Multicultural Family Law - Assignment Example

The Family and Family Law Workbook Part 3 CRI2105 Name Institution Date Task One: Gay & Lesbian Parents Like heterosexual parented families, families headed by parents with same sex are a diverse group. However, families headed by gay and lesbian parents are normally subject to prejudice due to the fact that their sexual orientation is likely to turn legislators, judges, the public, and professionals against them. This often leads to negative outcomes, such as prohibition against adoption, loss of physical custody, and restricted visitation (American Psychological Association, 2005). Negative attitudes about same sex parenting are likely to be held by the psychologists and the entire public. Generally, the beliefs held in the society concerning gay and lesbian parents are frequently transmitted culturally (Amato, 2012). This paper is built on the argument that same sex parenting can be practiced as long as it does not expose children to psychological torture, especially when partners end their relationship. Literature shows that the belief that same sex parents are not meant to be parents lacks empirical foundation (APA, 2005). According to Bos, van Balen and van den Boom (2004) there is no much difference in the approaches to child rearing and overall mental health between lesbian woman and heterosexual women. In addition, it there is no clear explanation on how the romantic and sexual relationships of lesbian parents with other women interfere with their ability to care for their children (Marks, 2012). However, it is found that lesbian parents often divide family labor and household activities equally among themselves and are satisfied with their relationships. Similarly, literature suggests that gay fathers often distribute the role of child rearing relatively evenly and show much satisfaction with their relationships (Marks, 2012). Other studies suggest that gay and lesbian parents are likely to demonstrate superior parenting skills when marched with those of heterosexual parents. Fox example, lesbian parents are believed to have stronger parenting awareness skills compared to those of heterosexual couples (Patterson, 2005). This is mostly witnessed among lesbian who are from non-biological mothers who are more aware about parenting. Same sex parents are often reported to use positive disciplinary techniques to punish their children, such as reasoning and tend to avoid use of physical punishment, such as spanking (Schumm, 2010a). In-deed, there is no evidence that gay fathers or lesbian mothers do not qualify to be parents. In stead, literature suggests that same sex parents are more likely to provide adequate support for their children the same heterosexual couples support their children. A part from the judicial concerns concerning same sex parenting, there are three major concerns about the influence of such parenting on children. First, same sex parenting impairs development of sexual identity among children. Second, it may affect personal development and lastly such parenting is likely to make children to experience problems in social relationships (Marks, 2012). The issue of sexual identify can be viewed in three perspectives; gender identity, gender-role behaviour, and sexual orientation. Same sex parenting is likely to affect children in these areas of sexuality (APA, 2005). According to Patterson (2005) children in gay and lesbian parented families report to be happy with their gender and they do not wish to be of the opposite sex. On gender-role behavior, it is suggested that children of lesbian mothers display gender-role behaviour that falls within normal limits for sex role. Like children of heterosexual mothers, children of lesbian mothers have the same toy preferences, interests, activities, and occupational choices (Schumm, 2011b). In addition, literature shows that there is no detrimental outcome for children brought up in families with same sex in regard to sexual orientation. Children from these families consider themselves as heterosexual (Amato, 2012). Also, it does not mean that children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers will become lesbians and gay respectively. Courts are more concerned that gay and lesbian parenting is likely to expose children to mental breakdown, behaviour problems, adjustment difficulties, and psychological health problems more than children from heterosexual families (Joslin, 2011). Although most studies reveal that there is no much difference in personal development between children from same sex parenting and heterosexual parenting, it is likely that children from lesbian mothers will show symptoms of stress and greater sense of well-being (APA, 2005). According to Patterson (2005) same sex parenting may not negatively affect peer relations among children and their relationship with adults. Children of gay and lesbian parents show positive peer relations even while in school. Also, they often have good relationships with their parents (Bos et al., 2004). This defeats the fear that children from same sex parents are ostracized by peers, isolated from others, and abused sexually by adults. Before individual of the same sex decide to be parents there is need to identify the biological parent of the children. In the case of gay parents, the partners have to decide who should be the donor of sperm, which is done by one partner. Similarly, lesbian parents should identify one partner who will give birth (Burda, 2012). The decision taken by the partners will determine their parental legal rights. In most cases, it is not definite that the agreement by the donor to give up his rights by donating egg or sperm will be enforced in court. Therefore, partners’ lawyer has to review donor agreements acquired from medical facility before committing themselves to the agreement. Same sex parents are required to establish a parenting agreement by deciding what would occur to children if their relationships ended (Burda, 2012). Normally, upon separation and if co-parent adoption of second-parent does not exist, the rights of biological parents prevail. The partner who is not biological parent to the children may have to establish his or her parenthood to the children (Burda, 2012). It is likely that a judge may not agree that there exists such a parent-child relationship. Conclusively, gay and lesbian parents are considered to be good parents as there is no candid evidence to suggest that gay and lesbian partners are not fit to be parents. Also, there is no evidence that same sex parenting has detrimental outcomes for children in respect to sexual identity, other aspects of personal development, and social relationships. However, an issue may arise when partners in same sex parenting decide to end their relationship and this is likely to expose their children to psychological difficulties. Thus, based on research and literature on gay and lesbian parents, it can be argued that same sex parenting can be practiced, but partners should engage in a proper parenting agreement for the sake of their children, just incase their relationship ended. Task Two: Surrogacy Surrogacy is a situation where a couple interested in having a child enters into an agreement with a woman to carry a child on their behalf upon which she relinquishes the child to the couple after giving birth. Surrogacy exists in two arrangements. It can either be traditional surrogacy or gestational surrogacy depending on the wish of a couple (Benjamin, 2012). In traditional surrogacy, a woman is impregnated using the sperm of male partner who intends to be a parent, making the woman both genetic and birth mother while the intended father becomes the genetic father (Benjamin, 2012). Gestational surrogacy occurs when the female partner in intended couple cannot successfully carry a pregnancy to until delivery time. Thus, the sperms of her male partner are used to fertilize the intended mother’s eggs in the laboratory by use of vitro fertilization (IVF) after which the embryo in implanted in the uterus of the ‘surrogate’ mother (Ciccarelli & Beckman, 2005). In gestational surrogacy, the woman whom the embryo is implanted has no genetic connection to the child, but the intended parents remain the genetic parents of the child. According to Millbank (2011) surrogacy laws in Australia are meant to prevent vulnerable adults from exploitation and the commercialization of reproduction, as well as protect the children interests. In surrogacy arrangement, the surrogacy mother incurs some costs referred to as birth mother’s surrogacy costs. According to Section 11(1) of Surrogacy Act, these are costs associated with becoming a pregnancy of a birth, becoming of attempting to become pregnant, and costs associated with the birth mother and her spouse being a party to such an arrangement or proceedings in regard to a parentage order. Birth mother’s surrogacy costs include medical costs, a premium payment for health, counseling costs, legal costs, and costs of making order transferring parentage (Surrogacy Act, 2010). Surrogacy laws in Australia prohibit any person from entering of attempting to enter into any form of commercial surrogacy arrangement. A person who commits this offense is liable to a maximum penalty of 100 units or equivalent 3 years imprisonment as provided for under section 56 of Surrogacy Act 2010 (Surrogacy Act, 2010). Thus, intended couples who are interested in obtaining a child should enter a mutual agreement with a woman without commercializing the process. Surrogacy laws in Australia recognize the fact that the wellbeing and best interests of the child bon through surrogacy arrangement have to be maintained through his or her childhood and the rest of life as applies to children born through normal process (Millbank, 2011). Section 2(a) provides that a child born through surrogacy arrangement should be brought up in a safe, stable, and nurturing family environment. Such a child has a right to supportive emotional, physical, mental, and social wellbeing development. These status, protection and support must be maintained even irrespective of how the child was conceived under surrogacy arrangement and the relationship status of child’s parents in case of transfer of parentage (Surrogacy Act, 2010). Under Section 16(2) of the Act, the birth mother has the right to manage her pregnancy and birth the same way other pregnant mothers manage their pregnancy and birth. This law is binding irrespective of whether or not the parties to the surrogacy arrangement have agreed in written terms of not (Surrogacy Act, 2010). On the other hand, a surrogate mother has the right to long-term health and wellbeing. In addition, the wellbeing of her family should be promoted. The private lives of both birth and surrogate parents must be respected under surrogacy law in Australia. The psychological and social issue related to surrogacy concerns the surrogate mothers, birth mothers, and children. In most cases, these issues relate to changes in profiles of intended mothers, motivation and experiences of surrogate mothers, and disclosure of surrogate children. To start with, surrogate mothers believe that the process is undertaken by a person seen as special because it takes heart to relinquish a child that does not genetically belong to a surrogate mother (van den Akker, 2007). In some cases, surrogate mothers enter surrogate arrangements when very young therefore, they may not understand the consequences of languishing a child, but later on in life they may regret their actions. According to Golombok and Murray (2004) surrogate mothers are likely to experience some psychological problems, such as being assertive to the extent they cannot be controlled medically of otherwise. Most surrogate mothers are motivated to enter into surrogate arrangements because of their socioeconomic status, age, and low level of education (Edelmann, 2004). Nevertheless, some admit that apart from enjoying pregnancy and birth, surrogacy increased their feelings of self-confidence and self-worth. Surrogates experience stigmatization due to lack of support for surrogate arrangement they enter and social support. This actually makes the vulnerable to stigmatization. It is also argued that surrogates find it challenging to continue relationship with birth intended couple, especially after relinquishing a child to them. This is due to the fact that the surrogate mother may not want to be reminded about the child while the birth parents may not want to be interrupted in the upbringing of the child. In addition, the children of the surrogate mother may develop fears that they would also be relinquished (van den Akker, 2007). Thus, in one way or another the contact between the surrogate mother and commissioning couple is likely to be discontinued which be lead psychological problems, especially to the surrogate mother. Ideally, surrogate mothers expect to continue the contact with commissioning couples after giving up the child so to enable their own children understand what happened (van den Akker, 2006). Normally, the intended couple does not continue to provide support for surrogate mothers when they get out of surrogate arrangement, which not only affect the wellbeing of surrogate mothers, but also of their own children. Birth parents are mostly satisfied with the surrogate children and their behaviour, understanding, and reactions, and may not regret about the arrangement. Studies on surrogate arrangements reveal various concerns about the surrogacy including medicalization, financial exploitation, baby worries, social and emotional stigma, and fear of surrogate mother not to relinquish the surrogate child (van den Akker, 2007). Also, some intended parents may find it difficult to explain to their child what happened because they do not know how the child may react. Nevertheless, openness concerning surrogacy process helps both the surrogate mother and intended mother to develop strong friendship, since they experience the same physical and emotional changes (Golombok & Murray, 2004). Thus, intended women may not be in a position to hide the fact that they did not carry pregnancy in their social setting. Task Three: Prisoners and their partners La Vigne, N. G. (2009). Women on the outside: Understanding the experiences of female prisoners returning to Houston, Texas. The aim of the article is to discuss the unique experiences of women who are released from prison. According to La Vigne (2009) there are many challenges that encounter women who are incarcerated and released from prison. To achieve the purpose of the study, the authors focused on a sample population of 142 women who came out of prisons and jails in Texas states in 2005 and returned to their communities in Houston. One for the areas of concern in the study was the relationships between the prisoners and their partners. Most women who were interviewed indicated that they received emotional support from their partners as they maintained closeness and involved positively in their lives. However, despite absence of conflict in relationships, some women explained that they experience negative influence from their partners (La Vigne, 2009). The article also indicates that prisoners who are released from prison are likely to have strong relationships, especially those with intimate partners. Contrary, some women prisoners experience physical violence and arguments with their partners. It was also revealed from the study that most woman prisoners feel closer to their mothers and their partners. The arguments and findings in the article are well supported by credible sources which the article reliable and quality. This makes the article good for academic and use and research. Visher, C. (2009). The impact of marital and relationship status on social outcomes for returning prisoners. The main aim of the article is to establish the effect of marriage relationships on the social wellbeing of partners who return from prison. According to Visher (2009) there is a positive relationship between marital status and criminal desistance, as well as reduction in substance use. Strong partner relationships in families can help people who come out of prison to successfully become part of the community. Using a sample population of 650 male prisoners who were released from prison in the U.S cities, the author found out that strong marital and intimate partner relationship reduce self-recidivism and illegal use of drug, improving the relationship between partners (Visher, 2009). Although there could be biasness in the collection of data, the arguments by in the article are well researched and supported. The author is a person with high credentials and the research is in his area of profession, which makes this piece of work reliable. The research findings are analyzed and presented is a clear and understandable manner and most importantly, the authors used quality sources to make their arguments stronger. The article is appropriate for use by academicians and researchers. Travis, J. (2006). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. According to Travis (2006) acknowledge that imprisonment of parents normally disrupt family relationships, changes the networks for support in families, and other challenges, such as meting costs of incarceration and reentry by family units. The article indicates that when a parent is imprisoned, changes in the family system may include reduction in emotional support, financial relationships, and shift in living arrangements between partners and their children. In particular, the author believes that incarceration presents more burdens to intimate relationships. Partners may be forced to separate which results to more strains on relationships. In situations where extended contact or conjugal visits are not permitted in prisons, relationships between partners are more strained. Since same-sex institutions does not allow cycles of dating, courtship, and friendships as experienced in society, a partner who is in prison is not only physically absent from his or her partner, but also absent in a psychological sense (Travis, 2006). The reading is accurate given the scope of the research and review conducted by the authors, despite the challenges encountered. The article is highly applicable to the course of family and family law, as far as imprisonment of family members concern. Thus the article is valid and reliable to use for research and academic purposes. Collins, K., Healy, J., & Dunn, H. (2007). When a parent goes to prison. Policy and practice briefing (Vol. 8). Collins, Healy and Dunn (2007) explore the impact of parent imprisonment on the family system. The arguments in the article are based on the notion that prison environment usually destructs family relationships, but can also provide mush opportunity for change. According to Collins et al. (2007) when a partner is in prison he or she may not realize the effect of the imprisonment on the rest members of the family. Partners are likely to feel frustrated due to inability to maintain contact. Some partners may lack the ability to make use of the available opportunities to maintain contact, such as visiting or calling the imprisoned partner. The challenges discussed in this article exist in some family units in Australia and are likely to persist if the right measures are not taken to protect the vulnerable. The information and statistics provided in the article are accurate considering the sources used and it is applicable to the area of study. Although the article provides a general perspective on the issue of prisoners and families, the information is reliable and can be used to acquire more knowledge about parent imprisonment. O’Keefe, L. (2000, October). The partners of prisoners: Their reality, how they contribute to the criminal justice system and prisoner rehabilitation and how we can assist. In Women in Corrections: Staff and Clients conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Department for Correctional Services South Australia (Vol. 31). The purpose of the article is to discuss that emerge in families, especially to one partner if the other partner is imprisoned. According to O’Keefe (2000) many changes occur when a partner is in prison, such as significant reduction in income. The partner would also realize increase in household expenditure since she has to get more money to support the imprisoned partner and visit him to the prison often. In addition O’Keefe (2000) observes that a partner in prison may dictate the movements and friendship of the other partner by emotional blackmail. It may also be in form of threats of violence, manipulation, or coercion, which can be so frustrating to the other partner. The article is applicable to the area of study and equally reliable and valid since the author has substantiated his arguments with credible sources. Recommendations for further research There is much literature on the experiences of families of prisoners, and in particular on partners and children in Australia. In-deed, great knowledge in this area has allowed the development of appropriate services which contribute to the reduction of psychological experiences of family members. However, there is less literature on the needs of partners and children that arise when a partner is imprisoned. In addition, there is less focus on how social service agencies, criminal justice system, health care providers, and communities can collaborate to help meet the family needs. There is need to conduct further research in this area. Task Four: Mental Health and Families The issue of mental health and the wellbeing of people in different settings are affected by environmental, social, individual relationship, and historical factors (Robson & Gray, 2007). Mental illness is associated with disorders of thoughts, emotions, and behaviour. These disorders affect individuals in different aspects of life irrespective of culture, religion, gender, and economic status. Mental disorders occur in different magnitude and can either be short-term of long-term (National Mental Health Policy, 2009). For the purpose of this assignment, we shall discuss the Schizotypal disorder, which will be defined using the DSM-V criteria. Mental persons with Schizotypal disorder often feel uncomfortable, have social deficits, and reduced morale for interpersonal relationships. Such people also are eccentric both in their behaviour (such as, eye-conduct and posture) and in their appearance (such as, dressing code or hygiene). The disorder is also characterized by distortions in cognitive and perceptive abilities concerning odd beliefs (Esbec & Echeburua, 2011). The mental ill person may exhibit arbitrary interferences. Some quasi-psychotics symptoms of this disorder include overvalued ideas, pseudo-hallucinations, mild paranoid ideation, sensory illusions, and transient psychotic episodes (Tandon et al., 2013). Normally, in social situations, patients with Schizotypal disorder feel marginalized. They find it difficult to connect with others and may not trust the motivations of people around them, including their friends, colleagues, or even spouse (Livesley & Jang, 2008). The speech of people with this disorder is likely to be vague, metaphorical, circumstantial, or even stereotyped. They display very limited emotions which are often inhibited (Tandon et al., 2009). These characteristics make people with Schizotypal disorder appear not only distant, but also indifferent to the other people’s reactions. Generally, according to Esbec and Echeburua (2011) Schizotypal disorder is associated with various traits, including Eccentricity, unusual perceptions, unusual beliefs, cognitive dysregulation, restricted affectivity, social condemning, suspiciousness, anxiousness, and intimacy avoidance. The manner in which the society considers people with mental disorders, such as Schizotypal disorder depends on their diagnosis (Parle, 2012). Many people believe that problem of mental illness reduces intelligence and the ability to make decisions. Thus, a person with Schizotypal disorder is likely to experience social discrimination in the society he or she comes from due to negative perceptions help by people about mental illness (Livingston & Boyd, 2010). He or she may also experience stigma in from of social distancing where people would tend to discriminate the person. Alternatively, the individual may develop perception he or she is not appreciated by the society and continue to hold this conviction to self (Parle, 2012). This is based on the view that people with mental disorders, such as Schizotypal disorder tend to believe that they are not valued and accepted by others in social environment. As a result, such a person may lose self-esteem and confidence which leads to stigma. A part from being discriminated in the society due to having Schizotypal disorder, an individual may simply avoid social interactions with others including friends, colleagues, and spouse. This may worsen the condition of the person because it exposes him or her to grate risk of getting more psychiatric related problems, such as depression and anxiety (Livingston & Boyd, 2010). The disorder may also make an individual develop poor eating patterns, low motivation, and sleeping problems, which would have a big impact on the health and wellbeing of such person. It is a normal experience that families with people having mental disorders face a lot of challenges (Parle, 2012). Similarly, a family with an individual experiencing Schizotypal disorder would encounter several challenges due to behavioural problems displayed by the mentally ill person. In fact, it is stressful for family members to take care of the individual, especially when he or she becomes nuisance to the public, distractive, aggressive and violent (Robson & Gray, 2007). In addition, family members may find is difficult to maintain close relationship with the individual because of their attitude towards social relationships. Most important, family members are also likely to be stigmatized by others in the society which may result to shame (Livingston & Boyd, 2010). According to Amnesty International (2009) there is inconsistency in the estimates of the number of individuals with mental disorders having no capacity to make decisions. Such estimates are mainly based on inpatient populations and small sample sizes. Nevertheless, available evidence indicates that many individuals who are hospitalized because of mental disorders experienced diminished decision making capacity. Legal policy about individuals with impaired decision-making ability is meant to strengthen a central notion of existing law that provides for respect for people to make decisions, irrespective of the quality of the decisions they make (Victoria Law Reform Commission, 2009). Thus, when the decision making capacity for an individual with Schizotypal disorder diminishes, his or her capacity should be accessed following a six-step process. First, the person assessing capacity should ensure availability of a valid trigger to justify the need for capacity assessment. In this case, the assessor could consider the behaviour displayed by the individual that are likely to put self or others at risk. The assessor may also look at the choices being made by the individual to determine whether or not they are consistent with the values held previously (Capacity Assessment Office, 2005). Second, the person should be engaged in the process of assessing capacity by seeking agreement and possibly making the person aware of the process. Third, the assessor has to collect information about the causes of incapacity and information about the individual that can help assess the capacity to make decisions (Victoria Law Reform Commission, 2009). Fourth, the person should be educated concerning relevant decisions to ensure that he or she does not mistake ignorance for incapacity. Firth, the person’s capacity should be assessed and diligently and thoroughly establish the extent to which the person understands and acknowledges the decisions he or she faces (Victoria Law Reform Commission, 2009). Lastly, the assessor should take right action based of capacity results and may decide to arrange for a substitute decision make depending on the outcome of the assessment process. This process of capacity assessment mostly insists on working from a presumption of capacity (Victoria Law Reform Commission, 2009). It is important to seek evidence of incapacity in decision-making, and in case no evidence is found to confirm incapacity, the presumption of capacity would prevail. Task Five: Reflection What has consolidated what you already knew about The Family & Family Law? Initially, I knew something about the mental illness and its impact on families, as well as surrogacy. These two areas have increased my understanding about the area and the possible legal implications. In particular, it has come to my realization that commercial surrogacy is illegal and both surrogate mothers and commissioning mothers enjoy some rights. Also, I am now aware that in case a person with mental disorder, such as Schizotypal disorder becomes incapacitated in making decisions has legal implications. What has changed your opinion after studying this unit, and why? One thing that has changed my opinion is about same sex parenting. Actually, I had a perception that gay and lesbian are not fit to be parents, but after exploring various literatures I have realized that in-deed they can make good parents and many studies confirm to this argument. What would you see as the most challenging psychological aspect of Family Law? The most challenging psychological aspect according to my understanding is surrogacy, both to the surrogate mother and commissioning mother, as well as their children. This is because after the surrogacy arrangement is terminated, there are often many questions to be answered. For example, for a surrogate mother to come to terms with the fact that she relinquished the baby after delivery may be painful and even telling the rest of children where about of the new born baby. What would you see as the most challenging legal aspect in the future of Family Law? I consider same sex parenting to be the most challenging legal aspect in future as concern Family Law. My concern is about the decisions the judges will make when such families come to an end due to partners separating. It is likely that partners may fight for rights over the children with the understanding that their existed a parent-child relationship. What would you see as the most challenging social aspect in the future of Family Law? The most challenging social aspect likely to exist in future is mental disorder. For a long time, people with mental illness have been socially excluded from the society because of the perceptions held by the public. I do not see this trend change soon and this means the cases associated with individuals experiencing mental disorders are likely to prevail. References Amato, P. R. (2012). The well-being of children with gay and lesbian parents. Social Science Research, 41(4), 771-774. Amnesty International, (2009). Decision-making capacity in mental health: Exploratory research into the views of people with personal experience. APA (American Psychological Association), (2005). Lesbian & Gay Parenting. Washington DC 20002-4242. Benjamin, R. (2012). Surrogacy. Bos, H. M. W., van Balen, F., & van den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, (45), 755–764. Burda, J.M. (2012). Legal considerations for lesbian and gay parents. Capacity Assessment Office, Ontario Ministry for the Attorney General, Guidelines for the Assessment of Capacity (May 2005) http://www. attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/capacity/2005-05/guide-0505.pdf Ciccarelli, J. C., & Beckman, L. J. (2005). Navigating rough waters: an overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues, 61(1), 21-43. Collins, K., Healy, J., & Dunn, H. (2007). When a parent goes to prison. Policy and practice briefing (Vol. 8). Edelmann R (2004) Surrogacy: the psychological issues. J Reprod Infant Psychol 22(2),123–136. Esbec, E., & Echeburua, E. (2011). New criteria for personality disorders in DSM-V. Actas Esp Psiquiatr, 39(1), 1-11. Golombok S and Murray C (2004) Families created through surrogacy: Parent-child relationships in the first year of life. Fertil Steril 80(3, Suppl S50),133. Joslin, C.G. (2011). Searching for harm: same-sex marriage and the well-being of children. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, (46), 81–101. La Vigne, N. G. (2009). Women on the outside: Understanding the experiences of female prisoners returning to Houston, Texas. Livesley WJ, Jang KL. (2008). The behavioral genetics of personality disorder. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, (4), 247-74. Livingston, J.D., & Boyd, J. (2010). Correlates and consequences of internalized stigma for people living with mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 7: 2150-2160. Marks, L. (2012). Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research, 41(4), 735-751. Millbank, J. (2011). New Surrogacy Parentage Laws in Australia: Cautious Regulation or 25 Brick Walls, The. Melb. UL Rev., 35, 165. National Mental Health Policy. ( 2009). The road to recovery- a history of mental health services in Queensland,1859-2009. O’Keefe, L. (2000, October). The partners of prisoners: Their reality, how they contribute to the criminal justice system and prisoner rehabilitation and how we can assist. In Women in Corrections: Staff and Clients conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Department for Correctional Services South Australia (Vol. 31). Parle, S. (2012). How does stigma affect people with mental illness?. Nursing times, 108(28), 12-14. Patterson, C.J. (2005). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: summary of research findings. In: Lesbian and Gay Parenting. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Robson, D., & Gray, R. (2007). Serious mental illness and physical health problems: a discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(3), 457. (J) Schumm, W.R. (2010a). Comparative relationship stability of lesbian mother and heterosexual mother families: a review of evidence. Marriage & Family Review, (46), 499–509. Schumm, W.R. (2011b). Child outcomes associated with lesbian parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacy’s 2010 report. Journal of Human Sexuality, (3), 35–80. Surrogacy Act 2010, Current as at 23 September 2013. Tandon, R., Gaebel, W., Barch, D. M., Bustillo, J., Gur, R. E., Heckers, S., ... & Carpenter, W. (2013). Definition and description of schizophrenia in the DSM-5. Schizophrenia research, 150(1), 3-10. Tandon, R., Nasrallah, H.A., Keshavan, M.S., 2009. Schizophrenia, “Just the Facts”. 4. Clinical features and concept. Schizophr. Res. 110, 1–23. Travis, J. (2006). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. van den Akker OBA (2006) A review of gamete donor family contructs: current research and future directions. Hum Reprod Update 12(2),91–101. van den Akker, O. B. (2007). Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood. Human reproduction update, 13(1), 53-62. http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/1/53.full Victoria Law Reform Commission, (2009). Capacity and incapacity. http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Guardianship_FinalReport_Ch%207_Capacity%20and%20incapacity.pdf Visher, C. (2009). The impact of marital and relationship status on social outcomes for returning prisoners. Read More

A part from the judicial concerns concerning same sex parenting, there are three major concerns about the influence of such parenting on children. First, same sex parenting impairs development of sexual identity among children. Second, it may affect personal development and lastly such parenting is likely to make children to experience problems in social relationships (Marks, 2012). The issue of sexual identify can be viewed in three perspectives; gender identity, gender-role behaviour, and sexual orientation.

Same sex parenting is likely to affect children in these areas of sexuality (APA, 2005). According to Patterson (2005) children in gay and lesbian parented families report to be happy with their gender and they do not wish to be of the opposite sex. On gender-role behavior, it is suggested that children of lesbian mothers display gender-role behaviour that falls within normal limits for sex role. Like children of heterosexual mothers, children of lesbian mothers have the same toy preferences, interests, activities, and occupational choices (Schumm, 2011b).

In addition, literature shows that there is no detrimental outcome for children brought up in families with same sex in regard to sexual orientation. Children from these families consider themselves as heterosexual (Amato, 2012). Also, it does not mean that children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers will become lesbians and gay respectively. Courts are more concerned that gay and lesbian parenting is likely to expose children to mental breakdown, behaviour problems, adjustment difficulties, and psychological health problems more than children from heterosexual families (Joslin, 2011).

Although most studies reveal that there is no much difference in personal development between children from same sex parenting and heterosexual parenting, it is likely that children from lesbian mothers will show symptoms of stress and greater sense of well-being (APA, 2005). According to Patterson (2005) same sex parenting may not negatively affect peer relations among children and their relationship with adults. Children of gay and lesbian parents show positive peer relations even while in school.

Also, they often have good relationships with their parents (Bos et al., 2004). This defeats the fear that children from same sex parents are ostracized by peers, isolated from others, and abused sexually by adults. Before individual of the same sex decide to be parents there is need to identify the biological parent of the children. In the case of gay parents, the partners have to decide who should be the donor of sperm, which is done by one partner. Similarly, lesbian parents should identify one partner who will give birth (Burda, 2012).

The decision taken by the partners will determine their parental legal rights. In most cases, it is not definite that the agreement by the donor to give up his rights by donating egg or sperm will be enforced in court. Therefore, partners’ lawyer has to review donor agreements acquired from medical facility before committing themselves to the agreement. Same sex parents are required to establish a parenting agreement by deciding what would occur to children if their relationships ended (Burda, 2012).

Normally, upon separation and if co-parent adoption of second-parent does not exist, the rights of biological parents prevail. The partner who is not biological parent to the children may have to establish his or her parenthood to the children (Burda, 2012). It is likely that a judge may not agree that there exists such a parent-child relationship. Conclusively, gay and lesbian parents are considered to be good parents as there is no candid evidence to suggest that gay and lesbian partners are not fit to be parents.

Also, there is no evidence that same sex parenting has detrimental outcomes for children in respect to sexual identity, other aspects of personal development, and social relationships. However, an issue may arise when partners in same sex parenting decide to end their relationship and this is likely to expose their children to psychological difficulties.

Read More