Gay Adoption

Phoenix43

Hi, Does anyone know of what the current status on same-sex adoption is in Ireland? Or, anyone out there been through the process? Considering this option with my partner at the moment, but unsure of time it takes etc. A significant and life changing move.

baby and crumble

AFAIK the assessment process here in the exact same regardless of gender of the applicants, however as most of the adoptions in Ireland come via Intercountry adoption, you have to be aware that there are many "sending" countries who do not allow same-sex couples, even if they are fully assessed here and have the adoption license, do adopt from their country. I would imagine that Russia (who again AFAIK is the lrges sending country to Ireland) would fall into that camp.

Peregrinus

Yup. It doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight but, to adopt as a couple, you do need to be married, except in limited circumstances. The Oireachtas recently enacted a law to allow civilly-partnered and de facto couples to adopt, but I don't think it has come into operation yet.

But, as baby and crumble points out, it's one thing to be assesses as suitable adoptive parents; it's another to have a child placed with you. If you're looking at intercountry adoption the placement decision is made by the country from which the child comes, and many countries either will not place a child with a same-sex couple, or at least regard being a same-sex rather than opposite-sex couple as a negative factor in the placement decision. But not all countries take this view. The position taken in any country can change from time to time,

You can only adopt a child into Ireland from a county which has ratified the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, which is a relatively small list of countries. You need to find a country (a) which is on that list, (b) which will place a child with a same-sex couple, and (c) with which Ireland has effective arrangements for intercountry adoptions (basically, there needs to be an accredited adoption agency in Ireland working with adoptions from that country).

Rainman16

Why can't an Irish couple, gay or straight adopt an Irish or UK child. Surely there are unwanted babies here. Why must we go for a Russian or Chinese baby? What is the logic behind the law?

Peregrinus

Rainman16 wrote: »

Why can't an Irish couple, gay or straight adopt an Irish or UK child. Surely there are unwanted babies here. Why must we go for a Russian or Chinese baby? What is the logic behind the law?

There's no law to prevent an Irish couple from adopting an Irish child. The problem is the very small number of Irish children that are placed for adoption. Adoption of Irish babies does happen, but not very often.

Adoption of babies from the UK is possible, at least in theory, since the UK is a party to the Hague Convention. But, again, not many UK babies are placed for adoption, and there's generally no shortage of UK applicants to adopt them, so I don't think the UK accepts applications from overseas adopters.

Pro Hoc Vice

Rainman16 wrote: »

Why can't an Irish couple, gay or straight adopt an Irish or UK child. Surely there are unwanted babies here. Why must we go for a Russian or Chinese baby? What is the logic behind the law?

Did you actually read any of the previous posts,

"AFAIK the assessment process here in the exact same regardless of gender of the applicants,"

"Yup. It doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight but, to adopt as a couple, you do need to be married, except in limited circumstances. "

N365

The adoption process is incredibly difficult. It is something that you and your partner should give careful consideration to. It involves a lot of time and effort and both of you should be fully committed to it. The very first thing I would do is to check the list of countries that are compliant/signatories of the Hague convention and see how many allow gay couples to adopt. The other option is for one of you to adopt as a sole adopter, the other partner can still go through the process with you.

Pro Hoc Vice

N365 wrote: »

The adoption process is incredibly difficult. It is something that you and your partner should give careful consideration to. It involves a lot of time and effort and both of you should be fully committed to it. The very first thing I would do is to check the list of countries that are compliant/signatories of the Hague convention and see how many allow gay couples to adopt. The other option is for one of you to adopt as a sole adopter, the other partner can still go through the process with you.

http://www.aai.gov.ie/attachments/article/32/Notice%20-%20Annual%20Report%202015.pdf

Some information of the numbers and countries for inter country adoption at the end of the report.

http://www.aai.gov.ie/attachments/article/32/Annual%20Report%202014%20FINAL.pdf

Interesting information at the end of the 2014 report on total number of irish born children adopted in Ireland per year.

N365

Rainman16 wrote: »

Why can't an Irish couple, gay or straight adopt an Irish or UK child. Surely there are unwanted babies here. Why must we go for a Russian or Chinese baby? What is the logic behind the law?

The waiting times for an Irish or UK child are very long and there is no law against it. You cannot adopt from Russia anymore as they are not signatories to the Hague convention.

baby and crumble

Rainman16 wrote: »

Why can't an Irish couple, gay or straight adopt an Irish or UK child. Surely there are unwanted babies here. Why must we go for a Russian or Chinese baby? What is the logic behind the law?

Due to the way Irish law is set up, it is incredibly rare, as other posters have said, to adopt an Irish child- pretty much because blood motherhood trumps everything in Ireland. When it does happen, 99% of the time it is an inter-family adoption. If the mother objects at all to the idea of adoption it cannot go ahead, or indeed AFAIK if the mother cannot be found but it is known she is alive, an adoption cannot go ahead without her explicit agreement. Unlike in the UK whereby once a child is in the foster system without parental contact for a certain number of months/years, the child may be placed for adoption, right up until 18.

There are thousands of kids in really successful foster placements here, for the majority of their lives, who have never seen their birth parents, but who cannot legally be adopted by their parents of 17 years because of that legislation.

L1011

Rainman16 wrote: »

Why can't an Irish couple, gay or straight adopt an Irish or UK child. Surely there are unwanted babies here. Why must we go for a Russian or Chinese baby? What is the logic behind the law?

There are very few. Because we actually have a social welfare system here to support people, far fewer children are given up for adoption than in countries with minimal or no welfare structures.

eviltwin

Isn't it better that kids stay within the family than be raised by strangers? Less adoption is a good thing imo. Overseas adoption is a long process, it's expensive and there can be restrictions based on age, marital status and sexual orientation. There are also issues with the legality of certain adoption practices. And let's face it, most people want to adopt a baby and not an older child who may have issues. There's also the fact that there is no longer a stigma with being a single parent, good contraception and abortion and a welfare system. So you're up against it really.

baby and crumble

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't it better that kids stay within the family than be raised by strangers? Less adoption is a good thing imo.

I don't understand what you mean by this comment. There are thousands of kids in Ireland, born to Irish parents who are in foster care with families who may not be relatives by blood but who raise them like they were, because nobody in the family has done so. How is that a bad thing? Those kids are left hanging with no security because of the legislation in Ireland. You ask a lot of those kids and they WANT to be adopted by their foster parents but they can't be.

eviltwin

baby and crumble wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by this comment. There are thousands of kids in Ireland, born to Irish parents who are in foster care with families who may not be relatives by blood but who raise them like they were, because nobody in the family has done so. How is that a bad thing? Those kids are left hanging with no security because of the legislation in Ireland. You ask a lot of those kids and they WANT to be adopted by their foster parents but they can't be.

I think if a child can be placed with someone within the family it's better than placing them with strangers. Obviously they have to be willing and suitable and that's not always possible. I'm reluctant to put rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to adoption having seen the damage its caused birth parents and children. There is a horrible legacy of adoption in this country, the down side of the changing attitude is that childless couples have less options but fostering is never about having legal parental rights, it's a fools game to go into it thinking you're going to eventually adopt.

baby and crumble

eviltwin wrote: »

I think if a child can be placed with someone within the family it's better than placing them with strangers. Obviously they have to be willing and suitable and that's not always possible. I'm reluctant to put rose tinted spectacles on when it comes to adoption having seen the damage its caused birth parents and children. There is a horrible legacy of adoption in this country, the down side of the changing attitude is that childless couples have less options but fostering is never about having legal parental rights, it's a fools game to go into it thinking you're going to eventually adopt.

My point was that for many children, there is no option to be placed with family.

Nobody goes into fostering with the idea like "I'll find one I like and adopt it when I do"- that's nonsense. But if parents absolve themselves of the responsibilities of parenting, and there are good people willing to do so and love and provide for the child, and if the child wants that too, then leaving a child in legal limbo is cruel and abusive, in my opinion. Just on the "off-chance" the mother (and lets be honest the birth father has zero rights in this country) wants back in a some point.

eviltwin

baby and crumble wrote: »

My point was that for many children, there is no option to be placed with family.

Nobody goes into fostering with the idea like "I'll find one I like and adopt it when I do"- that's nonsense. But if parents absolve themselves of the responsibilities of parenting, and there are good people willing to do so and love and provide for the child, and if the child wants that too, then leaving a child in legal limbo is cruel and abusive, in my opinion. Just on the "off-chance" the mother (and lets be honest the birth father has zero rights in this country) wants back in a some point.

I agree with you but when people question why so few adoptions happen in this country it's mainly due to changing attitudes and other options and that's a good thing.

N365

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't it better that kids stay within the family than be raised by strangers? Less adoption is a good thing imo. Overseas adoption is a long process, it's expensive and there can be restrictions based on age, marital status and sexual orientation. There are also issues with the legality of certain adoption practices. And let's face it, most people want to adopt a baby and not an older child who may have issues. There's also the fact that there is no longer a stigma with being a single parent, good contraception and abortion and a welfare system. So you're up against it really.

I cant understand why you are so negative about adoption. I agree that the process is long and difficult but it can bring so much joy and happiness to parents and child. You state that "less adoption" is a good thing because its expensive etc. etc. but I don't think that's a reason not to adopt. There are hundreds of orphanages around the world full of beautiful children that could be adopted by loving parents. That wont change. Even if it is the case that most people want to adopt a baby and not an older child who may have issues does it matter? There are always parents who don't care and will take any child young or older and give them a better life.

Peregrinus

Adoption is a solution to a problem, the problem being a child whose family are, for whatever reason, unable or unwilling to care for them.

And if there are fewer adoptions because the problem arises less often, if through better education and support more and more families are willing and able to care for their children, that's an unqualified good thing.

High adoption rates in Ireland in the past were sustained by very negative attitudes towards unmarried mothers. The enormous reduction in the number of Irish children placed for adoption in the past generation is almost entirely down to the erosion of shame and stigma directed at those who fell pregnant out of wedlock. That's good.

The reduction in the numbers of overseas children being available for adoption by Irish applicants is the result of a number of factors - Ireland's ratification of the Hague Convention, which establishes standards for intercountry adoption to protect children; a reduction in the number of countries willing to adopt children to applicants from abroad. These in turn arose because of a distaste for a situation in which babies were basically trafficked to wealthy westerners, with sometimes limited regard for the rights of the children or the protection of their interests, and in a few alarming cases with little regard to the suitability of the applicants.

N365

Peregrinus wrote: »

Adoption is a solution to a problem, the problem being a child whose family are, for whatever reason, unable or unwilling to care for them.

And if there are fewer adoptions because the problem arises less often, if through better education and support more and more families are willing and able to care for their children, that's an unqualified good thing.

High adoption rates in Ireland in the past were sustained by very negative attitudes towards unmarried mothers. The enormous reduction in the number of Irish children placed for adoption in the past generation is almost entirely down to the erosion of shame and stigma directed at those who fell pregnant out of wedlock. That's good.

The reduction in the numbers of overseas children being available for adoption by Irish applicants is the result of a number of factors - Ireland's ratification of the Hague Convention, which establishes standards for intercountry adoption to protect children; a reduction in the number of countries willing to adopt children to applicants from abroad. These in turn arose because of a distaste for a situation in which babies were basically trafficked to wealthy westerners, with sometimes limited regard for the rights of the children or the protection of their interests, and in a few alarming cases with little regard to the suitability of the applicants.

The Hague convention has merely served to reduce the number of adoptions and leaves thousands of children languishing in orphanages in Non-Hague compliant countries. Instead of tackling the issue in the countries where corruption exists , a cover all treaty was introduced which dramatically reduced the number of countries from which people can adopt. There are plenty of non Hague compliant countries with little or no history of corruption in their adoption procedures.

eviltwin

N365 wrote: »

I cant understand why you are so negative about adoption. I agree that the process is long and difficult but it can bring so much joy and happiness to parents and child. You state that "less adoption" is a good thing because its expensive etc. etc. but I don't think that's a reason not to adopt. There are hundreds of orphanages around the world full of beautiful children that could be adopted by loving parents. That wont change. Even if it is the case that most people want to adopt a baby and not an older child who may have issues does it matter? There are always parents who don't care and will take any child young or older and give them a better life.

I actually said less adoption is a good thing because where possible families should stay together. I don't see why it's such a controversial view. I'm not advocating for children to remain with abusive parents or anything, just stating my opinion that where possible children should remain in the wider family. There is a reason we don't see children being placed anymore here, we have other options and we no longer view single or unmarried parents as a bad thing. I see that as good for children and good for society.

baby and crumble

I think the negative here is that, in some cases, the rights of the mother, who may not want anything to do with actually parenting her child, can block her child from having a stable home with loving parents. I think we can all agree that is wrong.