Suchergebnisse

AbstractAre empirical data and results of research by social scientists relevant to court decisions in foster care cases, and if so, how? How should they be brought to the court's attention? These questions arose in the context of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that posed the question of whether a religiously based foster care agency could refuse to provide service to LGBTQ+ prospective foster parents on the grounds of religious beliefs, and still accept public funds. Empirical evidence is relevant to the evaluation of at least three propositions related to foster care that were raised in Fulton: (1) There is a need for qualified prospective foster parents; (2) LGBTQ+ adults are at least as likely as others to be interested in becoming foster parents and they are likely to become competent foster parents; and (3) If sufficient numbers of qualified prospective foster parents cannot be found, children are likely to suffer. Consideration of the evidence reveals that each of these three propositions is supported by factual evidence. In the United States today, there is a definite need for competent foster parents, and competence as a foster or adoptive parent is not associated with parental sexual orientation. Moreover, LGBTQ+ adults may be more likely to show interest in becoming foster parents, on average, than their heterosexual peers. If LGBTQ+ adults are not permitted to become foster parents, some children are very likely to remain without homes, and in this way, will suffer. If the best interests of children are to prevail, then child welfare agencies should search out, welcome, and support LGBTQ+ prospective foster parents, rather than turning them away. Ways of bringing the findings from research to the attention of the court are also discussed.

The legal landscape surrounding adoption by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning/queer (LGBTQ) parents continues to be dynamic and variable across the United States, yet the topic is generally viewed favorably by Americans and increasing numbers of LGBTQ adults are becoming adoptive parents. In this essay, we explore intersections of sexual orientation, gender identity, and adoption law. We discuss connections between parenting (including adoption) and marriage rights, highlight the influence of varying legal contexts and discrimination for LGBTQ adults who pursue adoption (including case examples from Florida after the gay adoption ban was lifted), and incorporating the perspectives of adoption‐agency personnel working with LGBTQ clients.

AbstractObjectiveThis study explored communication about children's origins among same‐gender parent adoptive families.BackgroundAlthough this topic has been widely researched among different‐gender parent adoptive families, communication about origins among those with same‐gender parents, as well as sexual minority identity dynamics relevant to this crucial task, remain unexplored.MethodA sample of same‐gender adoptive couples (N = 31) from Belgium, France, and Spain with children aged between 4 and 18 years (Mage = 8.9 years) participated in a semistructured interview and a graphic projective test aimed at explore their feelings and communication process about their adopted child's birth family.ResultsInductive thematic analysis yielded a continuum of three main stances conveyed by adoptive parents regarding their child's origins: (a) critical/minimization, (b) cautious/uncertainty, and (c) open/validation. The first (critical/minimization) was associated with experiences of sexual minority stigma and poorer communication about children's origins and sexual minority family‐related issues, while the second (cautious/uncertainty) was characterized by mixed feelings (i.e., at times open, at times critical) in communicating about origins and parents' sexual minority experiences. The third (open/validation) was associated with positive feelings toward adoptive and sexual minority family statuses, as well as identity integration as a lesbian or gay parent and low internalized sexual stigma.ConclusionOur findings underline the importance of sexual minority identity issues in relation to communication about children's origins in same‐gender parent adoptive families.ImplicationsThese findings have important implications for both adoption assessment and therapeutic work with same‐gender adoptive parent families.

AbstractObjectiveThis study qualitatively examined family‐building desires of diverse adopted adolescents.BackgroundResearch on parenting aspirations has rarely included youth with LGBTQ+ parents and/or from adoptive families. Understanding diverse adopted adolescents' feelings about parenthood may yield insights regarding identity and ideas about family.MethodsWe conducted a thematic analysis of interview data from 48 adopted adolescents (27 were LGBTQ+) in the United States, aged 13 to 18, from lesbian, gay, and heterosexual two‐parent families.ResultsMost adolescents desired future parenthood, after achieving other normative milestones, and they typically did not feel familial or societal pressure to become parents. LGBTQ+ participants showed a preference for adoption while transracially adopted adolescents preferred biological parenthood.ConclusionGuided by developmental approaches about identity and adoption, as well as queer family theory, we found that teenagers adopted by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples generally envisioned parenthood for themselves. Plans to do so varied by minoritized gender, sexual, and racial/ethnic identities. Thus, an intersectional perspective is imperative to understand youths' thoughts about family building.ImplicationsOur findings reveal insights into adopted adolescents' constructed future identities. Practitioners' understanding of adopted adolescents' development and future planning may be enhanced when adolescents' perspectives are considered.

AbstractAlthough there has been considerable research about attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, there has been little research into how people first come to be aware of minoritized sexual and gender minority (SGM) identities. This study sought to address this gap. A sample of sexual minority (n = 150) and heterosexual (n = 802) young adults (N = 952;Mage = 18.88 years,SD = 1.75; 949 were cisgender, three were transgender), primarily recruited from a large southern university, were asked retrospectively to recount their first exposure to or awareness of SGM identities. Responses between SGM and heterosexual participants were compared through a variety of analytical approaches, including analyzing themes about the source from which participants first recalled encountering these identities, and whether understanding about these identities came through a personal connection to someone with these identities. SGM participants reported encountering minoritized sexual identities a year earlier than did heterosexual participants, with both groups encountering these concepts in middle childhood, on average. SGM participants were more likely than heterosexual participants to report learning about minoritized gender identities from someone with a minoritized gender identity, while heterosexual participants more often reported learning about these identities from media or celebrities. Heterosexual (vs. SGM) participants were also more likely to imply that minoritized gender identities were adopted to be popular, rather than being authentic identities in themselves. Framed by developmental intergroup theory (DIT), we discuss implications of these findings, especially potential interrelationships with the development of prejudiced attitudes about SGM identities.

ObjectiveTo examine how lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents navigate openness dynamics with children's birth family across a 5‐year period, when children are preschool‐ to school‐age.BackgroundFew studies regarding birth family contact have included longitudinal data as well as a sample of adoptive parents of varying sexual orientations. Thus, this study used a multiprong theoretical approach grounded in emotional distance regulation, families of choice, and gender theory.MethodA mixed‐methods approach with longitudinal quantitative survey and qualitative interview data from 106 lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parent families was employed to examine the type of contact, its frequency, who was involved, perceptions of this contact, and the extent to which formal agreements exist between adoptive and birth families regarding contact.ResultsFindings revealed variations in the status and perceptions of contact across adoptive families. We also discovered that many lesbian and gay adoptive parents reported that birth parents had intentionally selected a same‐sex adoptive couple, and birth parents appeared to have distinct reasons for this choice.ConclusionAlthough some differences in birth family contact distinguished lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parent families, these families generally appeared more similar than different.ImplicationsImplications—particularly a need for demonstrated competencies in adoption openness—are discussed for adoption professionals in policy, practice, and legal realms.