(GP Editor’s note: This is the first of a three part series on Gay Adoption & Parenting by frequent GP commenters “V The K” and “Michigan Matt.”)
Maybe you saw Glenn Reynolds’s article on TCS from about a month ago, which was subsequently reprinted on OpinionJournal (The Parent Trap: How safety fanatics help drive down birthrates). Reynolds’ thesis is that having children in our litigious society carries too much risk, too much cost, and not enough benefit.
“(P)arenting has become more expensive in non-financial as well as financial terms. It takes up more time and emotional energy than it used to, and there’s less reward in terms of social approbation. This is like a big social tax on parenting and, as we all know, when things are taxed we get less of them. Yes, people still have children, and some people even have big families. But at the margin, which is where change occurs, people are less likely to do things as they grow more expensive and less rewarded. “
Over the last century, social mores have shifted. In the past, raising families was not just encouraged, but expected. In the present era, especially among secularized elites, the predominant social pressure is against having children, or even marrying at all. Many married couples eschew parenthood. In stark contrast, gay and lesbian couples and singles are incurring even greated economic, social, and emotional costs to build families, sometimes in the face of powerful opposition.
Michigan-Matt and his partner completed the adoption of their son after an expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars, and after gut-wrenching disappointments. Their first attempt at adoption failed when the unwed birthparents opted to cancel after their son had already lived with Michigan-Matt and his partner for 17 weeks.
“There was no warning. No notice; the decision was entirely theirs and the grandparents –who we later heard, despite what they said earlier, opposed ‘giving up their first grandkid to some fruits’. They went into court, the judge granted them custody and it was over,” Michigan-Matt recalls. “It took us three years to get over that deep pain, ultimate failure of trust, and the violation we felt at the reversal.”
The second adoption attempt was successful. Michigan-Matt and partner were even allowed in the delivery room and received their newborn son into their arms from the womb. Michigan-Matt says, “It doesn’t get any better than that. Talk about bonding! The birthmom said she heard about us through the social worker and wanted to help us heal.”
Their next child will be provided by a surrogate mother. They’ve carefully picked the birthmom, hired her to carry their son or daughter to term. The impregnation has occurred and the due date is Nov 11th, Michigan-Matt’s birthday. So far, everything is going well.
Their 3 year old son is looking forward to the first of “ten or fiftwennie brothers and sisters.” Michigan-Matt still isn’t sure what number translates into “fiftwennie” but is interested in continuing to grow as a family. (Take that Reynolds!) The estimated cost of this adoption: $71,000-97,000.
Four years ago, V the K, set out to adopt his foster son in South Carolina. The county adoption agency threw every imaginable hurdle in front of him. To cite the worst example, the county’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL) office replaced the original GAL assigned his case with a notoriously homophobic South Carolina state senator; a man who in every legisilative session has tried to push bills outlawing gay adoption and foster parenting, who, strangely enough, had no prior experience as a GAL.
The GAL is responsible for making recommendations regarding the child’s adoptive placement. Before long, this senator and the head of the county GAL office were pulling VtK’s foster son out of school two and three times a week for “interviews,” during which they pressured him to make abuse allegations. The senator also tried to bribe another family to adopt the boy, and threatened them with obstructing another adoption they were pursuing when they refused to go along.
When he filed his report to the adoption office, it was filled with misinformation and made allegations of neglect. (Whereas all the reports filed by the GAL he replaced had been outstanding.) It is VtK’s belief that this jackass politician was trying to drum up an abuse incident so he could stoke public outrage and get his anti-gay adoption bill passed.
The county adoption agency fought the adoption even up to the final hearing, and insisted on a lot more requirements than a married couple would have gone through. Eventually, with enough lawyering, determination, and faith, VtK and his adoptive son prevailed. VtK has since adopted another son (relatively smoothly) and intends, God-willing, to adopt again.
A case could be made that subjecting gay couples and single parents to more scrutiny than traditional married couples is legitimate. After all, as we’ll discuss in the next essay, parenting outside the traditional nuclear family carries its own unique challenges. But the point is, we go through a lot more than most married couple do just to have children.
– V The K and Michigan-Matt
What an uplifting post!! Not that this played a part in your motives, but you guys are how society’s view of gays gets changed for the better.
I’m just about to leave active commenting because of a trip (and we’ll see if beyond). Before I do, want to offer this recent leftie quote in another thread for your personal amusement as gay dads:
“The truth is, it’s women who bear the psychological and physical burden of bearing children, not men…”
Cheers 🙂
This is a very well written, informative post.
I am yet to understand how a person can be qualified to take on foster children, but then all the sudden be unfit to adopt.
That said, I do think that single parents should be more carefully evaluated before placement, but if a parent is fit to take in foster children, who often come with tons of baggage, they should be fit to adopt those same children.
Adoption is a very scary endevour for anyone to take on, worthwhile for those who want it, but filled with lots of unknowns.
#1 – Calarato
That is a surprising quote, since the left often acts as if parents are superfluous if not actually harmful to the process of raising children and that’s why it’s important to get kids into Government-run day-care facilities at the youngest possible age. (Meathead’s California Pre-School Initiative for example.) Ah, I’ve just re-read the quote, and I note that it says, “women” not “mothers” and “men” not “fathers.”
After all, parents often have this silly idea that they should raise their kids according to their own value system, and not those of the progressive social elites who know what’s best for everything.
V the K, Michigan-Matt, and……..Rosie O’Donnell all on the same side?
I’m glad that they all have chosen to become parents.
There is a terrific book BTW, from Scifi writer David Gerrold about his own experiences as a single gay man in adopting his son. “The Martian Child”.
This post has certainly opened my eyes to an interesting set of priorities completely different from my own. You couldn’t pay me enough to babysit for an afternoon, much less adopt a child.
#4 – Yes – If you follow the link, the quote’s author was offering it as his main reason why men are unimportant and have no real right to be part of the “woman’s right to choose” abortion (not even to be passively informed).
#3 just me — June 30, 2006 @ 11:58 am – June 30, 2006
I am yet to understand how a person can be qualified to take on foster children, but then all the sudden be unfit to adopt.
Point taken, but recognize that fostership is usually viewed as being temporary–the foster children can be removed from a foster home on a moment’s notice for any reason or for no reason. On the other hand, adoption is theoretically permanent.
Although, in a few states, children–whether adopted or “natural”–can also be removed relatively quickly provided that there is evidence of abuse or neglect by the natural or adoptive parents.
#4 V the K — June 30, 2006 @ 12:06 pm – June 30, 2006
That is a surprising quote, since the left often acts as if parents…actually harmful to the process of raising children
Sometimes they are. Do google searches on “earl butch kimmerling” and “joe combs esther combs”. You might be surprised at what you find. And those are only a few cases that immediately come to mind. You would have to be terribly naive if you believed that parents–even straight parents–cannot sometimes be harmful to the process or raising children.
Oh, I forgot the reasoning of the left. Because there are a few bad parents, all parents must be treated as though they are unfit to raise children without government supervision.
But since raj the ambulance chaser is here, let me share something else I learned while adopting. Under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 6.2(c), lawyers can refuse to represent you if you’re gay. So, I guess that makes the ABA a bigoted, anti-gay organization.
#11 V the K — June 30, 2006 @ 3:35 pm – June 30, 2006
But since raj the ambulance chaser is here, let me share something else I learned while adopting. Under ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 6.2(c), lawyers can refuse to represent you if you’re gay.
Let’s look at what Rule 6.2(c) actually says:
Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments
Now, let me ask you this. Do you actually believe that a lawyer, who might be appointed by a tribunal (a court, for example, or maybe an adoption agency) would be able to provide you with the representation that you are entitled to if that lawyer finds you so repugnant as to be likely to impair the attorney-client relationship or the attorney’s ability to represent you? What kind of representation do you believe that you would get? Half-hearted at best, none at worst. Do a search on “Calvin Burdine” to find out what I’m referring to.
That provision is intended to protect you as a client, not the lawyer.
You might not like the fact that, wherever you might have been trying to find a lawyer, you found it difficult to find one because of that model rule, but that’s a significantly different issue.
Being libertarian when it comes to freedom of association, I don’t particularly care about the policy. But, if that’s their policy, then they have no business suing the Boy Scouts for wanting to have essentially the same policy.
Of course, we know that the elites like to have one set of rules for themselves, and a totally different set of rules for the peasants.
#13: “they have no business suing the Boy Scouts for wanting to have essentially the same policy.”
The BSA demanded that it be considered a private oraganization allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs while at the same time demanding to be allowed to feed at the public trough in spite of laws denying taxpayer funding of discriminatory private organizations. In other words, it demanded “special rights” not given to any other organization.
Point taken, but recognize that fostership is usually viewed as being temporary–the foster children can be removed from a foster home on a moment’s notice for any reason or for no reason.
All the more reason to make sure the parents you are using for the temporary placement is absolutely fit to take on children. If the reasoning for aproving a person for foster parenting is that they are “slightly fit” since it ain’t permanent is screwed up.
Sexual orientation alone shouldn’t make one “unfit” (just in case my earlier post wasn’t clear on that). Not to mention that adoption, when possible is the best way to provide a secure environment for a child in foster care-children in foster care are more than aware of the fact that their placement is considered “temporary” so even when they attach to the foster parents and have a secure environment there is always that fear for them that it may not last. I think anytime a foster parent wants to adopt a child, that they shouldn’t face roadblocks from the system as to their fitness as parents-if they are unfit to adopt, then the system shouldn’t place children in their care at all.
#13 V the K — June 30, 2006 @ 4:14 pm – June 30, 2006
Being libertarian when it comes to freedom of association, I don’t particularly care about the policy. But, if that’s their policy, then they have no business suing the Boy Scouts for wanting to have essentially the same policy.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The ABA did not–as far as I know–sue the Boy Scouts for anything. You might be able to persuade me otherwise, but I doubt it.
Aside from that, what does the Boy Scouts being sued have to do with ABA’s model rule #6.2(c)? Are you another of those who changes the subject to obfuscate the issue?
Aside from that, what does the Boy Scouts being sued have to do with ABA’s model rule #6.2(c)? Are you another of those who changes the subject to obfuscate the issue?
Here’s the problem, Raj:
Do you actually believe that a lawyer, who might be appointed by a tribunal (a court, for example, or maybe an adoption agency) would be able to provide you with the representation that you are entitled to if that lawyer finds you so repugnant as to be likely to impair the attorney-client relationship or the attorney’s ability to represent you?
Noble attempt.
But these lawyers should be forced to abide by the standard they try to sue others into doing, which is that you are not allowed to deny your services to anyone based on your personal beliefs.
After all, if you can force pharmacists to dispense or video-store owners to duplicate, why shouldn’t YOU be forced to do your job?
God help that kid if he ever disagrees with VtheK; he’ll probably call the kid a leftist. Based on the bile he spews here in cyberspace with people who disagree, I can only imagine what kind of a nasty, controlling human being he is in person. For someone who is supposedly libertarian, he has the knack for ascribing anything he doesn’t agree with as leftist.
(holds up mirror for Kevin)
Todd and Darren, my friends here in Fresno, have a seven month old thanks to A I and a lesbian friend. They are great parents. MM and V (and partners) I admire you for taking on the dual challenge of fighting the system / stsus quoe, and being parents.
God help that kid if he ever disagrees with VtheK; he’ll probably call the kid a leftist. Based on the bile he spews here in cyberspace with people who disagree, I can only imagine what kind of a nasty, controlling human being he is in person.
Sheesh!!!
No. V has a better option. He’ll hold up a picture of his kid, at age two or three maybe, nekkid, sitting in the bath tub. Then V will inform the child that if he doesn’t behave, the picture will be posted on Caption This!
Scratch that. The nekkid picture will only get V in trouble for distributing kiddie pron. Best to stick with pics of said child with finger in nose (my specialty as a kid). Man, I guess parenting is a lot harder than I thought!
Oh V, i had known some of the issues you have faced adopting your kid but I’m impressed and saddened when hearing more. My Aunt has adopted two children and has faced many hurdles as well, so I can sympathize with your struggle. I wish you and yours the best and hope your family is doing well. Thaks for demonstrating courage to those of us who dream as well.
The ironic part is, in the seventh grade, my kid did get suspended from school for calling his teacher a communist. I was so proud.
#22 Hehe. Sounds like my parents. None of us *ever* got in trouble and the few times we did it was for bogus stuff. My dad would always suggest elaborations. If it was my brother my mom was just relieved that he got in trouble at all. No suspensions though. My little sister did require a parent conference once for writing a paper in English class opposing anti-flag burning laws (1989ish).
Alas, my little rebels aren’t in school. Until this moment I hadn’t thought about this particular reason not to homeschool. Drat.
Some kids are probably better off raised by wolves, considering the spoiled trash that pass as “youth of America” today. Children fought for are the most loved and nurtured human beings there are. I wish only the best to those who are willing to take up the fight.
The ironic part is, in the seventh grade, my kid did get suspended from school for calling his teacher a communist. I was so proud.
Apparantly you have a bold well, and are teaching him well.
My almost 13 year old is way to shy, even if she thought her teacher was a communist, she would never tell her teacher.
#23 — Actually, I am homeschooling him now.
LOL! Good parenting!
#17 North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2006 @ 6:20 pm – June 30, 2006
Since it is obvious that you have no idea what the issues involved are in regards the ABA model rule, I’ll merely acknowledge that you have responded to my comment and not waste the time to provide a lengthy response in return.