I posted yesterday about the Census, and in replying to a comment I was reminded of a conversation we had here about a year ago regarding the Census and non-biological parents. I’m dusting it off, incorporating some of the comments, and posting it again, since those of us in the U.S. are receiving our Census forms this week.

If you’re a non-biological, non-adoptive parent, please let us know in the comments how you’re completing the form!

Let’s say you’re a couple with kids. One of you is a biological parent and the other is non-biological. Imagine you live in a place where a non-biological parent cannot do a second-parent adoption, or in a place that allows a non-biological parent to go on the child’s birth certificate without needing an adoption. Doing an adoption as well is a good idea for when you travel, but let’s say you haven’t done this yet—or have, but don’t consider yourself an “adoptive” parent to the child you planned with your partner from the start.

The Census questions ask about the first person in the household. For each additional person, they ask, “How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box.” How would you mark this if you are the non-biological parent, answering the question about your child:

• Husband or wife
• Biological son or daughter
• Adopted son or daughter
• Stepson or stepdaughter
• Brother or sister
• Father or mother
• Grandchild
• Parent-in-law
• Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
• Other relative
• Roomer or boarder
• Housemate or roommate
• Unmarried partner
• Other nonrelative

That’s right. There is no appropriate way for a non-biological parent to indicate their child, even if they are legally on the child’s birth certificate, unless they have done an adoption and are willing to identify as an adoptive parent. Not that there’s anything wrong with being an adoptive parent—far from it—but there’s a difference between adopting a child from outside of one’s family and being forced to adopt the child one has planned from the start with a partner. From a demographic and sociological perspective, that’s useful information.

One could of course choose “Other relative,” but that seems insulting as well as inaccurate.

Yes, you could just make sure the biological parent was listed as “Person 1,” but some families might not want to do that. Consider that Our Families Count advises:

Census reports some statistics based on the race/ethnicity of the “household”. In these cases, they categorize households by the race/ethnicity of Person 1 (head of household). Given that people of color are often under counted, LGBT people of color in bi-racial relationships should consider identifying as the head of household.

As S noted in her comment on my original post:

They’d be much better to have an option like “child by birth” rather than “biological child,” to denote someone who became a legal parent by virtue of the child having been born into that person’s custody. Because even a heterosexual couple who used donor sperm to conceive the kids wouldn’t technically qualify to check off “biological child” either, if the dad is Person 1 filling out the form.

Not only that, but because the Census form only asks for the relation of everyone in the household to “Person 1″ (whomever you decide that is), the relation of “Person 2″ to the child is completely lost. S observed:

A family composed of children living with one biological parent and one stepparent, or one biological parent and one adoptive parent, can look exactly the same as a family whose children are living with two biological parents, if a bio parent is listed as Person 1. Alternatively, if the stepparent or adoptive parent is Person 1, then you lose all record that the child is living with any bio parents.

This is thus “an enormously inaccurate way to gather data about family structure, and not just because of gay/lesbian issues,” she said.

Hear, hear. Maybe by the time Census 2020 rolls around, we’ll have a form that better reflects the lives of all Americans.