Gay Foster Parents More Apt to Molest Vol. 17 No. 7
Nov 2002

(Washington Blade 10/11/02)
Ottawa, Canada: The Ottawa Children’s Aid Society “has been working with the gay and lesbian community since the early 1990s.” It even sponsored a booth about foster parenting and adoption at this year’s Pride Parade. Since 1995, the Ottawa CAS “has placed children with seven same-sex foster parents. Two of these couples, one gay and one lesbian, ended up adopting their children.” Of the 278 approved foster homes, 9 (3%) are homosexual couples. However, only 0.5% of couples in Canada are homosexual according to the latest census, thus suggesting a pro-gay bias in foster placements. (Melanie Brooks, Ottawa Citizen, 10/24/02)

No matter how professionals in our society extol the virtues of ‘science,’ if empirical evidence goes against their beliefs, they often ignore it or avoid it. The employment of homosexuals as foster parents is a perfect case in point.

Editor’s Note: Since FRI's Chairman, Dr.Paul Cameron, was personally involved in these matters, this report is written as a first person account When a 16 year-old foster son was molested and raped by two gay foster parents in Vermont, Tom Moore, Deputy of the State’s Social and Rehabilitation Services, told me on June 25, 2002 that neither he nor the Commissioner knew of any evidence about the molestation rates of children by homosexual foster parents. He was apparently echoing his boss, Commissioner William Young, who the papers quoted as saying “I don’t know of any screening instrument for [sexual molestation]. Certainly, sexual preference doesn’t have anything to do with it, or religious beliefs or socioeconomic status. It’s so frustrating because there isn’t a predictor.” (Rutland Herald 6/21/02)

Really? Traditional common sense holds that married parents are likely to be the best foster placement, and homosexuals among the worst, in part because of the risks of sexual molestation. But tradition holds almost no weight for these bureaucrats. How can this be? Can the traditions that worked to build arguably the world’s most successful culture be ignored without injuring society? What kind of belief-system is so much better that it should be followed instead?

When I interviewed the reporter who wrote the story for the Rutland Herald, he refused to specify whether what he had called the “male couple” in the newspaper story was in fact a homosexual couple. He said that the Rutland Herald never released the sexual orientations of those accused of crimes. When I spoke with his editor, she repeated the policy. The “male couple” certainly acted as though they were gay, but the newspaper staff wasn’t about to say or print it.

Fortunately, those at the District Court of Vermont were not so protective of ‘sexual orientation privacy.’ They provided the entire record. The rest of the story about the 16 year-old fit traditional common sense perfectly.

It turns out that the natural parents of the boy who was victimized strenuously objected to the placement of their hard-to-control son with these two gays. Yet, following a policy laid down 15 years ago, their objections were ignored. Additionally, when the boy complained to the Department that his new foster parents had asked him whether he had engaged in anal intercourse with his brother, the Department, through David Stanley, its Case Worker, concluded that the boy had been ‘coached’ to say this by his natural parents. Stanley said the gay foster parents denied saying such a thing and he believed them. So as far as the case worker was concerned, the boy had lied, so he was forced to stay with the ‘male couple.’

Soon thereafter, the men gave the boy a magazine containing depictions of scantily clad men. They told the boy to ‘masturbate to these pictures.’ The boy complied, and hid the magazine under his bed.

Here, another factor of the case supported traditional common sense. Traditional thought holds that homosexuals have difficulty containing their sexual desires for youth. And sure enough, even in the face of all this investigation and conflict about possible molestation, the boy was with these homosexuals only two more weeks before they began to rape him!

Think of it. The investigation had already put these two gays ‘on notice,’ and yet this warning kept them from acting upon their temptation for only two weeks. Then, both men, who were in a ‘committed relationship’ with one another, had their way sexually with the boy. Sometimes, just one of them raped the boy alone, sometimes it happened when they were together. The boy managed to escape only by pretending that the sex was OK, and then fleeing to a hospital when the ‘family’ went to town to shop.

As it turned out, the men’s magazine was the ‘clincher’ when the boy fingered his foster ‘parents.’ Because the magazine was where the boy said it was, the police were able to get the men to confess.

Notice what happened here. Vermont’s child protective agency, without evidence of any sort, adopted a new policy 15 years ago that discarded tradition. Why? Because traditional common sense relegated homosexuals as ‘not suitable for foster-placement’ status. The child protective agency thought it had a ‘better way.’

What was this ‘better way?’ What is this belief system that is so much better than traditional thought?

I filed a Freedom of Information request regarding this case and the policy changes that had been instituted by the agency, asking 17 specific questions. Some of these included: how many foster parents or foster parent pairs who have been involved in foster parenting a child or children were homosexual? Did your department conclude that the 16 year-old boy’s claim was false that his foster parents had asked him whether he performed anal intercourse with his brother?

Less than a month later, Jody Racht, the Assistant Attorney General for Vermont, informed me that asking specific questions rather than “access to identified public records” fell outside of “any provision of state law.”

So while certain policies had apparently been established to protect homosexuals -- both in the child protective agency and at the Rutland Herald -- neither institution would explain their basis. They just followed ‘the policy.’

So what was this ‘better way?’

Deputy Commissioner Moore said that, because of privacy and confidentiality concerns, no follow-up of placements with homosexuals had been conducted, nor were any contemplated. This strategy of ‘deliberate ignorance’ is not unique to Vermont. Over the past 10 years, I have talked with representatives of the District of Columbia, El Paso County (Colorado Springs, CO), and Seattle, WA -- jurisdictions which place foster children with homosexuals -- and gotten the same replies. In Colorado Springs, the wishes of the family regarding the placement of a 6 year-old boy -- whose lesbian mother was judged unsuitable to parent -- were overridden by child protective services in favor of the ‘right of homosexuals to keep their children.’ The little boy was given to a lesbian couple instead of his married aunt -- an aunt who had been chosen by the extended family as the ‘best fit’ for the boy.

The social work representatives in the other three jurisdictions with whom I had contact said that since the National Association of Social Workers [NASW] declared homosexuals to be foster parents ‘as fit’ as heterosexuals, they believed that they were as unlikely to sexually abuse their charges as non-homosexuals. Indeed, the 1987 NASW resolution decrying “resistance to using single parents,... including lesbian and gay parents, as potential foster care and adoption resources” was passed, in substantial part, to counter the traditional belief that children placed with homosexual foster parents would be at higher risk of sexual exploitation.

... [click source link for complete article -ed]

Children are under withering attack. When push comes to shove, the interests of activist adults are almost always allowed to trump those of kids. In the case of adoption, the evidence that exists indicates that gays should not be adoptive parents. But when homosexuals go to the legislature to get access to our children, they will be able to claim “the 93,000 family physicians in the AAFP said we’re no different from anyone else.” That’s what they reported to the British House of Lords on November 5, 2002 and bragged about in the Washington Blade on October 25th. Somehow, some way, this madness has got to stop!

©2002 Family Research Institute