Real-World Narrative Con't (Part 3)

[Petitioner presented as one of his expert witnesses] Dr . Michael Lamb, Professor of Psychology at the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England. Dr. Lamb spent 17 years as a senior research scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of the National Institute of Health) before moving to England in 2004 to serve as the head of the Department of Psychology and head of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Cambridge. One area of Dr. Lamb’s 30 years of research focuses on the factors relating to children’s development and adjustment. Dr. Lamb was qualified as an expert witness in psychology with a specialization in the development and adjustment of children, including children of gay and lesbian parents. Dr. Lamb stated that most families, today, are not traditional families. According to Dr. Lamb, there are three important factors that are predictors of healthy adjustment for children. One well recognized predictor of healthy adjustment is a child’s relationship with his parents: a child is more likely to be well adjusted if he has a warm, harmonious relationship with committed, involved, sensitive parents. The second predictor is the relationship between the adults in the child’s life. Children are more likely to be adjusted when the relationship between the parents is harmonious and positive. The third widely recognized predictor of adjustment is the resources available to a child. Children tend to adjust and better when they have adequate resources available and children who grow up in less well resourced homes are more likely to have issues with maladjustment. Providing additional insight into the development of the field in this area, Dr. Lamb points out that researchers once believed that traditional families provided the best environment for children. As the research developed, however, the notion was proven to be flawed, because the quality of the parenting itself is more important.

The witness testified that based on his 30 years of research and experience in the field, he can say with certainty that children raised by homosexual parents do not suffer an increased risk of behavioral problems, psychological problems, academic development, gender identity, sexual identity, maladjustment, or interpersonal relationship development.9  [fn 9:  As also supported by studies included in and performed by the Journal of Child Development, Child Psychology, Journal of Family Psychology, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry; Professor Susan Golombok, Professor Shana Patterson, Professor Cum Ta Rey Chan; Trial transcript, Oct. 2, 2008, p. 57 l. 19 – p. 62 l. 21.]

Dr. Lamb’s work is consistent with other studies of same sex parents indicating their children are not more likely to be maladjusted. As such, pursuant to the witness’ testimony the assumption that children raised by gay parents are harmed is not a reliable finding. In fact, it is contrary to the consensus in the field. Although much of the research in this area compares children raised from birth by lesbian couples to children raised from birth by heterosexual couples, the witness believes the research would prove consistent if the samples included children raised by homosexual fathers. Explaining the literature to the contrary,11 Dr. Lamb offers that such research is unreliable, not methodologically sound, unpublished or published in non-peer review publications, and over-emphasizes non-statistical differences, among other methodological flaws. Additionally, the witness states that longitudinal studies reveal the same results as cross-sectional studies. Also, as to the contention that research need be conducted of adoptive children raised by homosexual parents versus children raised by biological homosexual parents, Dr. Lamb rejects the idea stating that the predictors in adoptive and biological gay parenting are not different. Moreover, although adoptive children have an additional factor to consider (their prior background), this does not relate to the sexual orientation of their caregiver.  [fn 11:  R. Lerner and A.K. Nagai, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting, Marriage Law Prject (Jan. 2001) (reviewing 49 studies on same-sex parenting and finding recurring methodological flaws); W. Schumm, Re-examination of Evidence Concerning Child Development, reported in F. Tasker and S. Golombok’s 1997 Growing Up In a Lesbian Family; K. Cameron & P. Cameron, Homosexual Parents, 31 Adolescence 757, 770-774 (1996) (P. Cameron was censured and ousted by the APA for misreporting results about homosexual parenting); J. Stacy & T. Biblarz, How does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter, 66 Am Soc. Rev. 159, 166 (2001) (although cited by Lofton as opposing homosexual parenting, Stacy and Biblarz concluded, “Because every relevant study to date shows the parental sexual orientation per say has no measurable effect on the quality of parent/child relationships, or on children’s mental health and social adjustment, there is no evidentiary basis for considering parental sexual orientation in decisions about children’s best interest”); Zatieros Zaranticos, Children in Three Contexts, Family, Education, and Social Development (Zaranticos is not a psychologist. The article was not published in a peer reviewed journal, but an Australian magazine. According to critics, the study fails to prove maladjustment of children raised by homosexual parents because of the failure to account for the divorce or separation many of the children had recently experienced and was likely the cause for their maladjustment.)]

Relating to sexual activity and/or orientation of children of homosexual parents one study revealed that female children raised by lesbians were more sexually active than males raised by lesbians. Dr. Lamb interjects that such results reveal only that children raised by lesbians are less strictly tied to sexual roles and rigid applications of sex roles. Dr. Lamb emphasizes that there was no difference in the age the children raised by lesbians began engaging in sex versus those raised by heterosexuals. Moreover, according to the witness, there was no significant difference between the sexual orientation of children with lesbian parents and those with heterosexual parents. Although children raised by lesbian mothers expressed openness to considering same sex attraction, Dr. Lamb explains that children of lesbian mothers tended to believe their parent would be more tolerant of a same sex relationship. Dr. Lamb states the import of the research revealed by the study is not that gay parents rear gay children, but more a lesson in promoting tolerance.

With regard to social relationships and peer adjustments, Dr. Lamb reports that children raised by gay parents develop social relationships the same as those raised by heterosexual parents. The research shows that children of gay parents are not ostracized and do not experience discrimination any more than children of heterosexual parents. According to the witness, children have always and will continue to tease and bully their peers about their parent’s appearance, employment, ethnic background, parenting style, or sexual orientation. A child that is teased views one reason no less hurtful than another. Therefore, Dr. Lamb concludes that the exclusion of homosexuals from adoption does not shield a child from being teased by his/her peers.

Lastly, Dr. Lamb opined that the assumption that children need a mother and a father in order to be well adjusted is outdated and not supported by the research. According to the witness, there is no optimal gender combination of parents; neither men nor women have a greater ability to parent. Additionally, today, two-parent households are less attached to static roles than in the past. Moreover, there is a well established and generally accepted consensus in the field that children do not need a parent of each gender to adjust healthily. The witness opines that the exclusion of homosexuals as adoptive parents is not rationally related to child adjustment. Rather, the witness believes the exclusion hurts children by reducing the number of capable and appropriate parents available and willing to adopt.

[Final installment, tomorrow.]