Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

Should Christians be stopped from fostering because of their faith/belief?

LINK

I don't think that was meant for me, unless you're imagining things that I haven't written?

The topic of homosexuality has come up in conversation with my 6 yo. In fact, as I posted earlier in the thread, she was 4 the first time she asked.

Small children are learning about the world and curious. How are babies made? Can I marry daddy? Can I marry you? Can girls marry girls and boys marry boys? What happens when you die?

We have discussed these points and many others with her in a factual, unbiased way. The issue here seems to be that the couple's personal beliefs mean that they admit they could not guarantee to do that.

GH - any subject can be handled sensitively whatever stance you're coming from - a Christian can talk to a child sensitively about homosexuality without dismissing their own core beliefs - and I'm sure, with a little more training the couple in question would have been able to do this.
It's all in the use of words; - an example.

British Airways bosses have offered to talk to the union and are hopeful the issue can be resolved quickly.
However, Union leaders have rejected the offer and are threatening strike action.

Boss good - union bad. - happens in reporting all the time.

Yes, the subject can be handled with sensitivity, and if this couple had agreed to do so, then fine. But they have refused. They don't want the training, they want the right to state their own beliefs at the expense of the child's welfare. They regard their opinion as more important than the welfare of the child.

I go away for a few hours and a flamewar breaks out!

I just want to re-iterate my point that affirming that the Equality Act should apply to those fostering children has wider implications.

The Act states (among other things) that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation in providing goods, facilities or services. It also states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their religion or beliefs (with "beliefs" including atheism and humanism).

The Court Case did not overturn Derby County Council's views that it's refusal to employ Mr and Mrs Johns was due to potential conflicts that could arise as a result of the Sexual Orientation aspect of the Act. As has been pointed out on this thread, what would happen if they fostered a child who came to them and said that they were gay. In an initial interview Mr and Mrs Johns expressed reservations. In a subsequent interview, following a time to think it through, Mrs Johns said that she would support a child who thought they were gay, would reassure a child being bullied over their sexuality, and could work with anyone including gay parents of a child in her care. She had also said that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child or denigrate parents because of their lifestyle.

However, while she would not openly condemn or undermine a gay person, she felt she could not tell a child that being gay was OK. Because of this, and the social worker doubting her sincerity, Derby Social Services decided she was not suitable. Even though Derby CC state that "Eunice and Owen are kind and hospitable people who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable... they are well-meaning and caring people, who are clearly well-regarded by their family and friends." (cited from the Court Decision)

So the central reason for rejecting them as foster parents is because their views on gay people do not accord with best practice on equalities.

That is the story so far.

Now imagine the same scenario with a humanist wishing to foster. They are asked whether they could support a Christian child, or a child who whilst in their care wished to explore religious beliefs. They are asked whether they would support a child being bullied because of their beliefs, or whether they could work with religious parents of a child in their care. Each time the humanist says yes.

But when asked how they would respond if the child asked them how they felt about religion, and the humanist gave an honest response of "my humanist beliefs mean I personally don't support religion", then they could be barred from acting as a foster parents. That is all it would take.

All we need is a litigious religious group with a chip on their shoulder to take a County Council to court and the level of scrutiny applied to the Johns' views on sexuality will have to be applied to every prospective foster carer's views on religion and belief. And unless you can convince a social worker that you are equally supportive of all religious and philosophical ideas, irrespective of your own views, you will be judged unworthy under the terms of the Equality Act. Even if you say that you would be supportive, a social worker's suspicions that you might not be sincerely supportive of any religious or philosophical stance covered by the Equality Act could bar you from fostering.

Presumably Councils are seeking foster parents because they see them as a better place to put vulnerable children than keeping them in care. By setting the bar on who can be foster parents to a level that could, theoretically, exclude many people the logical consequence is fewer people coming forward for, or being selected as, foster parents.

The losers of this unforeseen consequence of this case will be children in care denied loving foster families. Is that really something to celebrate?

Oh no it was grandpooh who disagrees with screaming "bigot". Sorry Loopy -- you do like the screaming of "bigot" at anyone who disagrees. My mistake.

There's a lot of anti-christian hate here. What's with all the insults aimed at posters who don't support this ruling?

The ruling is ridiculous, this couple could have given a child a home when they needed it.

Again with the "children in care" These children are not sitting in a care home waiting for a loving family. "In care" refers to staying with a foster carer. This couple were not applying to raise a child as their own, they were applying for a job providing short term emergency care. And during interview it became apparent that they were unwilling to abide by the terms of the job. So they were not approved. And from their performance in media interviews, it seems like the interviewer had good cause to be sceptical. Furthermore, if this couple struggle with the idea of perfectly normal sexuality, I dread to think how they would cope with a child with inappropriate sexual behaviours, who believe me, will end up in emergency foster care. For example, sibling incest is a common behaviour in families where there is sexual abuse. I would rather those children were not exposed to a religious judgement on their behaviour, and were counselled appropriately, for their safety as well as others.

If anything, people will be put off fostering by the false assertion that it's their Christianity that has barred them from the job.

And I do think it is a cause for celebration that we have become better at vetting foster carers. It astounds me that people don't seem to think that a gay child has an absolute right to acceptance from the state.

Grandhighpooba - I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

I recognise that they were applying to be foster carers, presumably so children needing to be "in care" could be "in care". My point is that the rigorous application of Equalities law to being a foster carer will lead to all sorts of people being disqualified on technicalities.

Again, I say that I don't know the couple in question and it may be that they aren't appropriate to be foster carers. I also disagree with their beliefs about gay people, and I have campaigned in favour of equal gay rights.

But this case has left Social Services departments as a hostage to fortune. What happens when a person who isn't religious applies to be a foster carer, and their religious next door neighbour (who happens to dislike them) complains on equalities grounds. The interfering neighbour could ask "what if a child in their care wants to explore religion, how supportive can they be when they do not agree with religious views".

Not only would you be required to support a sexual lifestyle that might confict with your beliefs, you also have to be able to support all religious and philosophical beliefs, even if they conflict with your own. At present County Council's don't check that aspect of potential foster carers as rigorously as they check sexuality issues. As soon as a litigious religious group with an axe to grind takes this to court County Councils could have to, with fewer foster carers being the end result.

Basmati your post was worth reading and giving careful attention to. Articulate and well put. Also very well informed.

I meant your earlier one.. I can't read that quickly.

Bastmati your grounds are initially very different to mine: but I did have a vague instinct that this was not a good move in general towards looked after children and you've articulated why, for me.

As a post script, I was speaking this morning to a friend of mine who is a Christian and who adopted (not fostered) a child some years ago. My friend is also the chair of an adoption charity, so is quite well informed on these things.

She said that when she went through the vetting process she was asked quite thoroughly about her views on sexuality. With her current involvement in adoption work she says that this angle is still strongly considered. I wonder if Mr and Mrs Johns were applying for adoption (i.e. to form a family) rather than the job of fostering whether their views would still count against them?

If a humanist foster carer would be prepared to tell a child that it is not 'okay' to be believe something different, then I doubt they would be a suitable carer.

Just as, for example, a muslim declaring it's not 'okay' to be a christian wouldn't be suitable.

However, I still think telling a child it's not 'okay' to be homosexual goes beyond that. A belief is basically a choice, sexuality is innate.

Basmati, the problem lies with acting on the beliefs held and voicing those beliefs means that they are acting upon them.

If someone's personal beliefs had no impact on how they looked after a child, then the issue would be irrelevant. It is because we cannot be sure they would look after the child in a supportive environment, then they would not be suitable.

Again, it seems to me that this has nothing to do with religious freedom or gay rights. In fostering and adoption, everything is supposed to be driven by the "best interests of the child". Now, the courts can't rule on post-mortem best interests, such as by saying "it's in their best interests that they're brought up X because then they can get to heaven". Rather, it has to be their best interests in the here and now and in the society we live in, where being gay is legally permissible but also where lgbt individuals are subject to harrassment and have large rates of self-harm and depression. Yes, some religious people are also subject to harrassment, but the state looking after foster children is supposed to have as their primary consideration the best interests of the child - they are the corporate parent, and this comes above all other considerations. With its corporate parent hat on, it has to be about the child and not the rights of gays or Christians or whatever. And in the here and now, this involves making sure that a child will come across as little harrassment as possible. This trumps any "right" of anyone to foster someone else's child.

Christians should be allowed to foster, yes, but anyone who holds views that could hurt an already vulnerable child should not be able to. In my opinion this applies not only to people not willing to accept homosexuality but also those who are so anti-religion that a child might feel unable to express their own beliefs. It works many ways. When you are looking after someone else's child on the behalf of the state, you have to be flexible. If you are an atheist but they are a Christian, you have to respect that. If you don't believe in homosexuality but they are gay, you have to respect that. Because it's not your child.

In any case I really don't see how anyone has the "right" to impose their beliefs on someone else's child. Foster children are not your own children - it's about who has jurisdiction over the child. I'm pretty sure that if a nursery worker or school teacher told a gay child they couldn't accept it there would be problems. The fact that fostering is done in the home is misleading: it is a public job. The couple can still hold their views and they can still bring up any children of their own in them. However, the corporate parent of foster children (the state) has decided that it is in the best interests of the children whose care they have that they don't get brought up by people unwilling to accept homosexuality. It's about jurisdiction and who gets to decide where the child goes and how they are brought up - with reference to best interests in the here and now.

(And being in foster care IS being in care btw).

And anyway, the age of the child has no bearing whatsoever: children pick up on things and remember them when they're older. I speak this as a gay person who grew up in foster care. You remember EVERYTHING everyone ever says about being gay.

I think, Basmati, that there is a world of difference between "not sharing" a view, and actively finding a view unacceptable. I think an atheist can support a religious child, and vice versa.

An acceptable foster carer would say, OK, I'm not a Christian, but your thoughts on this are equally valid, lets find some appropriate resources to let you explore this. An unacceptable carer would say, no, religion is not acceptable in this house, let me tell you about atheism.

What picturehouse said

Scurryfunge, I agree with you that voicing a belief is also an action.

And I agree with LeninGrad's point that fostering is a public service and has to be provided within the usual legal frameworks.

These frameworks include the Equality Act, which covers both sexual orientation and religion and belief.

If someone is barred from working as a foster parent because they could voice a belief unfavourable to homosexuality, then they could also be barred if they voiced an opinion in anyway derogatory to a religion or philosophical belief.

If you apply the law on sexual orientation this rigorously then you run the risk of having the whole law applied this rigorously. And when you apply to be a foster carer, and someone tells the County Council that you once had a rant about Christians on a thread in Mumsnet, that could be taken down and used in evidence against you.

"Some people might just not like the homosexual lifestyle and if that's part of their faith, so what? Get over it. Sexual morality involves very personal beliefs and people are entitled to hold those beliefs, both gay and straight people."

yes, people are entitled to hold those beliefs, I agree with you. I also agree that they have a right to express those beliefs. However, I do not think it is right that they should be allowed to express those beliefs - that homosexuality is not acceptable - to vulnerable, fragile young people who have been placed in their care on behalf of the state or thier parents.

Likewise I may hold beliefs that within a professional context it is not right that I impart them to our customers, clients or staff. I need to recognise that and not bang on about my 'right' to disclose my personal beliefs and morality.

Surely equality means that Christians are welcomed as foster carers along with every other religious and non-religious group.
As long as alongside athiests, agnostics, hindus, buddhists and jews and other christians they ALL refrain from saying anything which implies that homosexulity is not acceptable.
It isn;t just Christians who need to agree not to say this, it's EVERYONE, While at work being a foster carer.

I also want to say a good post by Picturehouse - thank you.