





































52  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III 

ADOPTIVE HOMES AND THE MEANING 
OF FAMILY: IMPLICATIONS FOR GAY AND 
LESBIAN PROSPECTIVE PARENTS

Restrictions on the adoption rights of gay men and lesbians limit their 
possibilites to become parents, even as thousands of children wait to 
be placed in adoptive families in the United States. This article will 
review past and current policy on gay and lesbian couple adoption 
in the United States. Policy changes are then suggested to expand 
the definition of adoptive families and to create non-discriminatory 
adoption guidelines to protect gay men and lesbians as legitimate 
families. Finally, the role of social workers and their responsibility 
under both the laws and systems of adoption protocol will be explored. 

Alicia Erickson Zink

While thousands of U.S. children eligible for adoption languish in 
foster care, discriminatory policy and practice continue to restrict 

the rights of many prospective parents seeking to adopt. The passage of the 
1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) accelerated the termination 
of parental rights, predictably increasing the number of children waiting 
for safe and permanent placements (Kenyon, Chong, Enkoff-Sage, & Hill, 
2003). In addition, ASFA no longer defines interventions by risk of harm to 
the child, but by “the best interest of the child” criterion. According to the 
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, 
2004), there were approximately 118,000 children waiting to be adopted as 
of August 4, 2004. Ricketts (as cited in Brooks & Goldberg, 2001) noted 
that there is a widespread recognition that the pool of prospective adoptive 
parents is dwindling. A viable group of prospective parents, though, has yet 
to receive adequate, fair, and just governmental consideration under adoption 
policies. The research is unequivocal that gay men and lesbians are equally 
qualified to provide adoptive homes for children. However, without a clear 
definition for the best interest of the child, courts, states, and governments 
continue to allow homophobia to dictate the future of children’s lives. 

According to Adams, Jaques, and May (2004), there are as many as two 
to ten million gay men and lesbians in the United States who are parents to 



erickson zink

   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   53

an estimated 14 million children. Despite these numbers, studies have shown 
that gay men and lesbians encounter many obstacles throughout the process 
of becoming prospective adoptive parents. Adoption policies affecting gay 
men and lesbians vary from state to state, county to county, and often judge to 
judge. Due to the absence of federal policy regarding adoption, gay men and 
lesbians are subject not only to state law but are at the mercy of local judges 
who base adoption decisions on the broad best interest of the child criterion. 
These decisions may be influenced by personal bias, discrimination, and 
political agendas, and continue to perpetuate homophobia in social policies 
(Benkov, 1994). Some officials fear that placing children in gay and lesbian 
homes may not be in the best interest of the child; however, scientific 
research demonstrates that children who grow up in households with gay 
and lesbian parents fare just as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and 
sexual functioning as children whose parents are heterosexual (Drucker, 
1998; Patterson, 1992; Perrin, 2002; Raymond, 1992; Steckell, 1987). It is 
clear that based on the existing empirical research, gay men and lesbians 
deserve legal protections to qualify to become adoptive parents to the 
growing number of children in need of permanent families.  

Gay and Lesbian Adoption Policy

Adoption laws pertaining to gay men and lesbians are made on a state 
rather than federal level and are dictated by statutes, agency regulations,
and court opinions, which may be fueled by political ideologies (Kenyon 
et al., 2003). While some states completely ban adoption by gay men 
and lesbians, other states implicitly prohibit gay couples from adopting by 
requiring that adoptive couples be married, a practice currently prohibited 
for gay men and lesbians in most of the country. The remaining states that do 
nothave specific state laws addressing this issue make decisions based on 
the undefined best interest of the child criterion of the Adoption and 
Safe Families Act of 1997. 

Currently, Florida is the only state that categorically prohibits gay 
and lesbian individuals from becoming adoptive parents through Florida 
Statute Ch. 63.041(3), which states that: “No person eligible to adopt 
under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual” (Appell, 2001, 
p. 76). According to the American Civil Liberties Union (2005), this statute, 
first enacted in 1977, has undergone several unsuccessful appeals, the last 
appeal denied by the Supreme Court in January 2005. According to the 
2002 Human Rights Campaign Foundation Report (Bennett, 2002), New 
Hampshire enacted a law in 1988 to prohibit gay men and lesbians from 



adoptive homes and the meaning of family

54  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   

adopting children or serving as foster parents and barred heterosexual foster 
parents from having gay or lesbian people spend the night in the same house 
as the child. This law, though challenged in federal court and repealed in 
1999, illustrates how homophobia can influence policies and legislation and 
continue the cycle of oppression on not only prospective gay and lesbian 
parents, but also those who are friends or family of gay men and lesbians.  

As mentioned previously, laws may implicitly deny gay and lesbian 
couples from adopting through the use of carefully designed but blatantly 
homophobic language. For example, Utah passed a law in 2000 prohibiting 
adoptions by a person who is cohabitating in a relationship that is not a 
legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of the state (Utah Code 
Ann. 78-30-1(3) (b)). According to the Families Like Ours Organization 
(2004), Oklahoma adopted a new law in 2004 stating that no office, court, 
or municipality in Oklahoma will legally recognize a joint adoption by two 
peoples of the same sex from another state or country (10 0.S.2001, §7502-
1.4). Despite the many states restricting gay and lesbian adoption, there are 
some states that explicitly permit joint adoption: California, Massachusetts, 
New Jersey, Vermont, New York, Maryland and the District of Columbia 
(Ryan, Pearlmutter, & Groza, 2004). State by state, the future of children’s 
lives and the rights of gay men and lesbians are dictated by insidious 
homophobia.

The best interest of the child standard is the primary criterion for 
approving adoption in those states without specific statutes, although there 
is a considerable amount of flexibility in the factors that may be taken 
into account in evaluating an adoptive parent’s suitability (Benkov, 1994; 
National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2004). Decisions are often made by 
court judges and child welfare workers that make recommendations on the 
resources, strengths, and personalities of the family, as well as the family’s 
overall motivation for adoption. However, because of the void of formal 
policy in this area, it can be a subjective process, allowing for the influence 
of personal bias and prejudice. In Pima County Juvenile Action B-10489, 
the court denied a bisexual man an adoption petition on the grounds that, 
“he testified that it was possible that he at some future time would have 
some type of homosexual relationship with another man” (Ariz. Ct. App. 
1986). The role of personal bias, as shown in this case, heavily impacts the 
rights of gay men and lesbians to adopt. Yet, while there continues to be 
discriminatory laws against gay and lesbian families, other judges attempt 
to separate judgments on sexual orientation from parenting capabilities.  
For example, in Adoption of Evan, a New York judge ruled, “an open 
lesbian relationship is not a reason to deny adoption because a child’s best 



erickson zink

   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   55 

interest is not predicated on or controlled by parental sexual orientation”  
(Sur. Ct. 1992). The cycle of oppression will continue to perpetuate 
without appropriate policies to prevent decisions based on personal bias,  
homophobia, or both.

Those opposing the idea of gay men and lesbians as adoptive parents 
may use the following arguments to conclude that licensing a home for 
adoption or foster care is not in the best interest of the child: the child 
will be harassed or ostracized, the child might become gay or lesbian, the 
child’s moral well-being may be harmed, and that the child may be molested 
(Adams et al., 2004). Empirical research supports that these arguments are 
unsubstantiated. Children of gay and lesbian parents are equally successful 
in their developmental process compared to the children of heterosexual 
parents (Mallon, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Sullivan, 1995). For example, Mallon 
found that a child is 100 times more likely to be sexually molested by a 
heterosexual partner of a relative than by someone who identifies as being 
gay, bisexual, or lesbian. Patterson (1992) noted that studies assessing 
children born to gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples showed 
no disruption in the normal course of their sexual identity development. 
Despite this research, the best interest of the child standard unjustifiably 
denies adoption to gay men and lesbians. This is evident as judges, child 
welfare workers, and social workers continue to equate homosexuality or bi-
sexuality with deviant behavior and uphold the current adoption guidelines 
that perpetuate such notions as acceptable ways of thinking (Raymond, 
1992).

The failure of courts to recognize that gay and lesbian adoptive homes 
are in the best interest of the child has an adverse effect on those children 
waiting to be adopted. Children remaining in foster care are denied secure 
attachments (Patterson, 1992) and have been found to have low self-esteem, 
confidence, and overall satisfaction of life (McDonald, Alle, Westerfelt, 
& Piliavin, 1996). In a study conducted by Taigelman and Silverman 
(as cited in Bartholet, 1994), it was found that permanent placements in 
adoptive homes for those children waiting in foster care are more conducive 
to the overall well-being of the child. Additionally, the failure of the law 
to recognize gay men and lesbians as viable parents creates a culture of 
fear and hate, ultimately allowing for homophobia to permeate the lives of 
children and families in society. For example, children of gay and lesbian 
families are often subject to teasing and harassment within their peer group 
(Drucker, 1998; Patterson; Raymond, 1992). Patterson states that protection 
of gay and lesbian families, “demands that courts and legislative bodies 
acknowledge nontraditional families,” and that the failure to acknowledge 



adoptive homes and the meaning of family

56  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   

these families will pose “great difficulty in serving the ‘best interest of the 
child’” (p. 1037). It is imperative that policy be created to not only protect 
the rights of prospective gay and lesbian parents, but also to support children 
of nontraditional families who are affected by the current policies that allow 
for homophobic discrimination to continue.

Proposal for New Legislation

As cited previously, empirical research is persuasive in demonstrating 
that there is no significant difference between gay and non-gay parents 
in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting and 
should therefore be considered as suitable families for the growing number 
of children in foster care. Notably, neither the Adoption Assistance and 
Child Welfare Act of 1980, nor the newer Adoption and Safe Families Act 
(ASFA) of 1997, delineate a useful standard for defining a family. Crawford 
(as cited in Kenyon et al., 2003) proposed that by not clearly defining the 
family, “the interpretation of the appropriateness of nontraditional families 
is left vulnerable to the values and biases of professionals and communities” 
(p. 572). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2010, only 20% of the 
total number of households nationwide will be comprised of the traditional 
two-parent heterosexual families (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). 
Nontraditional families, such as those headed by gay men and lesbians, 
are increasing within the United States and federal policymakers need to 
protect the rights of these families. 

There are many prominent professional organizations that support 
gay and lesbian families and adoption, such as the Child Welfare 
League of America, the American Psychiatric Association, the American 
Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the 
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). It is in the spirit of these 
organizations that new legislation be proposed to redefine “family” as the 
first step towards assuring full adoptive rights to gay and lesbian families, 
supporting the welfare of children in foster care, and allowing for equal 
opportunity within the adoption process. An amendment to the Adoption 
and Safe Families Act should be proposed to clearly define the family so 
as to accommodate the growing need of adoptive parents and nontraditional 
families within the United States and to reduce biased interpretations of 
placing children in gay and lesbian families. Family should be defined as 
any responsible caretaker(s) supporting the well-being of their children 
both financially and emotionally (Adams et al., 2004; Benkov, 1994; 
Drucker, 1998; Patterson, 1998). In addition, there should also be a clear 



erickson zink

   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   57 

definition of the eligibility of adoptive parents. Lastly, adoption policies 
should be bound by the same anti-discrimination laws that set the standards 
in other facets of society. Equal opportunity to apply for adoption and the 
condition that no one will be subjected to race, gender, sexual orientation, 
or religious discrimination as criteria for adoption can shape new policies 
and state decisions on how the best interest of the child clause is interpreted. 

Implications for Service Delivery to Children and Families

Social workers are trained to identify where the needs of society and
the individual intersect and to promote change when these needs are 
compromised (Ben-Ari, 1998). In the case of gay and lesbian adoption, 
social workers are called upon to advocate for the rights of gay men and 
lesbians on an institutional, community, and individual level. Agencies and 
social workers continue to weigh their commitment to multiculturalism 
when working with gay men and lesbians seeking to adopt (Ryan et al., 
2004). According to the NASW Code of Ethics, social workers should 
not practice any form of discrimination; however, social workers as 
well as child welfare providers may be bound by laws that allow 
prejudices or judgments about gay and lesbian families. For instance, in 
Richmond, VA, a state senate committee rejected a bill that would have 
required social workers involved in adoption cases to determine if the 
applicants are gay. It is critical for social workers to fight against these 
laws that promote discrimination. However, it is important to recognize 
that eradication of these laws does not necessarily impact personal views 
that may influence professional decisions. Prejudiced views on gay men 
and lesbians may continue to stem from several sources including family 
background, family values, religious beliefs, or other learned negative 
beliefs and attitudes about homosexuals (Sullivan, 1995). In addition to 
these biases, social workers and child welfare providers who do speak out 
against discrimination and advocate for gay and lesbian prospective parents 
also face their own risks. Social workers can be subjected to ridicule, 
ostracism and other career-limiting reactions if homophobia reduction is 
not respected among colleagues, peers, or supervisors (Ryan et al.). 

In order to increase awareness of personal bias and discrimination, 
trainings in graduate schools as well as in state welfare and private agencies 
should be implemented to sensitize workers to the needs of the gay and 
lesbian community. In a study conducted by Ben-Ari (1998), social work 
students exposed to courses on individual, familial, and social aspects 
of homosexuality changed their attitudes towards gay men and lesbians 



adoptive homes and the meaning of family

58  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   

significantly. Ryan (2000) found that training focused specifically on 
adoptions by gay men and lesbians was the most significant predictor of 
social worker placement recommendation. Through these trainings, social 
workers and child welfare providers will be able to broaden their perceptions 
of family and advocate for the rights of gay and lesbian parents and the 
many children waiting in foster care. 

Conclusion

An estimated 25 million individuals, 10% of the population, have
identified themselves as having a sexual orientation other than hetero-
sexual (Mallon, 2000). Excluding 25 million individuals from becoming 
adoptive parents, solely on the basis of sexual orientation, limits the 
opportunities for children who are in need of permanent families. Despite 
the many state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian adoption, multiple 
research studies have confirmed that it is in the best interest of the child 
to allow gay men and lesbians to be adoptive parents (Benkov, 1994). 
Unfortunately, personal bias, discrimination, and homophobia continue 
to be used systematically to shape policies affecting gay men and 
lesbians and inadvertently hurt children who wait for loving homes. Many 
of these children waiting to be adopted could find permanent families if 
laws and policies are inclusive of gays and lesbians and use scientific 
evidence and reason to set adoption standards. By undoing the unjust 
boundaries that currently restrict the adoption process, children can have a 
greater opportunity to find the support and love of a permanent family. 

References

Adams, J., Jaques, J., & May, K. (2004). Counseling gay and lesbian 
families: Theoretical considerations. Family Journal, 12(1), 40-51.

American Civil Liberties Union. (2005). ACLU disappointed the 
Supreme Court will not hear an appeal in case challenging 
Florida’s Anti-Gay Adoption Law. Retrieved January 28, 2005, 
from http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/
LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17292&c=104.

Appell, A. (2001). Lesbian and gay adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 4(3), 
75-86.

Bartholet, E. (1994). Race matching in adoption: An American 
perspective. In Gaber, I., & Aldridge, J. (Eds.), In the best interest of 



erickson zink

the child: Culture, identity and transracial adoption (pp. 151-187). 
London: Free Association Books. 

Ben-Ari, A. (1998). An experiential attitude change: Social work students 
and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 36(2), 59-71.

Benkov, L. (1994). Reinventing the family: The emerging story of lesbian 
and gay parents. New York: Crown Publishers.

Bennett, L. (2002). The state of the family laws and legislation affecting 
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. Human Rights 
Campaign Foundation 2002 HRC Foundation Report. Retrieved 
October 18, 2004, from http://www.hrc.org

Brooks, D. & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster 
care placements: Can they meet the needs of waiting children? Social 
Work, 46(2), 147-158.

Drucker, J. (1998). Families of value: Gay and lesbian parents and their 
children speak out. New York: Plenum Press.

Families Like Ours Organization. (2004). The hard facts of 
discrimination in adoption. Retrieved October 18, 2004, from http://
www.familieslikeours.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=56

Kenyon, G., Chong, K., Enkoff-Sage, M., & Hill, C. (2003). Public 
adoption by gay and lesbian parents in North Carolina: Policy and 
practice. Families in Society, 84(4), 571-580.

Mallon, G. (2000). Gay men and lesbians as adoptive parents. Adoption 
Quarterly, 11(4), 1-22.

McDonald, T., Allen, R., Westerfelt, A., & Piliavin, I. (1996). Assessing 
the long-term effects of foster care: A research synthesis. Washington, 
DC: Child Welfare League of America.

National Center for Lesbian Rights. (2004). Adoption of lesbian, gay, and 
bisexual parents: An overview of current law. Retrieved October 18, 
2004, from http://nclrights.org/publications/adptn0204.htm.

Patterson, C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child 
Development, 63(5), 1025-1042. 

Perrin, E. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by 
same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109(2), 341-345.

Raymond, D. (1992) “In the best interest of the child”: Thoughts on 
homophobia and parenting. In W. Blumenfeld, Homophobia: How we 
all pay the price (pp. 114-130). Boston: Beacon Press. 

Ryan, S. (2000). Examining social workers’ placement recommendations 
of children with gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Families in Society, 
81(5), 517-529.

Ryan, S., Pearlmutter, S., & Groza, V. (2004). Coming out of the closet: 
Opening agencies to gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Social Work, 

   Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   59 



49(1), 85-96.
Steckell, A. (1987). Psychosocial development of children of lesbian 

mothers. In F. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and lesbian parents (pp. 75-85). New 
York: Praeger Publishers.

Sullivan, A. (ed.) (1995). Issues in gay and lesbian adoption: Proceedings 
of the Fourth Annual Pierce-Warwick Adoption Symposium. 
Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

United States Bureau of the Census. (1996). National households and 
family projections. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.
census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf

United States Department of Health and Human Services Administration 
for Children and Famlies. (2004). National adoption and foster care
statistics. Retrieved October 25, 2004, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov
programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars.html.

Alicia Erickson Zink will be graduating in May 2005 
with a master’s in Social Work from CUSSW. She is an Advanced 
Clinical Practice student with a field of practice in Family, 
Youth, and Children’s Services. She is currently placed at the 
Family Service League in Montclair, NJ, which provides family 
counseling to individuals, children, and families.  Alicia also holds 
a Bachelor of Science in international business from Fairfield 
University. Her email address is age2001@columbia.edu.

adoptive homes and the meaning of family

60  Journal of Student Social Work, Volume III   


