Carers with a conscience

Two Christian social workers were threatened with dismissal from their jobs for their opposition to adoption by homosexual couples. This was reported by The Daily Telegraph on May 11 this year.

Norah Ellis and Dawn Jackson, experienced social workers employed by Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, were warned in a letter that they would face the termination of their employment if they were "not able to work with same-sex couples.'

As they had never formally canvassed their views with colleagues or superiors, the letter came as a shock. The bitter conflict was finally resolved when, under the threat of legal action, the council finally relented, offering reinstatement after some further clarification. The two women, however, decided that the threats had made it impossible for them to return to their jobs. They were given positions elsewhere in the authority. The fact that these experienced children's social workers felt unable to continue in their existing jobs has led to proposals from some MPs for the creation of a conscience clause in the new legislation to protect people who have religious objections to placing children with homosexual couples.

Conscience or prejudice?

Due to this incident in Sefton, a debate has arisen among social workers about the viability of such a conscience clause. In a brief in Community Care, a professional magazine for social workers, dated May 15 we are told: 'Citing religious beliefs, two Sefton social workers refuse to work with same-sex couples who wish to adopt children.' It should be noted that according to the broadsheet article, the social workers did no such thing. Ellis specifically says that she voiced her opinion in an 'informal chat over coffee.' The brief continues to perfunctorily dismiss those who have these objections, citing the new Adoption and Children act, and reject the idea of a conscience clause as 'merely institutionalised prejudice in social work.'

In another briefing dated May 13, Barbara Hutchinson, deputy chief executive of Baaf Adoption and Fostering, is quoted as saying that a conscience clause to protect social workers with religious belief would be difficult to manage: 'It is not about religious practice, but professional practice and needs of children. People need to look at the requirement of the job - if they really feel they can't do this for religious reasons there are voluntary agencies that make exceptions.' Further, Jonathan Pearce, Adoption UK chief executive, dismisses any clause as ridiculous. 'I can't see how sexuality should say whether you should be an adopter or good parent. This is not a case of political correctness, we just want to keep the pool of prospective adopters as wide as possible.' In a subsequent article in Community Care, dated June 12-18, Pearce continues in the tenor of the quote above to repeat and expand his argument. For him it is a simple case of personal prejudice fuelling discrimination. If you work in the public sector, you must uphold those laws and principles handed down by government and courts. He also criticises the idea that homosexuals could not be good parents. In conclusion he remarks: 'A full assessment of a potential adopter will reveal whether of not their lifestyle is appropriate for them to adopt, not some pre-conceived, nonsensical notion of what it is to be gay.'

Who is intolerant?

In the same issue of the magazine, Pearce's views are pitted against those of Roger Smith, head of public policy for the Christian charity, Care. Smith argues that the intolerance is on the side of those who will not allow social workers to act according to their best judgement. He notes that Care strongly supports most of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

They do object, however, to the amendment extending joint adoption rights to cohabitees. As single people (including cohabitees) were already able to adopt the change in the law was unnecessary. 'It is not in the best interests of children to be adopted - a permanent contract - by couples who are not legally committed to each other - an impermanent arrangement. Children need stability and all the research strongly indicates that cohabitation is much less stable than marriageƒ In addition, Care does not believe it was in the best interests of vulnerable children to be denied, in law, even the possibility of having either a father or mother figure. Consequently, Care argued against joint adoption by same sex couples.'

The situation in Sefton raises the issue again, but Parliament has already decided that joint same-sex adoption is allowed - 'The question is the extent to which individuals should be allowed, as a matter of conscience, not to use the new freedom the law gives.' Smith argues that social workers need to use their discernment in the course of their work. 'The only question is whether or not the discrimination exercised is reasonable. If social workers genuinely think that a joint adoption by a gay couple is not in the best interest of a child, either in single cases or in general, they should not be forced to act against their judgement. To deny this discretion is to pre-judge their professionalism.'

Viable conscience clause

Even among those who hold Christian values, the issue of how viable a conscience clause would be is a difficult one. The whole ethos in the social work world and structure of the training poses a difficulty.

This dilemma was outlined by Clive Bullock, who is currently employed in adult social services. He explained that social work training demands that practitioners identify their own beliefs and prejudices. It is then expected that social workers practice reflectively, recognising the potential for their personal beliefs to 'skew' approaches to working with clients who may have very different values. 'The dilemma for the Christian social worker is clear', continued Mr. Bullock. 'Social work training is very up-front with its values base and any Christian considering employment in the area of public social care needs to think carefully whether he or she can operate in a system whose underpinning values are essentially humanistic.'

Given the current state in which no prejudice is allowed, except that against Christians, one also wonders whether the above situation in Sefton would have been treated differently had the two women involved been Muslim rather than Christian. It can hardly be imagined that they would have faced such harsh treatment if this had been the case.

Theoretical issue?

In many places across the country the issue of adoption by same-sex couples is theoretical rather than practical. Nadine Parker, who worked for eight years in this field in Lancashire, has said that in all her time there she was only called out to interview two or three such couples. In these cases, it was her honest obligation to let them know it was unlikely that the birth families who place their children for adoption would feel comfortable with the child going to a same-sex couple.

In almost all cases of adoption the authority is in contact with the birth family and is trying to take their feelings and views into consideration when reasonably possible. In Mrs. Parker's experience, every birth family has wanted their child to have a mother and a father, and would want to avoid any placement that would complicate the child's already difficult situation. It would seem that most people's assessment of a child's needs coincides with that expressed by Norah Ellis, and for which she was threatened with the loss of her job. This highlights the concern that Dawn Jackson voiced in The Telegraph article cited above - 'that there were many other people all over the country with Christian, personal or professional concerns about same-sex adoption who would be afraid to speak out because they feared for their jobs. "The problem must not be driven underground".'

One Christian social worker currently active in the field of adoption to whom I spoke was dismayed at the thought of Christian people leaving this area of work. Although it is difficult and you have to be careful as a Christian how you conduct yourself, Christians are needed as a witness in this arena. She also laid down a challenge - more Christians need to come forward to adopt. Both social workers' own instincts and the desires of birth families lead them to seek placements with stable married couples; it is only due to the lack of these sorts of families that alternatives are considered.

Controversy among social workers

Conscience or prejudice?

Who is intolerant?

Viable conscience clause

Theoretical issue?

Alicia Felce

Main Articles

Other articles