calls for the attention of parliament”.

However, a spokesman for NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said yesterday that the legislation struck the right balance between protection from discrimination and the right to religious freedom.

“It is not envisaged that there will be changes to the current exemptions in relation to religious institutions,” the spokesman said.

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell also ruled out yesterday any move to push for legislative change on the issue if the Liberals win government next March.

Religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws are also being tested in Victoria in an appeal before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which must decide whether it was lawful for the Christian Brethren to refuse to allow a gay youth suicide prevention group accommodation at the Christian Youth Camps’ Phillip Island Adventure Resort.

NSW passed laws earlier this year that allowed gay couples to legally adopt children, but allowed church adoption agencies the right to refuse to provide services to gay couples without breaching anti-discrimination laws.

in Foster Care / Foster Parenting / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Second-parent adoption no longer available in North Carolina, but nonbio mom can obtain custody; all previously granted adoptions void

Post by Nancy Polikoff – Beyond Gay and Straight Marriage – December 21, 2010

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled yesterday that second-parent adoption is not available in the state. Any such adoption previously granted is now void. The case was widely watched in North Carolina because, among other reasons, the nonbio mom, Julia Boseman, is the first openly gay member of the North Carolina General Assembly. (She did not seek reelection this year and leaves office at the end of this month). The opinion voided her adoption of the son born to her partner, Melissa Jarrell. The court ruled that North Carolina’s adoption statute does not allow an adoption in which the legal parent retains parental rights unless that parent is married to the person petitioning to adopt the child. In other words, Boseman could become the child’s mother only if Jarrell entirely gave up her parental rights.

This statutory construction issue has faced most appeals courts looking at the availability of second-parent adoption. While most states considering the issue have ruled that second-parent adoptions are allowed, some have ruled as this court did. After similar rulings in Connecticut and Colorado, the legislatures of those states amended their adoption laws to allow second-parent adoption. Republicans are about to take control of the North Carolina legislature and are considering a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thus it seems unlikely they would change the adoption law to favor children raised by same-sex couples.

The opinion noted the practice of obtaining second-parent adoption decrees in Durham County but not in other parts of the state. It is common for lawyers to file adoption petitions in a county, and before judges, who have already construed the state’s adoption code to allow second-parent adoption. The adoption decrees stand because no one appeals them. This case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court because Boseman filed for custody after the couple split up, and Jarrell defended by arguing that Boseman was not a parent because the adoption decree should not have been granted. In a case I commented upon last week, a Minnesota appeals court ducked the question of whether that state allows second-parent adoption because it ruled that the bio mom waited too long to challenge the validity of the adoption. No such luck for Boseman and her son. The NC court ruled that the judge granting the adoption had no subject matter jurisdiction to do so, and therefore the decree was void from the outset. This means that all second-parent adoptions granted in North Carolina are void, a devastating result for the state’s children, who now lose the economic and emotional security of having two legally recognizaed parents. The opinion had two dissenting judges, who did not think Jarrell should have been allowed to challenge the adoption.

The case has a silver lining, as the court found that Boseman does have a right to seek custody of the child under a “best interests of the child” standard because Jarrell acted “inconsistently with her paramount parental status.” Here is the court’s reasoning:

The record…indicates that defendant [Jarrell] intentionally and voluntarily created a family unit in which plaintiff [Boseman]was intended to act–and acted–as a parent. The parties jointly decided to bring a child into their relationship, worked together to conceive a child, chose the child’s first name together, and gave the child a [hyphenated] last name. The parties also publicly held themselves out as the child’s parents at a baptismal ceremony and to their respective families. The record also contains ample evidence that defendant allowed plaintiff and the minor child to develop a parental relationship [and] created no expectation that this family unit was only temporary. Most notably, defendant consented to the proceeding before the adoption court relating to her child. As defendant envisioned, the adoption would have resulted in her child having “two legal parents, myself and [plaintiff].”

This means that all those gay and lesbian parents whose parental status ended as a result of this court ruling are at least not in danger of entirely losing a relationship with their child. Boseman herself retains joint custody of her son as awarded by the trial judge who heard her case.

But the right to custody and visitation is only one aspect of legal parentage. The child has lost the right to survivors benefits (e.g., social security, workers compensation) should Boseman die and to inherit from Boseman and her relatives in the absence of a will. For other children in similar circumstances, a nonbio mom might be able to walk away without any obligation to provide financial support. These are cruel results.

I want Jarrell to face serious chastisement from her community. She wanted to get rid of Boseman — a task she did not accomplish — and to do so she made an argument with enormous cost to North Carolina’s children of same-sex couples. She accepted help in the form of friend of the court briefs from the usual right-wing organizations that oppose any recognition of gay and lesbian families. What she did was abhorent and unforgiveable. The law couldn’t stop her, but her peers may have been able to. She has caused substantial damage, and I want someone to remind her of that constantly. Do I sound angry? I am. There are numerous states with no appeals court ruling on the validity of the hundreds or thousands of second-parent adoptions granted by trial judges. The next time a bio parent thinks to argue as Jarrell did someone needs to try to stop it. It’s bad for the individual child and for gay and lesbian families in general.

in Adoption / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Gay Teens Face Harsher Punishments

December 6, 2010

By TARA PARKER-POPE  – New York Times –

Gay teens in the United States are far more likely to be harshly punished by schools and courts than their straight peers, according to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics. The findings, based on a national sample of more than 15,000 middle and high school students, come at a time of heightened attention to the plight of gay teens. While several high-profile bullying and suicide cases around the country have revealed the harassment of gay teens by their peers, the new data suggests gay teens also suffer a hidden bias when judged by school and legal authorities. “Gay, lesbian and bisexual kids are being punished by police, courts and by school officials, and it’s not because they’re misbehaving more,’’ said Kathyrn Himmelstein, the study’s lead author, who initiated the research while an undergraduate student at Yale University. Ms. Himmelstein, now a high school math teacher in New York City, began the research after spending time working in the juvenile justice system during a leave of absence from college. She noticed a disproportionate number of gay and lesbian teens in juvenile court. After co-workers confirmed the trend, Ms. Himmelstein searched the scientific literature but didn’t find any studies evaluating whether gay teens were more likely to be involved in criminal activity or more severely punished. As a result, she began conducting her own study for her senior thesis at Yale University. She used data collected from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which followed middle and high school students for seven years beginning in 1994. The study is a broad overview of adolescent health but contained information on teen sexuality and both minor and serious misconduct. The study asked teens about nonviolent misdeeds like alcohol use, lying to parents, shoplifting and vandalism, as well as more serious crimes like using a weapon, burglary or selling drugs. Notably, teens who identified themselves as lesbian or gay or who experienced feelings of same-sex attraction were less likely to engage in violence than their peers. However, they were far more likely to be expelled from school, stopped by police, arrested or convicted of a crime. Girls who labeled themselves as lesbian or bisexual appeared to be at highest risk for punishment, experiencing 50 more police stops and about twice the risk of arrest and conviction as other girls who reported similar levels of misconduct. The study wasn’t designed to determine the reasons that behavior by gay and lesbian teens is more likely to be punished or criminalized. However, the authors speculated that the more severe punishments meted out to gay teens may reflect a bias by school and court officials. It may be that gay teens encounter homophobia in educational and child welfare systems and are less likely to receive support services than their straight peers. Or educators and court officials may be less likely to consider mitigating factors, like self defense against bullying, when dispensing punishment against a gay teen. Ms. Himmelstein said that instead of protecting gay teens from bullying and abuse by their peers, authority figures may actually be contributing to their victimization. “Our data show that lesbian, gay and bisexual youth are being excessively punished, but the data don’t say why,’’ says Ms. Himmelstein. “We weren’t able to figure out the circumstances of the punishment, but that’s something that should be investigated more in light of recent events involving bullying and harassment of gay teens by peers.’’

in Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

New Published Report Finds 0% of Adolescents Raised by Lesbians Have Been Physically or Sexually Abused by Parent

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Los Angeles, CA – The Williams Institute, a research center on sexual orientation law and public policy at UCLA School of Law, announces new findings from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), the longest-running study ever conducted on American lesbian families (now in its 24th year). In an article published today in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were asked about sexual abuse, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior. The paper finds that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents report having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26% of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3% who report sexual abuse. According to the authors, “the absence of child abuse in lesbian mother families is particularly noteworthy, because victimization of children is pervasive and its consequences can be devastating. To the extent that our findings are replicated by other researchers, these reports from adolescents with lesbian mothers have implications for healthcare professionals, policymakers, social service agencies, and child protection experts who seek family models in which violence does not occur.” On sexual orientation, 2.8% of the NLLFS adolescents identified as predominantly to exclusively homosexual. The study was conducted by Nanette Gartrell, MD, Henny Bos, PhD (University of Amsterdam), and Naomi Goldberg, MPP (Williams Institute). Principal investigator Nanette Gartrell, MD, is a 2010 Williams Distinguished Scholar, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at UCSF, and affiliated with the University of Amsterdam. For more information about this study, please see Archives of Sexual Behavior: DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9692-2 — Or, visit the NLLFS website at http://www.nllfs.org

 

 

The Williams Institute advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public. A national think tank at UCLA Law, the Williams Institute produces high quality research with real-world relevance. For more information go to: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/home.html

View the full study at: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/Gartrell-Bos-Goldberg-2010.pdf

in In the News / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments