Focus of Adoption Is Best Interests of Child – Not Adults

Media Release 30 July 2011
Family First NZ is rejecting a call from Labour to ‘modernise’ adoption laws. 

“The purpose of adoption is not to provide a child to adults, but rather to provide a family to a child,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Same sex couple and single parent adoption and surrogacy potentially harms children because it intentionally creates motherless and fatherless families. There is no shortage of couples willing to adopt.” 

“While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, it is dangerous ground to intentionally create fatherless or motherless families.” 

“Research on de-facto couples reveals that many cohabiting relationships are relatively transient, even where children are involved. A Norway study found that children of cohabiting couples were 2½ times more likely to experience parental divorce, and a massive British study found that ‘nearly one in two cohabiting parents split up before their child’s fifth birthday compared to one in 12 married parents’ and three quarters of family breakdown affecting young children involves unmarried parents.” 

“The argument of discrimination and rights doesn’t apply because the law already discriminates against single men adopting girls, couples adopting under the age of 25, adults in a polygamist relationship adopting, and an adult with a record of violence.” 

“Non-discrimination and adult human rights in adoption is an adult-centred policy. The granting of special rights to some – in this case single adults, and same-sex and de facto couples – can also mean that other people (children) lose their rights. But we must give primary consideration to the best interests of the child.” 

The Spanish Association of Paediatrics has opposed same-sex adoption and a multi-party Commission of the French National Assembly in Jan 2006 said “the best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedom… even including the lifestyle choices of parents.” The Commission did not support adoption by single parents or same sex couples.

 “Research is clear that children do best with their biological parents married to each other and is superior to any other structure. While not always possible because of breakdown, death and other factors, when we look at the difficult issue of adoption, we must aim to give the child to be adopted the very best option we can – to be adopted by a mum and a dad,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

Share

9 comments for “Focus of Adoption Is Best Interests of Child – Not Adults

  1. Nadine Tauri
    31 July 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Hey Bob have been trying to ‘share’ on Facebook but the facility is not allowing it at this webpage.

  2. Nadine Tauri
    1 August 2011 at 12:44 am

    Totally agree!

  3. Stephen J.H.
    1 August 2011 at 8:59 pm

    Great headline, and a supreme truth. Go Bob.

  4. Stella
    1 August 2011 at 11:04 pm

    When we applied for adoption over 20 years ago one of the requirements was that you had to be married for at least three years. I think that making a life-long commitment to another in marriage, is a good preparation to making a commitment to raising children, whether your own or someone else’s via adoption. The reality is that there will be times when your love for your child will be tested.

    There are probably some things about the current law that need to be brought up to date, but the ideal of providing both a mother and a father where possible should remain.

  5. Yvonne Simms
    2 August 2011 at 8:40 pm

    Hi Bob,

    You are right, adoption is all about giving a child a safe secure family, not some experimential/good idea/suit our new lifestyle trip.

    I was adopted as a child into a great family and as an married adult adopted 2 children. We are a close knit family who all care for each other.

    I know I would hate to have grown up with a same sex “mum & dad”. Not being with your biological family is enough of a challenge for any child.

    Gloria

  6. BenLW
    9 August 2011 at 12:59 am

    “The argument of discrimination and rights doesn’t apply because the law already discriminates against single men adopting girls, couples adopting under the age of 25, adults in a polygamist relationship adopting, and an adult with a record of violence.”

    The argument for discrimination does apply. All forms of rules are discrimination – arguments over discrimination and equality focus on what is legitimate and illegitimate reasons for discriminating (Most would agree that age is a legitimate form of discrimination on alcohol, voting etc). Furthermore, the entire premise is absurd, as you are saying “it’s not discrimination because there is already discrimination!”.

    Your evidence seems to not apply to your argument at all – Comparing married couples to de facto couples does not measure married couples vs gay couples. What would be sound research would be comparing married couples to gay couples in long-term relationships.

    ““Non-discrimination and adult human rights in adoption is an adult-centred policy. The granting of special rights to some – in this case single adults, and same-sex and de facto couples – can also mean that other people (children) lose their rights. But we must give primary consideration to the best interests of the child.”
    Not special rights – just extending the rights heterosexual couples have to homosexual couples. It is not adult centred – the child’s rights involved here is the right to be adopted to an appropriate family. Proponents of gay-rights argue that gays provide an appropriate family, and that fulfils the rights of both the child and adults. To suggest there are special rights, or only the rights of adults, is simply misleading.

  7. 9 August 2011 at 12:21 pm

    I found it interesting that when, a few years ago, there was a push for homosexual couples to be allowed to adopt, a man who is a homosexual himself said that he was totally opposed to it.

    He said that none of the homosexual ‘couples’ he knew – and he knew a lot (no pun intended) – were capable of raising a child because of their promiscuous and unstable lifestyles.

  8. Nicky
    7 November 2011 at 8:32 pm

    I am a single, conservative, Christian and I have decided to adopt.

    I agree that ideally a child requires a mother and a father. However, reality does not often match the ideal. The nuclear family is no longer the norm. Families come in many formats.

    If there are so many couples that are willing to adopt why are there still orphans?

    I would rather see children raised by a family (conventional or otherwise) than leave this to institutions.

    The sort of archaic thinking put forward in this blog belongs to the Middle Ages.

  9. Bob
    7 November 2011 at 9:08 pm

    While a compassionate and caring society always comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society never intentionally creates fatherless or motherless families. Hurts children because it intentionally creates motherless and fatherless families. Contrary to your claims, there is no shortage of heterosexual parents willing to adopt

    “Nature dictates that a man and a woman are required for procreation and this limitation should be acknowledged and respected because it discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature: that a child’s best interests are served by it having a mother and father” Children on Demand – Tom Frame

    Gays and single parents can love a child very well. BUT love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy

    Single parents should be honoured. But most would say that raising children is a 2 person job between a mum and a dad. There is a big difference in dealing with an existing crisis and the creation of a new crisis.

    But you’re welcome to your view. I won’t demean you by calling you ‘archaic’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *