(Originally published as my Mombian newspaper column.) An increasing number of states are risking harm children in foster care by allowing discrimination against LGBTQ people and others who wish to foster or adopt them.
South Dakota on March 10 enacted a law stating that no child-placement agency may be required to provide service that conflicts with its “sincerely-held religious belief or moral conviction,” even if they are receiving public funds or tax benefits—a move widely seen as targeting LGBTQ prospective parents. The Alabama House advanced a similar bill March 16, Georgia did so the next day, and others are pending in Oklahoma and Texas. Michigan, North Dakota, and Virginia already have such laws in place.
Unlike the public outcry when Indiana and North Carolina passed anti-LGBTQ laws in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the public response to the latest bills seems tepid at best. “There’s not the same level of mobilization,” said Emily Hecht-McGowan, chief policy officer of Family Equality Council, in an interview.
Part of this may be because of a misconception about which course of action better serves children. Proponents of the child-placement bills say that forcing agencies to close rather than to comply with nondiscrimination laws causes harm by reducing the number of agencies available to serve children. They point to agencies affiliated with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., which closed rather than comply with state laws saying they must not discriminate against same-sex couples.
Hecht-McGowan asserts, however, that the closing of these agencies has made “no discernable impact” on children finding homes. First, these agencies did not make that many public placements to begin with. Catholic Charities’ own annual surveys showed that nationally, they finalized 2,000 to 2,500 adoptions per year between 2008 and 2011 (when they stopped reporting this data), only about four percent of all adoptions.
Yes, it is troubling if even one child in need does not find a home. The providers that closed, however, transferred all their cases to other agencies. In fact, when Illinois cancelled its contract with Catholic Charities in 2012, the percentage of adoptions performed by public child welfare agencies in the state went up four percent. The reasons why are unclear, but the data argues against the idea that shuttering discriminatory agencies reduces the number of placements.
The problem is lack of families, not lack of social service providers.
It is the current crop of bills, not their absence, that is harmful, Hecht-McGowan said. “All this does is target children. The problem is lack of families, not lack of social service providers.”
The need for families is urgent. There are nearly 428,000 children in foster care in the United States, with 103,000 of them awaiting adoption, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Of those, 26 percent wait more than two years and six percent wait more than five years before finding a permanent home. Between 23,000 and 24,000 foster children turn 18 each year without ever finding one.
Children who lack permanent homes have added risk of major difficulties in transitioning to a healthy adulthood.
Children who lack permanent homes have added risk of major difficulties in transitioning to a healthy adulthood, the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) reminds us in its recent Issue Brief, “License to Discriminate.” And on an economic level, the longer children are in care, the greater the costs to the child welfare system.
MAP tells us, too, that “States consistently report that one of the biggest obstacles to placing children is finding interested, qualified families.” LGBTQ people play an important role in addressing this. Same-sex couples are four times more likely than married different-sex couples to be raising adopted children and six times more likely to be raising foster children, with an estimated 16,000 same-sex couples raising more than 22,000 adopted children in the U.S. as of 2013, per UCLA’s Williams Institute.
While LGBTQ prospective parents in some locations may simply be able to go to agencies they feel will not discriminate, this is harder in places where there are fewer agencies to choose from, Hecht-McGowan noted.
Youth in care, moreover, don’t get a choice of agency or caseworker, she added. Under the new legislation, agencies could cite religious beliefs to place LGBTQ children into homes where the parents might try to “pray away the gay” or force them to undergo the discredited practice of conversion therapy.
A child who just lost both his or her parents could be denied adoption by an aunt who is an unmarried mother.
The danger isn’t just for LGBTQ children, either. HRC noted on its blog March 16 that this legislation means that agencies could refuse to place foster children (of any identity) with LGBTQ relatives, even though placement with extended family is “often considered to be in the best interest of the child.” LGBTQ people aside, MAP adds, “A child who just lost both his or her parents could be denied adoption by an aunt who is an unmarried mother.”
What to do? Family Equality, HRC, and the ACLU are among the organizations variously testifying in state hearings, identifying local families who can testify to the negative impact of these bills, and working to raise awareness.
Individuals in any of the states with pending legislation should call (don’t just e-mail) their legislators, Hecht-McGowan says. If a bill passes, call the governor and ask for a veto.
MAP has also created a guide for “Talking About Religious Exemptions and Adoption Discrimination,” which may be helpful to those advocating with either legislators or neighbors.
If you are a former foster child, an adoptive child, or a foster or adoptive parent, Hecht-McGowan advises, “Tell your story. When people learn an issue impacts someone they love, it changes minds.”
And everyone should help spread the word. “Laws like this help no one,” Hecht-McGowan affirms, but adds, “We need public outrage and momentum and energy” to stop them.