Thread by @ogleforth

LGBTQ+ Adoption: a 🧵.

In 2018, when I rang the first adoption agency - a major, central london-based charity with an “outstanding” Ofsted rating - we spoke to, I was asked what age of child we anticipated adopting.

“We were thinking of around about 18 months,” I said.

The Duty Social Worker laughed, and said:
“Older children with more problem tend to be placed with gay couples. Younger children with fewer problems tend to be placed with heterosexual couples.”

I asked her to repeat herself.

She did.

After our conversation I emailed her to triple check.

She emailed straight back saying she’d been “referring to ethnicity.”

I pointed out we hadn’t discussed ethnicity by that point in the conversation.

What’s interesting is not only the DSW’s homophobia, but her frankness about the reality of the process for LGBTQ+ adopters.

And also how defensive she was.

And also how everyone you encounter in the adoption process has the capacity to be a gatekeeper.

We found another agency to go with, who were running an open day with a panel of LGBTQ+ adopters. It was great. We went with them. The training we subsequently received was brilliant. Deliberately and consciously inclusive, and truly valuable in the long run.

During our interviews, our SW asked about drugs.
“None.”
“Did you go clubbing in your 20s?”
“Yes.”
“And you didn’t take drugs?”
“Are you profiling me?”
“I’ve been to those clubs.”
“Not my ones. Queer indie clubs. Vaseline, Misshapes. The Smiths, Radiohead, Kate Bush.”
“Oh.”

When we went to be approved by the panel of social workers, the Chair couldn’t maintain normative eye-contact with us. She’d stare, either at one or the other of us, as though having to really concentrate to overcome something. Plain weird.

The panel itself was made up entirely of white women aged 40+, and the implication (led by the Chair) throughout was “what could two men possibly know about childcare?” - which is, of course, just your common or garden misogyny-dressed-up-as-homophobia.

During the panel, the Chair interrupted every single one of our answers, as though she was in a rush. She then asked for feedback. We gave some, which was mildly critical of one aspect. She became visibly angry. She then deliberated for 45 minutes; our SW began to panic…

When we returned to hear the verdict, the Chair began the most important moment of our lives to date with:
“We considered deferring your case, but then thought, ‘why bother?’ So we’ve approved you.”
No smile or congratulations. A bare minimum with a sting. She was still livid.

We requested access to the minutes of our panel, as this is a document made available to a potential match’s social workers. Our agency refused, “due to confidentiality.”
The only confidentiality at stake was ours.
They still refused, citing GDPR regs.

We started looking at childrens’ profiles. We expressed an interest in one. Our family finder spoke to his SW, then got back to us:
“They’re looking for a heterosexual couple to adopt.”
“But the profile doesn’t mention this.”
“Let’s move on.”

It was through accidental honesty such as this (and the DSW above) that we realised how the system is a petri dish for unconscious bias. And that that’s possible because there’s no transparency as to how decisions are made.

Our new (straight white 70 year old male; let’s called him J) social worker arrived.

J said:
“The agency gives me the difficult cases. And I charge them by the hour.”

On the day of our first meeting with our now-daughter’s SWs, J arrived early, “to settle you down.”
Apparently to that end, he then said:
“Well, the good news is that homosexuality and paedophilia aren’t as closely linked as they used to be.”

(I know, I know: we should have reported him. But remember that when we’d given feedback before, we were punished. And everyone’s a gatekeeper. So we just sat tight, and gritted teeth. We had to endure him for a further 14 long months.)

Our daughter’s SWs asked us about her ethnicity:
“How do you feel about the Roma part?”
“Hitler would have put us in the same camp,” I replied.
J said, “Don’t you remember when the Romanians came over and squatted Marble Arch?”
“We don’t share the same prejudices,” I whispered.

Our daughter’s social workers were all marvellous. Genuinely wanted the best for her. And felt that we were that best. And her foster carers…utter legends of humanity. With these people on our side we could deal with everything else. The matching panel went like a dream.

After our daughter arrived, we’d go for walks in the local park. We received a surprising amount of abuse…
“F*ggots!”
“That’s a bad rap for your kid.”
“‘Man shall not lie with Man.’”

One guy shouted abuse from a moving car. I reported him. He accepted a police caution.

We told J, who said,
“You should have been around when there was REAL prejudice.”

“A guy shouted ‘f*ggots’ at a 19-month-old child. That IS real prejudice,” we said.

This isn’t everything, but it’s a representative selection. We did give feedback to our agency, and got a defensive and inconclusive response. We are now free of all of that system, with a wonderful daughter. And so now we can let go of this sh*t.

Anyone who’s considering adoption: It is wonderful. But it’s also stubbornly opaque, full of people who behave inadequately and then respond to queries with things like:
“It’s unpredictable, isn’t it? So are kids. So this process is a bit like being a parent.”

One way we got through it was by planning a sitcom about the process. Because a cultural discussion strikes us as the only way things might change.

All adoption services should provide training in unconscious (not to mention conscious) bias, but those who ought to do so with a sense of urgency include: @Coram, @PACTCHARITY & @SouthamptonCC.

#Adoption #LGBTQAdoption