The women, who are legally married and were approved as foster parents in Utah earlier this year after passing home inspections, background checks and interviews from DCFS, said the judge told them there was a lot of research that indicated children who are raised in same-sex parent homes do not do as well as children who are raised by heterosexual parents.....UPDATE: "Utah Judge Reverses Order to Take Baby From Lesbian Couple."
Attorney Mandie Torgerson, who represents the baby's biological mother, said Johansen did not cite the research he referenced in court saying only that there are "a myriad" of studies that support his order....
१२ नोव्हेंबर, २०१५
"April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce of Carbon County said the baby they've loved and raised for the last three months will be removed from their home..."
"... and sent to heterosexual foster parents because a judge said the baby would be better-off."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५४ टिप्पण्या:
Good, there should only be more and this should represent the fallback of the tide. Sadly, or happily to Althouse because she likes what's bad, this will probably go on.
There's lots of fatherless babies out there.
Call it a civil union and you might defuse some of the judge pushback in this particular case.
Meanwhile, there is a 12 and 14 year old kid already in the house that are staying.
Conservatives. Always ready to shoot themselves in the foot. Enjoy Hillary, I won't be.
Oh, it will be reversed on appeal.
There are plenty of studies that show a man and a woman are the best option for children. This isn't unknown.
Meanwhile, there is a 12 and 14 year old kid already in the house that are staying.
Conservatives. Always ready to shoot themselves in the foot. Enjoy Hillary, I won't be.
Ask Hillary to say something about the unrest on college campuses or the idiotic HERO ordinance in Houston.
The judge is an asshole. I'd like to see him produce these "myriad" of studies that say children do better with heterosexual parents than with homosexual parents. Children just need parents who love them; they have no preconceptions and will not "turn bad" or be otherwise dysfunctional just because they have two dads or two moms.
Idiot hillbilly judge. I hope this loving couple fights his hate. It will also be interesting to find out where the Republican candidates stand on this.
Oh yeah? You want to set a cat amongst the pigeons? Have one of your stupid plants ask Dr. Ben Carson whether or not homosexuality is really a mental disorder and how to deal with its having been aggressively lobbied out of the DSM 4 at an Alinskied APA meeting in IIRC 1970. Dr. K will remember.
Then, it's on. One way or another. If you do this and Hillary! is elected, I will have such a sadz...but it would be clarifying.
I bet he gives a really, really good answer. If he said it was all fine I might even have to believe him.
I don't know the current state of the research, but I suspect what is needed is tolerance more open debate about the effects of homosexual parenting. The LGBT activists have wanted to bypass that and declare the issue settled, so they get pushback; the onus should be on them anyway to prove that the change from the biological norm is not harmful.
The judge is misguided IMO though in disrupting this infant's bond with the family. His efforts would be better spent on removing kids from truly abuaive and neglectful situations.
If you can't cite it, it isn't real.
You know what screws kids up? Disruption. The judge in this case has no business adding more of it to this child's life. Honest to goodness research shows that attachment of child to parents is a key factor in whether delinquent behaviors occur in childhood, and that early attachment problems have larger consequences than later ones.
This judge needs a good spanking, but only if he wouldn't enjoy it.
Libertarian Mark
We can't let it be about what is best for children. Everyone should have what they WANT. It's got to feel good. Science!
Yes & no. I've see lots of different family constellations in foster care. The type matters more later in life, sometimes a child responds better to male authority others do not care, sometimes there's a request by an older child (no women), man or men only for foster.
Foster is temporary. Adoption through foster is different too, then sperm donation or at birth/preplanned adoption. It really is a child in need of a home and no parent or relative can step in. The child growing up knows this, and is allowed to acknowledge lost. At birth adoptions/sperm-egg donor kids, have to always be enterally grateful..... And pretend biology doesn't matter.
From what I observe, two moms raised a child, usually get a male mentor later in life for their foster-adopt son. Also foster to adopt situations keep biological sibling groups together. So if a new born gets a sibling later, that child will be placed with the same family.
Children do better with family, gay uncle is better then straight strangers. But if there is no family, alternatives will have to do.
Oh boy. And did you hear the one about rape victims not getting pregnant from rapes.
This Judge must be a Moby.
This is decision is about as absurd as the reasoning in the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. Actually, without being necessarily correct, the this decision is less absurd.
Judges imposing outcomes that reflect their personal preferences rather than the requirements of the law is no less offensive when conservative judges do it than when liberal judges do it. One might hope that activists that have been using courts to subvert the legislative process for the last 60 years would learn a lesson from this case, but that's probably asking too much.
Yes, there are studies that support the notion that children do better in two-gender families, but....
Let's be honest, there aren't enough foster homes out there and a lot of them aren't really great for the child. It is a poorly reasoned decision to make such a change. First, the child is already there. Second, they are interested in adopting. Finding quality foster care isn't easy. If you find one that has the potential to extend beyond short term is the ultimate best choice.
Total fail by the judge.
Althouse, did you see the story in the WSJ about the study purporting to show that people with opposite sex siblings close in age fare better in romantic relationships? It makes sense, at least for the 95-98% of children who grow up to be heterosexual.
The 95-98% would also benefit, in my view, from being raised by opposite sex parents and observing their relationship dynamics. Will that study ever be conducted? Has it been already?
I support gay marriage and adoption and all that, in part because of individual rights but also because I feel gays and the rest of us would benefit from more stable families, but I think it's ridiculous to pretend there are no differences between same sex parents and opposite sex parents.
That said, the judge sounds like a bigoted dick.
There are massive numbers of well adjusted couples desperate to adopt.
But they only want healthy newborns, not older kids w/ siblings who witnessed domestic violence or abused. Everyone just waits to prey on a pregnant woman, whether for her baby or for fetal parts.
Sure adoption is better the abortion, but almost everything is a better option the death. But adoption at times looks like human trafficking, taking advantage of a pregnant woman. Wishes more families would adopt a mom (or dad) in need of help/mentoring/guidance.
I'm assuming "a myriad" is in quotes because "myriad" doesn't take an indefinite article.
Judges in family court make imperfect, sometimes risible decisions all the time, but it's only news when it shows how oppressed The Golden 3% is. As a former foster parent, who adopted through the system--sigh.
When we were on the list to adopt, we were contacted about an 11 year old boy who had been in the system for his entire life. He'd been repeatedly returned to his birth parents despite a lifetime of physical, emotional and sexual abuse. Can we get some bitching about the family court judge who kept returning him to his birth family, only finally terminating their rights and clearing him for adoption after a decade of this bullshit? We could not adopt him because we had younger girls in our home at that time and the risk to them was too great. Happily, I heard later that he'd been adopted by an empty-nester couple who had the time and resources to nurture him to reach whatever potential he had left after he'd been failed by his family and the system for his entire short life.
Sidebar:
Children do better with family, gay uncle is better then straight strangers. But if there is no family, alternatives will have to do.
So says Renee the Expert. On what do you base this kind of pronouncement? I know I shouldn't take it personally but it irritates me to no end that every time this topic is raised on Althouse you trot out this baseless crap. I hope you don't talk like this around real families who are built in ways you don't approve of, because it's people like you that adoptive parents roll their eyes about and quietly avoid. Not only do I have an adopted son who is the light of our lives and is doing very well thankyouforyourconcern, my dad is congenitally sterile and I was conceived via an anonymous sperm donor. I'm sorry that you think people like my son and me and our family occupy some kind of second tier of desirability, but that's your problem.
This bigoted judge needs to be removed from the bench, pronto!
I'm assuming "a myriad" is in quotes because "myriad" doesn't take an indefinite article.
If you feel like reading, here you go.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/outofhome/kinship/about/benefits/
I have not read the article so...
If the only reason the Judge is making this decision [to remove the baby] is because it is a same-sex couple, that is wrong and should be reversed. If this couple correctly passed all hurdles that exist in the way of people becoming foster parents and there is no signs of wrong-doing, what is his deal? Since he says "studies" show (and I don't doubt that] children do better in two [opposite] parent house-holds, is he planning to start taking kids away from single parents? If not, than shut-up already. This ruling would seem to indicate that there is a huge backlog of qualified adults wanting to be foster parents such that he can remove this child from this home.
What is his reasoning for leaving the other children there, they are already "ruined"?
I notice that a lot of the usual suspects, and some not so usual, complaining about this decision are essentially claiming LBGTphobia, and nothing else. They aren't claiming that there are studies that show that two lesbians (which is what this case involved) can statistically raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple. And, you aren't likely going to find such, because it is unlikely to be true.
One of the likely reasons for this (and those studies showing the opposite, that homosexual couples don't do as well as heterosexual couples) is that kids apparently need both sexes of parents to be successful, and, of course, they are most successful if both of the parents are the biological parents. But, a lesbian couple (married or just shacking up) are going to miss having a male parent. Which is why outcomes from lesbian parents are apparently on the level (but apparently slightly worse) than single female parents, which is probably the single largest direct cause of the violence in the inner cities, and esp. inner city black communities, today. Boys need fathers, and occasional visitation by a male mentor, which seems to be the fad with these lesbian couples, is not sufficient for many/most kids. Think about it - what are they going to do when the preteen boy mouths off to his two female parents? I like what my partner's spouse (at the time) did with their two boys - he picked one up with each hand and put them both up against the wall. No negotiating, just force, which males that age understand. You aren't their best friend - you are their parent, and that is one of the things that female parents often forget, esp. w/o a male parent in the household. And, of course, for girl children, one of the problems with no male parent in the household is that they don't get sufficient approval and interaction with an opposite sex parent, which is probably one of the big reasons that girls who lack a male parent in the household tend to get pregnant earlier.
My kid ran into one of the more interesting things that can happen with two lesbian parents. They had "kindergarten buddies" for the high school seniors at the private school my kid attended. But, since there are a lot more seniors than kindergartners, each of the latter had several of the former as mentors. The girl who had two mommies did fine with her female mentor, but couldn't handle a male one. She had spent so little time around adult (or almost adult) males, prior to that, that she was freaked out whenever the male mentor was anywhere in the vicinity. In any case, at least one study has shown homosexual couples doing worse than single parents, and that may be because biological fathers probably have more influence in the single parent households.
Back to statistics - apparently there was a recent study showing that two homosexual parents increases the odds that a child of theirs of the same sex will ultimately be a practicing homosexual (I would be interested in seeing how this worked with transvestites, except that they mostly can't have kids after transitioning). Maybe there really is a gay gene. But, I think it more likely that environment can push borderline cases one way or another, and for the most part, most of us probably think that heterosexual is the better orientation if borderline, since it is the sexual orientation that most of us practice (though maybe not most of us here...)
I think that there are probably worse situations for kids than being raised by a pair of lesbians. Foster care is probably one of those. And, in some cases, they can maybe do better together than a single female parent could do alone - but the question there is whether the single mother will stay single, or whether she can (re)marry early enough that the guy can exert sufficient control and influence over the kid(s). (I think that (re)marriage by age ten of the kid(s) is probably good - know several women who did this quite successfully).
And, yes, I think by now I am a masculinist (or whatever you want to call the sexual opposite of a feminist). As a species, I believe that we have developed in a direction that essentially requires a male parent to successfully domesticate male children. Absent that, they tend to run as a juvenile male pack, at least until they die a violent death or end up in prison. Which is why I think that two lesbians are suboptimal as a choice of parents, while I also think that two gay guys would do much better. (BTW - the gay male parents I have known have done just fine). It isn't gay parenting that I object to, but rather, lesbian parenting.
An errant eruption has somehow escaped the Chamber of Suppressed Truth. i see a ray of hope. Paging Mark Regenerus.
I Have Misplaced My Pants: as another adoptive parent I used to feel exactly as you do about Renee's posts but I have come around to feeling that her perspective has some merit. I just think she's extremist about it and insensitiv in the way she presents her views.
I guess one of my concerns, and a reason I find her perspective important, is that I think gay marriage is ushering a whole new wave of bio- engineered families and there ought to be a lot more scrutiny into that. It's a separate issue from adoring in order to raise kids who already exist, but keeping Renee's perspective in mind about the importance of biological heritage gives some foothold of reasoning to oppose the artifiice of homosexual conceptions.
The title "Foster parents say child removed from their home because they are gay" is a great example of indirect discourse, i.e., reporting what so-and-so said. In the German language, the verb "to say" is automatically cast into the subjunctive mood regardless of tense in order question veracity. We've lost that ability.
Yes, admit extreme. I get a lot grief from fellow pro-lifers, because from appearances it looks like we're looking for babies, not helping the women.
Misplaced, though, I have to respect her experience. On the other hand, we have this legal double standard. If my husband was sterile, and I slept with another man to get pregnant, the other man has standing in court to be identify as the father and assert his rights/obligations, even though my husband would automatically be presumed the father at birth.
Why should the means of conception matter, whether by the conjugal act or in a doctor's office with some else's gametes who for sake of the intended patent/s? The type of couple or being a single parent by choice shouldn't be considered. Whoever is the biological parents are should be identified, before proceeding with alternatives.
Bruce,
"(BTW - the gay male parents I have known have done just fine). It isn't gay parenting that I object to, but rather, lesbian parenting."
I think you meant to say female parenting, based on the argument you made throughout your post. You clearly find women unable to parent a male child.
Bruce, I understand your position. I am viewing this from the point of the "lesser of the evils". Is a loving, two parent, opposite sexed couple the ideal family unit? Yes. Not having that, what is second best? Two opposite non-married but committed adults? Likely yes. After that what comes next? Two same sex adults or one biologically related adult? Or one adult of which sex?
I would think [and no I am no expert] that two adults of any combination of sexes is better than one adult of that same sex (i.e. two women instead of one or two men instead of one) if only so as to be able to share the responsibilities and to allow the child to experience a couple in a loving relationship working and living together.
I would prefer (as I think most would) to have all children raised in their biological family that loves them and cares for them but we can't always have that. I would prefer every child to be raised on a caring and loving environment that is as close to the norm as possible versus in an institutional environment.
Being that we can't always have the perfect, what are you willing to support "for the children"? Again, I understand that a same-sex couple is not the "preferred" structure but isn't it better than a number of the other alternatives?
Never get involved in a family law dispute unless someone is paying you. Nobody ever gives you all the information.
The article is glaring for its complete lack of even basic information about this case. What does the judge's order say? Why was this issue brought before a judge in the first place? Who's representing the interests of the child (ad litem)? What did they say? Was there some sort of investigation - sometimes called a social study? What did the investigator say?
I’d like to see more information about this case before weighing in. For example, I’d like to know what triggered the decision to have the judge review the custody of this child and change it. Did someone from DCFS find out something relevant that wasn’t originally known when they approved the couple or did someone issue a complaint or file a petition that the judge reviewed? I think it’s highly unlikely that the judge just took it upon himself to randomly review and reverse the decision to give this couple custody of an infant. I suspect that there may be facts that we aren’t being told that will likely get buried now that the narrative is “judge takes baby away from couple just because they’re gay.”
Well it is true. The child would be better off with a heterosexual couple. As the child would be better off in a family with mother and father.
Whether action should be taken is another story.
There are more orientations than can be found in an "=" congruence. Notwithstanding the welfare of unplanned children, after rejecting natural and evolutionary fitness, the advocates for transgender/homosexual couplets need to explain their support for selective exclusion (i.e. pro-choice).
Matt and Thorley Winston just raised an issue that puzzles me: How did the judge get involved, where all the interested parties and agencies seem to be on board.
Another point: About "studies". I've read from time to time about studies on gay v. straight parents, and some say there's no difference, and some say there is a difference. But even if you could show that, on average, a child is better off with straight parents than with gay parents, so what? No plausible study is going to show that every single straight couple will be better parents than every single gay couple. Aren't there plenty of straight couples that are terrible, abusive, careless, unreliable, or inattentive parents? Wouldn't a caring, loving, committed gay couple make better parents than these?
The particular foster/adoptive parents in this case have been vetted by the appropriate authorities and have been found to be suitable for this child. There's no straight couple out there that's gone through the same vetting process and is competing for this child. Unless there's something that we aren't being told (and that's certainly possible, perhaps likely), it's the judge who's guilty of child abuse here.
What perplexes me in this gay parents vs straight parents argument, is that you can have two gay parents, just one female & one male.
I'm not a straight parent to my kids, I'm their biological mother, whether I'm gay or straight. They have a father, gay or straight.
Many same-sex homes, are bio mom & step mom. With bio dad, still involved in the child's life with joint custody. You can have two adoptive moms, two foster moms, heck two step-moms (if dad remarries t a woman).
You can't compare by orientation. You can only compare bio to bio, step to step, adopted to adopted.
This is just a logical extension of the actions of social workers to remove Black children from White foster homes.
For the record – I think that all things being equal, that preference should be given in cases of fostership and adoption to married heterosexual couples over single people or same sex couples. The reason for this is that men and women are different and I believe that one of the greatest social problems in our country is children being raised without fathers which on the aggregate (meaning it is true more often than not but not true in every case) has been devastating to young boys and girls. However it is rarely the case that “all other things are equal” nor is there is a surplus of good families ready, willing and able to adopt or foster all of the children who need it. I would not support making this an iron clad rule as there are a lot of factors that are and should be used to determine the best interest of the child in a placement situation. I also do not support removing a child who already been placed with a qualified and properly vetted single parent or same sex couple household unless there is some other compelling reason that if known or had developed at the time the child had been placed, would have materially affected the decision to place the child in that home.
What's interesting here is the statement that the biological mother objected to the removal of the child -- which opens up a whole set of questions. Is there some connection between the women and the mother? that is, was she unable to parent and asked them to? Is there a plan for reunification, or is the child in the foster system only as part of a path to severing of parental rights and ultimate adoption? Does the judge have some reason to believe that the child needs a father of some kind in the picture?
It also seemed a bit off to refer to the caregivers as the child's "mothers" when there's very clearly an actual mother. Is that really the practice, to have the child call the caregivers "mom" regardless of whether there's another mom who hopes to be reunited with her child?
"...men and women are different and I believe that one of the greatest social problems in our country is children being raised without fathers which on the aggregate (meaning it is true more often than not but not true in every case) has been devastating to young boys and girls."
Assuming for argument this is true, to the extent it is true, how do we know whether it is the absence of a father that is devastating to children, rather than the absence of a second parent? That is, in a home without a father, but also without a second mother--a single-parent home--the children may often be left in the care of baby-sitters, or older children may have to take care of their younger siblings, or children may be left by themselves--while the single parent (mother) works to support the children. In a two-parent home, whether dad/mom, dad/dad, or mom/mom, there is a second parent who, potentially or presumably, can be available to care for the children when the other parent is not.
What does it matter, Cook? You would happily sacrifice the children to your ideology. As if.
Other than as a biological imperative and for purposes of biological balance, why is marriage under the "=" ruling still restricted to couples and couplets?
Also, how does normalization of couplets reconcile with previous normalization of single-parents, other than their mutual requirement for womb banks and sperm depositors to enable their orientation?
The single-minded pursuit of social and biological justice for politically favored orientations has created moral hazards and sponsored progressive corruption.
@Cook
Non-biological adults in home raise risks. Bio dad vs. Step-in dad/boyfriend.
Old article from 2005, media doesn't report anymore and scholars too afraid to research dye to backlash.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21838575/ns/health-childrens_health/t/children-higher-risk-nontraditional-homes/
From the report in 2005, again from NBC News.
Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri data published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.
Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Girls whose parents divorce face significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University."
Family court judges are unfair and cast decisions based on their personal preferences as "doing what's best for the child?" Gee, where have I heard that before?
"Non-biological adults in home raise risks. Bio dad vs. Step-in dad/boyfriend."
So this would argue against a mother remarrying and/or trying to have a 2 parent family if Dad leaves.
Doesn't seem to relate to this case.
I keep hearing and seeing that it's OK for those engaging in homo sex relationships are good to house the orphaned and foster because there is such a lack of willing foster parents.
I call BS. It's taken my wife and I a year to become licensed foster parents. And even after we finally became licensed, our license is only good for boys between the ages of 2-10. And we only finally got licensed because they put a "rush" on it because we already had the boys in our home (because they are family).
Are you really going to tell me that I have to jump through a thousand hoops, spend all sorts of time and money, on getting licensed to become a foster parent because they are desperate for more foster parents?
Again. BS.
If they were truly desperate, they wouldn't make it so freaking troublesome and have it take so long and have so much paperwork involved.
I suspect it's a lie that has caught on because people want you to believe that we need those engaging in homo sex, otherwise these kids will be living on the street.
You don't want these kids living on the street do you? Do you!?
Then believe the lie.
The child would be better off with a mother and father, than with two "mothers".
You know, "diversity"? Female AND male, not just female?
Ah, that's right, leftists don't believe in any kind of "diversity" except for the "right" kind.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा