We will move on to agenda item 1, which is our fourth day of oral evidence on the general principles of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, Cathy Dewar from the Scottish Adoption Association, who was to be a member of the first panel, is unable to be with us due to illness. However, Stephen Small from the St Andrew's Children's Society is here, and we also expect Michael Mesarowicz from the St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society to join us. He is not here yet, but when he turns up he can join the panel.
We value this opportunity to give our viewpoint on the change in legislation—I think that I can speak for my colleagues who are not here when I say that—because between us we have more than 200 years of experience in adoption and provision in Scotland, so we feel that we have a place in the adoption world in Scotland.
I am pleased to say that Michael Mesarowicz has made it. I am sure that he had the usual transport difficulties in getting here, from which we all suffer at times. Welcome to the meeting, which has just started. After you have made some brief opening remarks, we will move to questions from members.
Like Stephen Small, St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society generally welcomes the bill, which we think will be a good contribution to adoption legislation for the country.
Can Michael Mesarowicz expand on the comments in the St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society submission on the financial arrangements for post-adoption support when a voluntary organisation makes a placement on behalf of a local authority?
Generally, the arrangement is that when St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society or any voluntary organisation makes a placement, it relies on a placement fee from the local authority. The fee should not be a barrier to any placement. We believe that local authorities should make placements based on children's needs, rather than on placement fees. The post-adoption element of the fee can continue until the individual reaches adulthood. A large number of people come back to us in an attempt to trace their origins. At the moment, we regard that service as part of our charitable work and do not receive a fee for it. It can be a considerable service and we anticipate that it is likely to be an on-going piece of work for us.
I have a question for St Andrew's Children's Society. Can you clarify exactly what you mean when you say:
At present, the system is quite inequitable, as it depends on how generous each local authority's adoption allowance scheme is. I will provide a quick example. We were about to place a sibling group of four children who were referred to us. You can imagine the huge impact that taking on four children, the oldest of whom was nine and the youngest of whom was four, would have on a couple's financial circumstances. The local authority means-tested the adoption allowance and offered the couple less than £100 a week, which totalled less than £5,000 a year. The allowance was supposed to compensate the female member of the couple for giving up her work and to pay for an extension to the couple's house. In the end, the couple had to pull out of the match, because they could not afford it. Despite our pleas to the local authority, it was very rigid about the fact that the couple did not meet the criteria. There is an issue of fairness around adoption allowances.
I have a final question. Do you find that there is some discontent among elderly couples who believe that it is harder for them than for younger people to adopt? Is that an issue?
It can be. We do not get many applicants over the age of 40, and they tend to want older rather than younger children, which is appropriate. Sometimes, age can be an issue when couples are competing against other couples for children.
The law does not allow agencies to discriminate against people because of their age; however, when we are considering what is best for children, people need to prove to us that they have the energy, stamina and ability to care for children in the longer term. Most couples who come to us or to St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society are assessed on that basis, not on what age they are. That is a false way of looking at it.
The view has been expressed that contact with birth families should be supported and monitored, but that there should be a means of terminating that contact, if necessary. What involvement would you like to have in drafting the guidance for that? Why is that so important and what sort of guidance would you like there to be? I realise that that is a big question; we may ask you to give us something in writing on that later.
Contact in adoption has grown over the past 10 years. For most children in adoption, it is probably normal that there will be some degree of contact. The vast majority of that contact will be information exchange through a third party; it is not about birth families having direct contact with their children. There are a growing number of those arrangements, and the vast majority of them are right and proper for the child. The issue is whether a child needs that kind of contact to maintain a good sense of their identity as they grow up.
Thank you. That would be helpful.
At the beginning of a placement, contact can be a hurdle for prospective adoptive parents. There may be the expectation of contact or some established contact, and the thought of that contact continuing indefinitely throughout the child's life could be an obstacle to some adoptive parents until they start to tease that out. As Stephen Small says, the responsibility for contact is often left with adoptive parents, who perhaps have to make such decisions without the support and guidance of other people.
So, support and guidance are the key. Obviously, the child's needs will be at the top of the agenda. Do you envisage that when a child reaches an age at which they can ask for more or for less contact, that would be listened to as part of providing the guidance that we are talking about?
That would be best practice. It is easy to say that as a professional who works in adoption, but that might be more of a challenge for an adoptive parent, because that could happen at the point in a child's life when things were becoming more difficult. In adolescence, a child might start to use that as a way of getting back at their adoptive parents. However, that is a reality and would happen anyway, so it is better to manage it.
You have both given the committee extensive submissions on improving and increasing the pool of potential adopters, but your submissions have caveats about the range of adopters. Will you expand on why you arrived at your views and on how credible they are in relation to the evidence that the committee has received?
We are in a kind of difficult situation, as we need to take into account the interests of a variety of stakeholders. The practice of my agency and of Michael Mesarowicz's agency has developed differently. There are probably some inconsistencies in us as an agency approving unmarried heterosexual couples and not same-sex couples. We really want to keep children's interests central to the debate. We feel that society has changed a lot since the existing adoption legislation was introduced and that we have tried to move with changes and trends. We have approved unmarried heterosexual couples, because to be brought up by such couples is more and more the norm for many children in our communities and reflects where they are coming from.
I echo some of what Stephen Small said. Our view is not a reflection on individuals or homosexuality per se. We recognise that society has changed and is changing. Our aim is to place children who have had to be removed from their family of origin, and who may well have been disadvantaged, in the best option for them. My submission says that placing children with a same-sex couple is likely to present additional dilemmas for them that they are probably not best placed to deal with at the point of placement. Children have a vested interest in securing a placement and might not be as mature as they will be in years to come, so we must make decisions for them. Placing a child with a same-sex couple presents additional dilemmas that do not arise with a heterosexual couple. Our view is simply that the best placement is with a heterosexual couple rather than a same-sex couple.
Of the couples who have sought to adopt with your agencies, what percentage are unmarried heterosexual couples and what percentage same-sex couples?
I am not aware that many unmarried couples apply to St Margaret's. We have some single applicants, who we assess. I am not aware that any same-sex couples have applied to us.
A tiny minority of our applicants are heterosexual unmarried couples. In the past four years, we have approved about 80 families, of which perhaps two involved unmarried heterosexual couples.
The committee has heard from looked-after children about the stigma that they feel as a result of being looked after. We know about the life chances that they do not have because of poor educational attainment, homelessness and other problems. Do you suggest that a child is better off in institutional care than they would be in a stable same-sex family, provided that the couple had gone through a rigorous assessment process? If we do not accept that we should open up opportunities for looked-after children, we will condemn many of them to stay in what is an intolerable situation.
That is the crux of the matter. Clearly, the best chance for every child comes from being in a home in which they are loved and cared for by adults. If that cannot be with their birth family, it should be with a substitute family that can provide that. A person's gender or sexuality does not determine how loving they will be to a child. I accept that that is an issue. However, we have an opportunity to learn from the experience in other countries, such as our neighbours south of the border. In a short period, we could readily get a sense of how the measures are panning out and get feedback from children. At that point, we might be able to make a better decision for children.
That is the crux of the issue. We do not want children to underachieve. An issue arises about whether someone's sexuality diminishes their parenting skills. I do not think that that is the case, but we are considering the best option for children at present.
I detect that you do not want us to make a decision and that you would much rather that the research was done elsewhere and that we waited to see what followed. How on earth will we get an evidence base to provide proof if we do not provide an opportunity to have that evidence? Should we wash our hands in Scotland and say that we will leave it to England? Should we not take responsibility for our children in Scotland?
That is an argument. As far as I am aware, three countries in the European Union have approved same-sex couples to adopt, so we would not be waiting to see what happened just in England. I accept your point that we can never get evidence that something is good for children until we try it. However, in some respects, that is risky for the children who have to be at the forefront.
Even if overwhelmingly positive evidence existed, your organisations probably have philosophical and theological views on the proposal that would make it difficult for you to agree to it. I acknowledge your caveat about the evidence to which the adoption policy review group referred. The body of evidence is not heavy, but most of the evidence that we have been given in informal groups and formal meetings has been strongly that, on balance, allowing same-sex couples to adopt is the right decision. Your submission is not necessarily consistent with those views. Is that a philosophical view that you will hold, even if the evidence suggests otherwise?
One of the problems we have that other agencies do not is that we have a wider stakeholder group whose needs we must meet. One of the stakeholders is the Catholic church, which has been vocal about what it believes is the right and proper family unit that children should be brought up in.
My organisation's background is similar to that of the St Andrew's Children's Society. We were founded by the Catholic church, which means that, in effect, it is our stakeholder. Like the St Andrew's Children's Society, we are a professional social work agency and operate according to the legislation. This is our chance to express a view about the sort of placements that we are discussing. As Stephen Small said in relation to his organisation, our organisation is bound by the legislation and will continue to be so. That will be an issue for us to live with.
If the bill is passed, will its provisions cause you any practical difficulties?
We would have to go back to our board of managers and look at how we operate. Obviously, however, if the legislation told us not to discriminate, we would not do so.
Many of the faith-based agencies in England would have closed if they had been forced to place children with same-sex couples because the church would have said that that was not acceptable. I do not know whether we are in that position. Time will tell. We will deal with that when we come to it.
On the issue of faith-based organisations being allowed to opt out, what exactly is in the English legislation that is not in the bill that we are discussing? In which section is that provision located?
I understand that the opt-out that allows agencies of a faith-based nature to opt out of the requirement to provide adoption services for same-sex couples is in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation. Most of the English agencies that are trying to operate in that system are examining their procedures and trying to decide how they will respond to inquiries from same-sex couples. There are about three lines in the regulations that state that agencies with a faith-based background that gives them difficulty with placing children with same-sex couples can opt out.
So the provision is not in primary legislation and it would not be impossible for ministers to do the same thing here if they were so minded. There is nothing in the bill that would force you to place children with same-sex couples, is there?
If we did not do that, we would be accused of discriminating—probably rightly so, because the law says that we should have an open-to-everyone policy.
But that is not about the bill, is it? The Equality Act 2006 is the problem, as far as the issue of faith-based organisations is concerned.
Well, yes, that is on the go; I think that the submissions for that are just finishing. We made a submission to that, as well. Anecdotally, people are positive that the opt-out in the adoption legislation in England will be replicated in Scotland, but who knows?
So that is something to press ministers on.
Yes.
Finally, do you agree that children should be placed where it is in the best interests of the child rather than the best interests of adoptive or prospective adoptive parents, and therefore that no adoption agency should place a child with any couple—same-sex, unmarried or married—unless it is in the best interests of the child to do so?
Of course. Yes.
Elaine Murray asked about the practical operation of the legislation. The present legislation permits adoption by a homosexual person—male or female—but not by a couple. What is the practical difference between permitting a same-sex couple to adopt and permitting a single homosexual person to adopt?
In the end, it is about recognition of the partnership. That is the difference. From our point of view, the Catholic church views such a relationship in a significantly different way from how it views a single person. As you probably know, the church has lines on homosexuality. For me, that is the difference. That is the pressure on us, I suppose.
In essence, we are assessing two different kinds of placements. We are not assessing the person's sexuality. We are assessing the suitability of the couple or the individual person. We would be looking at a placement with a same-sex couple and, as we said in our submission, we do not regard that as part of the mainstream of society at large at the moment.
Elaine Murray referred to the best interests of the child. Adoption UK told the committee that, for some children, placement with same-sex couples is more appropriate because the child has suffered abuse from an adult of a particular sex. Will you comment on that reflection from Adoption UK?
Every child's situation is different, but I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that, if a child has been abused by a male, they should therefore not be helped to repair the damage by recreating a relationship with another male. For some children, that might be the case, but how will a child ever come to terms with what happened to them, understand that and move on if we cannot repair the damage to their trust in male or female persons?
I appreciate that some people may well have such a view about how individual children can be helped to come to terms with the sexual abuse that they have suffered, but adoption is not necessarily the main vehicle for repairing that damage. Other therapeutic interventions may be available to help such children to come to terms with the abuse that they have suffered.
We have been told many times that there is a shortage of therapeutic services.
You have a problem with recognising gay couples' suitability to adopt, but if you received an application from a single person who turned out to be in a gay relationship, would you turn down that person as an adoptive parent?
I suppose that it would depend on the stage at which the information became known. If someone deliberately concealed the fact that they were in a gay relationship to get through the process, that would be an issue for us, because honesty and openness are important.
Under the current legislation, if a single person who wanted to adopt was honest about the fact that they lived with a same-sex partner, would that count against them? Would you be unable to place a child with that person?
We would probably suggest that they go to another agency that could deal with their application more sympathetically.
Do you believe that the bill's proposals on permanence orders will achieve the desired policy aim of providing increased stability for children?
For an important group of children in the looked-after system, they will. Usually, the children who are harder to place are those who are a bit older—children from the age of six or seven upwards—and who have had significant experience of abuse and neglect. Because it is hard to predict that adoption will be successful for those children, it is difficult to obtain a resource for them, although in some cases we do.
You made a point about that in your submission. In what way do you think that permanence orders will help? You seem to be saying that children remain in the system for far too long and do not have stability. How will permanence orders improve the preparation of children for adoption?
From the planning point of view, permanence orders will create a different standard of proof that children need to not be with their families. At the moment, people are clear that the use of the legal tool of freeing orders is like using a heavy mallet to crack a nut. Permanence orders will make it possible to have a much more open dialogue with the birth parents about what their child needs and the law will reflect such debate more effectively. Permanence orders will allow preparation for adoption to be much better managed.
I presume that that would include any other services and support that the child required for a smoother transition.
Yes.
Would Michael Mesarowicz like to comment?
As Stephen Small said, for us it is about the preparation of children so that they are in a position to move forward easily. We assess couples in preparation for placement. There are fewer obstacles when children are ready and prepared for placement. The couples are legally in a much better position to pursue adoption.
You might not have the answers to my questions at your fingertips, in which case you can give us the information in writing.
The breakdown rate is significantly lower in the voluntary sector throughout the UK. Our disruption rate as an agency last year was 3.4 per cent, compared with a national rate of almost 20 per cent. When the work is done by small agencies that only do family placement, that makes a difference because it means that all the staff are focused on the placements. Local authorities have many other balls to keep in the air and adoption does not always get priority, because for local authorities the pressure is in relation to children coming in the front door of the care system. As we do not have that pressure, we can concentrate our resources on the needs of adopted children.
I did not intend to suggest anything accusatory. I just wanted information for the committee on the percentage of successful applications.
I suppose I am trying to say that we are not picky about it. The issue is what people can offer. We do not know what people can offer until we work with them and engage in a process with them. The problem for many prospective adopters is that they never get to the point of being engaged with. We think that that is wrong.
I echo Stephen Small's comments. A number of applicants who come to us may well have been with the local authority but have become frustrated at the length of time that the process is taking. We have an inquiry at the moment from someone who has gone through the process, but who is finding that there is a long wait for placement and believes that they may have a better chance of success with St Margaret's because we will extend the areas for which they can be considered.
The advantage that we have over local authorities is that our primary concern is not the needs of children in one geographical area. Local authorities have to recognise the needs of the people who live within their boundaries.
I am interested in the huge disparity between the breakdown rates for your societies and the national average. Is that to do with the fact that the voluntary sector has a better post-adoption service? If that is the case, do we need to strengthen the bill's provisions on post-adoption services?
Yes—but I would say that. As I said, we have had many years of placing for adoption children who are not straightforward, young-baby adoption placements. We have been placing older children from the care system since the late 1970s, so we have built up expertise and have a better sense of what we think works in supporting families.
Where do your funding streams come from and what is the make-up of your funding? What proportions are from local authorities, generated income and charitable donations?
St Margaret's receives a small amount of core funding from the Catholic church. We serve the four dioceses of Glasgow, Paisley, Motherwell and Galloway and get a small amount of core funding from them. However, the main part of our funding comes from placement fees. We get some charitable donations, but they are pretty small.
Is that similar for St Andrew's?
We are slightly different in that we have no funding from the Catholic church. We have significant links with the church, but they do not result in any cash. Our income comes through placement fees, but we also have service-level agreements with three local authorities in Scotland; they come to us because we provide the service for a cheaper fee than the interagency adoption fee and because we have built up a good working relationship with them. I chair an adoption panel for a local authority, which has someone on our panel. For us, the relationship with the local authorities is positive. The agreement means that slightly less money comes out of their coffers for adoption, but it also means that we have a guarantee that they will come to us first. Before, money would have stopped them doing that.
There are no further questions, so I thank Michael Mesarowicz and Stephen Small for coming along and for their useful evidence. I am sure that it has given the committee food for thought.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We shall now hear from our second panel. Representing the Equality Network we have Fergus McMillan and Nico Juetten from LGBT Youth Scotland; Ewan Jeffrey from Gay Dads Scotland; Sue Robertson from Lesbian Mothers Scotland; and Rebekah Pratt from Rainbow Families, who will make the opening statement.
We are pleased to be here today to offer our collective experience to the committee. As you have heard, we speak on behalf of a variety of organisations representing the interests of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents, as well as a range of youth and children-centred organisations. Between us we offer a range of personal experiences around parenting, and collectively we speak on behalf of the thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families who will be affected by the changes proposed in the bill.
Moving on from the questions that were asked of the other witnesses, I would like to hear your views on increasing the pool of adopters. When people with strong convictions feel troubled by that, how do you respond to try to reassure them and to answer their concerns about the reality of the relationships that could be formed either with unmarried couples or with same-sex couples?
When the first panel of witnesses spoke this morning, I was reminded of stories from two members of our group. I know of at least two families who have removed themselves from the adoption and fostering system and have created children by visiting fertility clinics. I was struck by the fact that that means that two children have been left in the care system, which we all agree clearly is not in the best interests of children. It is difficult to offer reassurance when matters of religious principle are brought into play, because there is clearly an overwhelming body of evidence that supports the claim that LGBT parents provide homes that are at least as good for children as other homes are.
If we are discussing the best interests of children, we must also think about the adult debate that we are having and about the interests of other stakeholders, which divert slightly from the interests of children. We know that there are lots of potential adoptive parents who might provide loving homes but who are put off the system of adoption and fostering at the moment. They could be loving, nurturing parents who provide homes for children and young people. We know that the alternative—being in the care of the local authority—is not acceptable.
We should also recognise that there are lesbian and gay families among existing families, and that their children are brought up with diverse religious beliefs. Many lesbian families choose to send their children to Catholic schools, and they convey exactly the same sort of beliefs to their children as heterosexual families do. We represent a diversity of families in all senses, and it is confusing that the hierarchies of churches have one view while the day-to-day reality is that children are being brought up with a variety of beliefs in all those families.
I cannot understand why it is okay for a single homosexual person to adopt a child but there is opposition if that person is in a couple. That sends a message to the child that in law they can rely on one half of their parenting group but not the other. If there were an illness or a car accident and the child was in hospital, the other de facto parent would have to prove their identity in order to get into the ward to see their child who was desperate to see them. I cannot understand how that could be in the interests of the child.
Paragraph 39 of the policy memorandum states:
I believe that we are united in the view that making the needs of children the priority in the bill is the most important thing. Of course, we also agree that people want to have the experience of being parents. That is an important factor. However, we are united in our desire to ensure that the interests of children are met. That is why we particularly hope that children will receive full legal protection through adoption, and—
May I just add something? The two issues that Fiona Hyslop raises are clearly connected. If potential adopters do not have a strong desire to be parents, they might not be suitable to adopt a vulnerable child into their family. It is difficult to separate the two issues.
The argument has been made that you support adoption by same-sex couples to promote the LGBT rights agenda rather than the welfare of children. How do you respond to that?
In this situation, there is no easy way to extract the rights of LGBT people from the rights of children. Clearly, protecting the rights of children is connected to addressing the discrimination in the adoption and fostering system against people on the basis of their sexuality. However, I have no sense of any collective agenda that overrides our desire to be able to protect our children. That is certainly our primary objective.
The equality agenda for lesbian and gay families is about existing families and existing children, and it is important for all children in lesbian and gay families. Civil partnership is an important step forward, as is the bill, in respect of public recognition of the validity of such family structures. That will benefit all children who are being raised in lesbian and gay families. It is not as if our rights as adults somehow override the rights of children. It is a child's right that their family situation should be publicly recognised and supported.
In page 3 of your submission, you refer to section 9 and to how the bill provides for the child's wishes to be considered. You say:
We had extensive conversations in our community and organisation about that, and members feel differently about it. Overall, we reached a consensus that, despite the fact that it might jar personally, given the changing nature of adoption and the increased contact with birth families it would be in the best interests of children if birth parents' views were taken into account, even when those views might be ones with which we would not agree. When we put the best interests of children first, it guides us through those difficulties.
I do not think that there is an inconsistency in that respect. The bill does two things. It stipulates—more so than the existing legislation—that the views of birth parents and other relatives have to be taken into consideration but, at the same time, it seems to make it much easier to override birth parents' objections to a placement. That is a slight inconsistency in the bill, although I can see why that is the case.
We heard previously that, as the bill stands, some adoption services might go out of business. Would that be in the best interests of the child, or should we find some way forward to ensure that adoption services can continue? Clearly, adoption agencies are providing an important, viable service, which it might not be possible to replace if they go out of business.
When I was listening to the earlier evidence and thinking about how great the witnesses' rate of successful adoptions is, I thought what a terrible shame it is that same-sex couples are not also able to access good-quality adoptions. I was sceptical about the statement that those organisations would go out of business. If I remember correctly, it was indicated that their counterparts in England found that not to be the case. The claim is definitely in the realms of speculation. I agree that it would be a terrible shame for agencies to go out of business, but I am not convinced that they provided the evidence to make their case.
I was positively surprised by the earlier evidence this morning. The opposition that was voiced by the Catholic agencies to the proposals in section 31 was not as vigorous as I thought it would be. They seem to be thoroughly engaged with and to have a long history of being in the business of adoption, and I cannot see them going out of business.
In the earlier evidence session, I asked Stephen Small what his organisation would do under the current legislation if a gay person came to it wanting to adopt as a single person but in the course of the discussions revealed that they were involved in a same-sex relationship and had a partner living with them. He said that at that point his organisation would refer the person on to a different agency. If the faith agencies got a three-line exemption in the guidance—it would not be on the face of the bill—that enabled them to continue to do that, would that not be preferable to accepting a couple on to their books but never placing a child with them because of the prejudice within the organisation against placing a child with a gay couple? Would it not be more honest for those agencies to say that they do not do that type of adoption and that the couple would be better going to their local authority or another voluntary sector organisation that is better placed to help?
The earlier witnesses said that the other organisations are not better placed to help.
They said that local authorities are not, but other voluntary sector adoption agencies might be better placed.
The Catholic agencies are both professionally run organisations and I was impressed by their evidence. Apart from their selectivity, the quality of the adoption service that they offer looks to be of a standard that local authorities should be seeking to attain. However, it would not be right to say that they should be allowed an opt-out on the basis that if they do not have one, they will somehow twiddle their thumbs and not apply the relevant part of the legislation. Those organisations seem to be far too professional to do that. If it were the law, they would not discriminate.
Perhaps this is an appropriate time to remind ourselves of the general equality and diversity agenda and of the fact that the organisations that are represented here today would oppose discrimination on the grounds of any of the main strands of equality. Someone referred to the fact that the law does not allow for discrimination on the basis of the age of potential adoptive parents. We believe that the law should not allow potential discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation either. We have already said that potential adoptive parents might come from a variety of backgrounds in relation to sexual orientation, religion, culture and so on. They might include lesbian and gay Catholics and, if they want to approach the Catholic adoption agencies because they believe that they are more appropriate to their circumstances, they should be allowed to do so.
There is an interesting parallel in the counselling world. Scottish Marriage Care, which is one of the counselling agencies that is not explicitly Catholic but has links to the Catholic church, offers a service to the whole community in recognition of the fact that families are diverse. All agencies have to recognise the diversity of families. That legal obligation should be placed on them.
The earlier witnesses mentioned the guidance in England. Although the legislation is fairly new in England, are you aware of the particular measure that allows for such an exemption and has it caused problems south of the border?
I do not think we have anything to offer on that, but we would be happy to find out and come back to the committee.
I am probably in favour of moderate Catholicism. Given my family background, that makes reasonable sense to me. In the submissions that we have received, including from our witnesses today, people have begun to cut through the nuances of the debate and to get to the core issues. People say that placing children who are already vulnerable with a couple in a same-sex relationship makes them even more vulnerable. In saying that, I sense that the current of opinion is moving away from making that comment about unmarried couples. How do you respond to those concerns? How can they be overcome?
First, my review of the research evidence shows that children who are adopted into same-sex families do just as well at fitting into their schools and integrating into their communities as do children who are placed in mixed-sex families. Findings such as mine show that those children integrate well into family life and society, and they do so in a way that is equivalent to children who are adopted into mixed-sex families. In some sense, there is little research that substantiates the claim that adoption into same-sex families continues to make vulnerable children more vulnerable.
Is that echoed in the experience of Lesbian Mothers Scotland?
Yes. We must also acknowledge that factors that can cause vulnerability may stem from bad relationships with men. If there have been abusive men in a child's family, it might be more beneficial for the child to be placed with a same-sex female couple. I am not saying that the child should be cut off from contact with men, but there are ways in which lesbian families might be able specifically to address the issues that those children bring. Our experience of being a discriminated community also explains in part our sensitivity to the issues that those children might have as a result of abuse, disability or a variety of other issues. We have positive aspects to offer children who are vulnerable.
In LGBT Youth Scotland's experience, looked-after and accommodated young people are some of the most vulnerable young people in society. Their status means that they face a huge amount of bullying, stigma and discrimination. If all that we do in challenging bullying is to avoid situations where bullying is an issue, we will never tackle it.
Will you say a little more on your personal experience of bringing up children who are not your own in a same-sex relationship? If the question is not relevant to you, will you tell us of the personal experiences of those who have been involved? Your responses will assist our thinking on the issues.
We would be happy to do so. Does Ewan Jeffrey want to start?
Yes, I will kick off.
I have personal experience of adopting as a heterosexual parent and then subsequently coming out and coming out of my marriage. I have continued to have a very positive relationship with my adopted daughter and, indeed, with my grandson—I seem to be involved in a two-generation adoption—and sexuality has never been an issue for them. I would echo what Ewan Jeffrey said. The support and the love that a parent gives to their child are the important thing rather than anything to do with their sexuality.
I have a daughter who is nearly two—thanks to her peanut butter fingermarks, she experienced some cross parenting today—and I am in the privileged position of having been able to have a step-parent adoption for her in a different country, where we were both legally recognised as her parents. She was created through donor insemination. One thing that I found so wonderful about being able to be recognised legally is that it has been an absolute stigma-busting tool, in that it has given us the confidence and ability to stake our claim in protecting her best interests in all sorts of settings, including in the health sector and in education.
Thank you. It is helpful to hear that evidence, as research is obviously relatively limited because of current law. I think that I am correct in thinking that all members of the panel share the view that the test should be what is in the best interests of the child. That test is enshrined in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I think that what you are saying is consistent with the provisions of the act.
I found the joint submission interesting, especially the section that is headed "Permanence and Life Chances". We have covered many of the issues, but I want to ask whether extending the ability to adopt will also affect permanence orders. Should the bill enhance that as well as the pool of adopters? Will permanence orders improve the situation for children in the longer term, in that such orders will either lead to adoption or at least provide permanence? Will permanence orders deal with the issues that the submission highlights about looked-after and accommodated children?
I am not sure whether I understood the question. Are you asking whether our standpoint on the role of same-sex couples applies both to permanence orders and to adoption?
Is there a role for extending the pool of people to whom permanence orders are available in the way that we are extending the availability of adoption to same-sex couples? The "Permanence and Life Chances" section of the submission highlights all the facts and figures that suggest that looked-after children who are accommodated in local authority care for a long time suffer insecurity and other effects. For some children, the option of adoption may not be available, but there may be an option of a permanence order, which could lead to adoption. What view do the witnesses have on that?
That is probably less likely to affect us because of the discrimination in fostering. Although the proposal might affect those who fostered as a single person, in the immediate future it is more likely to affect heterosexual couples as they will now be in a position to pursue a permanence order rather than adoption. A same-sex couple is more likely to apply for adoption, unless one of them had previously fostered as an individual. However, because of all the discrimination, that is much less likely.
Should the bill have dealt with that aspect of fostering alongside adoption? It seems to me a bit strange that that imbalance will continue. That does not seem consistent.
Absolutely. The discrimination in fostering is a major difficulty. All discrimination should be eliminated in the interests of widening the group of people who are available. We have certainly had people in our group who have talked about fostering. At the moment, if there are two adults of the same sex in a household where a child is to be fostered, even if one of the adults is a grown-up child, that is considered a problem. That is ridiculous, given that we have an equally huge shortage of families for fostering. It is vital that we eliminate the discrimination in fostering as well as in adoption in the interests of enabling a wider group of people to be involved in helping to bring up children.
I agree with the evidence that the Fostering Network Scotland gave to the committee. We need to consider that the number of young people who are being fostered at the moment in Scotland—I think that the figure is around 4,000—is about 20 times higher than the number of children who are placed for adoption. It is interesting to note that the bill has only one section on fostering—the section on fostering allowances—and that the rest is on adoption, which I am aware the policy review group opted to keep as the primary option because it delivers the best results.
Our understanding is that the minister intends to amend the fostering regulations by way of new regulations and not primary legislation. Would it be preferable to have this aspect of the equalities issues set out in the bill rather than in regulations?
To be honest, that would be preferable, because the issue is a major one. I am not in a position to comment on the difference that using primary or secondary legislation would make to day-to-day practice. However, considering the scale of the issue and how it stands in relation to adoption, the changes should be made in primary legislation. Clearly, if that is agreed, our preferred piece of primary legislation is the bill that we are considering today.
Clearly, there are different types of same-sex relationships and it is important that the bill should address the responsibilities of continuing families as well as those of new families—we have taken that point on board. We have heard conflicting views on whether there is any evidence base on the experience of same-sex couples who have adopted. Some people argue that the existing research is more about the experiences of people who were birth parents before they came out later in their lives. In your submission, you talk about
My understanding is that mostly the research evidence covers situations where a birth parent is involved. The research that we rely on is more about same-sex parenting than on joint adoption by same-sex couples. That is because, under the law as it stands, the latter is plainly impossible in this country and in most other countries.
There is a degree of discrimination in the existing system. Lesbian and gay people who adopt as single people and single people generally who adopt tend to get the children with the most difficulties. The easier children tend to go to people in what people call the more acceptable couple relationships. A small pool of evidence shows that single people and lesbian and gay people have successfully parented children who have a lot of difficulties. However, given that we are talking about very small numbers, it is not possible to get strong evidence on that.
If you could source that evidence for us, it would be helpful.
I will speak about what I know, but I am not sure how well that will answer your question. Many of our families have a variety of arrangements. The children in some families might have been born into a heterosexual relationship and the mother came out later as a lesbian and went on to have further children with a lesbian partner. There are all sorts of configurations of children's needs and historic connections through the relationships of mothers and fathers. It seems to me that few of our members are likely to go for step-parent adoptions when there is active birth parent involvement.
I meant a step-parent agreement as opposed to adoption.
I cannot say much about such agreements, but we assume that they will be used to deal with cases in which one birth parent and another same-sex partner are involved but the other birth parent has never been around—for example, a case in which a lesbian couple chose to have a child through donor insemination. That group is not well addressed in the step-parent and adoption legislation and we would like a commitment to signpost how those families will be dealt with when the bill is enacted.
I am particularly interested in step-parent agreements because people do not always want to go through with adoption, for a variety of reasons. A provision for step-parent agreements is absent from the bill. You could reflect on that and let us know later.
My organisation represents a lot of gay dads with children who have started a relationship with another gay dad with children. People end up with a de facto or informal step-parent situation, which exists equally in heterosexual families where there has been a separation and then a new partner. The only difference with us is that it is two people of the same sex. Society is a patchwork of hundreds of different types of extended families. The overriding concern in this situation is whether the stepdad can step in and act in the interests of all the children in certain situations. How is the child supported in such situations?
We are opening further cans of worms now.
It is a bit like when we arrived at American immigration and the woman said to my son, "Has your father approved this trip?" I said, "Yes, of course I have," but my son said, "No, my birth father abandoned me at birth." I thought, "Oh yes, so he did—eight years ago; I'd forgotten all about that."
In its submission, LGBT Scotland makes reference to the courts taking into consideration
Section 9 states that the child's circumstances should be taken into consideration when making a placement. Section 9 should work in the best interests of the child. For example, where a child comes from a strong Catholic background, the child should be placed with a same-sex or mixed-sex couple who also have a strong religious background. In the same way, other parts of the identity of a child or young person should be taken into consideration. The bigger picture of a child's needs and their requirements of an adoptive family should be considered.
I will explain where we are coming from in more detail. Our experience of working with children who are looked after and accommodated is that often, their sexual orientation or gender identity is emerging and they might be struggling with a particular issue. We have found that it is young people's experience that the people who work in the looked-after accommodation system might—it is not exclusively the case—display homophobia and attitudes or practices that do not allow those children to be who they are, which can cause problems at that stage. If potential adoptive or foster parents have beliefs that are incompatible with the child's feelings or questions about sexual orientation or gender identity, that should be taken into account in accordance with the best interests of the child.
As I understand it, in England and Wales, the court or adoption agency must take account of any of the child's characteristics that they consider relevant. Would that formulation meet your concerns?
Yes.
Yes.
As there are no further questions, I thank Fergus McMillan, Rebekah Pratt, Nico Juetten, Ewan Jeffrey and Sue Robertson for coming along this morning to give us their valuable evidence, on which the committee will reflect. If you are able to provide any of the additional information that the committee was looking for, please feel free to send it to the clerks as soon as you can.
Meeting continued in private until 12:23.