Safeguarding and Adoption: A question?

[Needmoresleep]

A genuine question.

Three or four years back I was talking to a lesbian who was going through all the checks needed to be an adoptive mother. She was not in a relationship, but said this did not matter. She was happy to adopt an older child, and there were always children who, because of prior experiences, the adoption agency wanted placed in all women households. For some children who might need a lot of individual attention, a single mother set up was perfect.

She was lovely and I would love to hear that it all worked out.

At what point will authorities be able to say Transwomen are not Women, or specify which Transwomen are Women. (Remember the Stonewall definition includes: transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois).

Well fuck.

I generally try and stay out of the trans debate here but this does need an answer.

Really good question. We've seen that agencies will argue that raped and abused women have to accept that 'transwomen are women' in shelters and refuges. You'd think that even the most woke of social workers surely couldn't insist to a young person, abused by a male, that the seemingly male person in front of them who is a prospective carer/adopter is actually a woman.

However if there are any exceptions to the rule, then logically, transwomen aren't necessarily women.

Presumably this would come under the Equalities Act 'genuine reasons' for exclusion/discrimination.

But only if Social Workers understand and apply the law correctly, not misinterpret it or become scared of challenging it for fear of losing their jobs over being 'bigots'.

I’ve posted about this before.

SW: Here’s your new Mum. She’s going to look after you now.
YP: That’s a man.
Etc.

It wouldn’t matter that a man (single or otherwise) was looking after a child as long as they had been assessed as a man and no-one tried to tell a vulnerable child they were a woman.

But yes, what you’ve just described is, I fear, scarily close to happening.

Presumably this would come under the Equalities Act 'genuine reasons' for exclusion/discrimination.
If their birth cert says F, how would you know? (Ignoring the obvious, which a SW would have to...)

Good question.

Looked after children who have suffered childhood sexual abuse are also placed in households based on the sex of family members (a girl child who has been abused by a boy child or male parent may not have had the chance to develop appropriate personal boundaries and thus is placed in a home environment with no sons).

A foster mum posted yesterday about her foster daughter who cannot be allowed to overnight with males on one of the GG threads, it’s an absolute travesty that a looked after girl child is less of a priority than a bio-boytransgirl, who can go to scouts. The looked-after girl doesn’t have any options at all :/

I've wondered about this because I came across a case which was the other way round. The foster mother in this case transitioned. Before this, I'd heard of the restrictions in place when male family members were present. I presume nothing changed post transition. In which case, the authorities do not regard transmen as men?

Presumably this would come under the Equalities Act 'genuine reasons' for exclusion/discrimination.

But if self-ID becomes law, or, as seems to be happening now, safe-guarding organisations anticipate self-ID becoming law, what will happen.

Adopting an older and probably traumatised child is potentially a huge challenge. The person I spoke to was expecting to have to effectively devote her life for the next decade to providing a secure and loving environment. You really need to be very special. I would hate for those making this type of decison to be hampered by the law or by a sense of needing to adhere to a "Transwomen are Women" correctness.

I know lots of social workers specialising in fostering and adoption. I will try to get you an answer.

I have asked someone I know who is very experienced in this area of social work. It was only a quick chat on a bad phone line so I couldn't grill her in it too much.

She has never known a trans foster career or adopter so this is hypothetical.

She said in a tiny number of cases they want to place children in all women households.

If a TW wanted to adopt or foster they would be subject to the same high level of scrutiny as anyone else. Their background, childhood, health, attitudes etc would be very carefully examined, including their trans status and history and transition.

They would only be approved for a particular child if it was felt that there would be no detriment to that child. Whether or not a TW would be appropriate would be decided on an individual basis depending on that TW and also the specific needs of the child.

I asked if a TW would be considered as if they were a woman and she said, with some hesitation, yes. However then we lost contact so I couldn't grill her about this! I was a bit ;-( about that but I suspect it's mostly because it's not something she's had to consider before.

I'll see her in person soon and might grill her some more!

I think I can answer this one: your fears are groundless.

There is no interest in being fair or woke or kind to the adoptive parents in the adoption process. The sole interest is the needs of the child.

A transgender person would have their lives pulled apart in the approval process to make sure they could be a good parent. In matching, the child's SW is looking for someone who will meet the child's needs- they don't need to justify saying no.

The SW would (hopefully) not hold being transgender against an adopter- indeed same sex adoption is common.

Presumably this would come under the Equalities Act 'genuine reasons' for exclusion/discrimination.

The EA does not apply to choosing adoptive parents.

The EA absolutely does apply to the decisions made by a local authority in deciding whether to approve a person as a prospective adopter, and then to place a child with an adoptive parent.

I would hope that the assessment process would weed out the narcissists who cannot think further than themselves. And if, say, a transwoman were assessed as a prospective adopter, the SW would be very careful with the child being placed with them and find (other) reasons to avoid placing a child where there were particular requirements for the sex of the adoptive parent, without having to write down anything about the trans status

The EA absolutely does apply to the decisions....... to place a child with an adoptive parent.

Yes and no. I overstated my point. Obviously a matching SW can't be wildly discriminatory against a protected class, but the prospective adopters have no right to be matched and the SW has wide power to say no.

For example, a match can be rejected on the grounds of skin colour or religion if they feel the child might be a better fit with someone else. I can't think of another area where this is true.

if, say, a transwoman were assessed as a prospective adopter, the SW would be very careful with the child being placed with them and find (other) reasons to avoid placing a child

The SW doesn't need to give reasons to adopters for not matching. There are not many reasons why sex would be an absolute determinant of a match, so if there were a valid reason then I think the SW would be fine.

But in practice even if a SW has poor reasons for rejecting a match, they can do so- such is the level of caution about getting it wrong.

Agreed donquixote. I know a mixed race couple who were turned down as a match for a child because she was Indian and he was Irish but the child's birth mother was Irish and the birth father was Indian and they wanted a closer match

(Well, that's what they were told - it's quite possible that there was another reason for the refusal, of course)

I'm an adopter and I know a trans adopter via FB.
I also know of a gay couple who adopted a boy who'd been abused by his mum so needed a male household. So only male (sex) families were considered.
I think a TW might put themselves forward for a child who needed to be with a woman but they'd be quietly dropped. Prospective adopters are dropped all the time for not much reason.

This is a really good question. Reading with interest

Olenna I am pretty sure there will have been another reason. As I say, the reasons prospective adopters are given are often vague and not that accurate.

NoSquirrels spot on. Its the inclarity of those 'exceptions' that are causing such anxiety.

Social workers get to choose, they would be able to look at a number of all women households and place in the one they felt was the best match regardless of how the definition of women has come about. The individuals involved would have to go through a very intensive and challenging assessment process and be approved by a multi disciplinary panel as a match to a child. The interests of the DC are paramount, issues of race, sex, background are routinely considered as part of that. The rights in this situation are all with the child not any prospective adopter.

It's an interesting point, especially given how many young people online asked about sterility cavalierly say they'll "just adopt" one day.

Despite hating self-ID and the implications it has, I don't think anyone would ever want to ban transpeople from adoption. That idea feels wrong on a number of levels.

By I'd hope that if someone wanted to adopt a child, they'd understand that the child's needs come first and foremost, and that sometimes that would mean "no".

I do wonder if some attention-seeker could use this for a big transphobic case though one day.

Ok I'm very gender critical, but this question feels like you are sailing very close to the transphobic wind. The parallel with gay rights isn't usually appropriate, but here it feels like it is. If someone transgender passes the rigorous checks required for adopting a child, then more power to their elbow. The idea that it should disqualify them a priori is extremely distasteful.

The idea that it should disqualify them a priori is extremely distasteful.

Surely that's not the question here? It's more about whether a TW is able to adopt a child and become that child's mother absolutely and in law.

I know of a TW adopter. I have no idea if they adopted prior to transition but I do know they transitioned a long time ago and their child is an adult so probably they weren't recorded as the mother.

The idea that it should disqualify them a priori is extremely distasteful.

But that's not what the OP and subsequent posters are taking about. The original question specifically related to those rare situations where a child is only able to be adopted by a woman and whether a transwoman would be considered appropriate in those circumstances, effectively either they would be considered a woman or not.

I didnt mean to be transphobic, nor to suggest that trans people should not adopt.

The question was more, whether TWAW applied in cases where a child might not instinctively perceive a transwoman as a woman. The same applies to elderly care, especially when dementia is involved.

And perhaps to other single sex areas.

It is so difficult. It was a genuine question. I do hate the insult 'phobic' being bandied around as an instinctive response to any debate. It seems that there are virtually no words that dont run the risk of being considered 'hate speech'.