Adoption: Tales from the new family unit

On Tuesday the House of Commons will vote for the second time on an amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill, which would allow unmarried and same-sex couples to jointly adopt. A Tory-led revolt saw the amendment rejected by the Lords last month, and this political football may well bounce back and forth between the two houses before the end of the Parliamentary session on Thursday. If it is not passed by then, the Bill could be lost altogether.

Britain's adoption legislation has remained unchanged since 1976. Felicity Collier, chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, believes the drafters of the law were most concerned with young, unmarried mothers who, they felt, should have their babies adopted by married couples. The children would then, it was claimed, be able to grow up without the stigma of being illegitimate.

Twenty-six years on, society has changed. Many women are now choosing to have children on their own. The number of children born to unmarried couples is rising every year, and there is a clear case for updating the law. A Mori poll found 82 per cent of cohabiting couples and 68 per cent of married couples agreed that unmarried couples should be eligible to adopt. The BAAF believes that widening the pool to include unmarried couples could improve the chances of finding loving homes for these vulnerable children. But the Bill, which aims to streamline the adoption process and place the interests of the child at its centre, has become mired in the emotive debate surrounding gay rights and the institution of marriage. Tomorrow will see a final round of lobbying for it to be passed by the BAAF, an umbrella organisation including Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the NSPCC.

While Ms Collier is optimistic that the Bill will pass in the end, she is furious at what she regards as a hijack by moral campaigners. "This just isn't about the gay rights issue or whether it is the end of marriage. It's about the fact that there are not enough families coming forward."

Philippa Morrall, director of Adoption UK, a charity offering support to adoptive parents, says: "It's about providing extra security for a child, knowing that it has two legal parents. It seems ridiculous that people go through the process of assessment as a prospective family, and at the last hurdle only one can be the legal parent." Ms Morrall is saddened by those who have taken this up as a marriage and gay rights issue "because it is not about that and it was never meant to be".

This weekend there are around 5,000 children looking for adoptive families. By next weekend, perhaps, the law will allow many more to come forward as prospective parents, and help these children escape a bleak future.

'It's better if we share cultures'

Helen and Martin Marcus from Church Down, Gloucestershire, have adopted two mixed-race children who correspond approximately to their own racial backgrounds. Mrs Marcus is white and her husband is Eurasian with Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch and Scottish blood. Their daughters, Heidi, 15, and Jane, 12, are both three-quarters white and a quarter Indian and Pakistani respectively. Helen says:

When we first decided to adopt we were not at all bothered what background the children came from and we would have been quite happy to give a home to an Afro-Caribbean child if that was an option.

But the more we looked into it the more we came to the conclusion that it would be better if there were some similarities between the child's racial and cultural background and our own. We didn't have any Afro-Caribbean friends that could have acted as strong role models and we started to feel that if the child was bullied at school for racial reasons, it would be important they would have someone to talk to who understood the particular problems that had arisen and could relate to their own background. While I think we came to that decision on our own, it is fair to say that we were probably steered in that direction by the adoption agency and I think that it was the right decision.

At the time I wasn't frustrated because I understood and sympathised with their reasoning, although it might have been a different story if we had had to wait a long time for the children. As it was the process took a year each time and the agency had the girls in mind for us from the start.

Having said that, while my first preference would be for a child to be placed with a family from the same racial background, I feel very strongly that it is better for a child to be adopted into a stable and loving family rather than be left in care because no one from the same race can be found to adopt them.

I also feel that unmarried couples should be allowed to adopt equally and given joint responsibility for the children, and the same goes for same-sex couples. The important issue is that the children are placed in a secure and loving family.

'We are both their parents'

Sarah Halpern, 45, a teacher, and Christine Lee, 44, a housing officer, live in Manchester with their adopted daughters, sisters Rachel, 16, and Nicola, 14. They were adopted when they were seven and six by Sarah, the legal parent. Sarah says:

We had been together for five years when we decided we wanted a family. The decision about who was going to be the parent had to be made right at the start and it was really upsetting. We arranged our working hours so that we could be completely equal parents and it was horrible to have to choose between us.

In the end it was decided that I would be the adopter because my mother lives much closer. We have had to explain to the girls that Christine had different legal status from me and Nicola was upset to start with because, as she said, "you're both my mums" but she understands it now.

This law has to change – we entered into this together, and the girls are clear that we are both their parents. They had a very difficult start in life and the least they can expect is to have two legal parents and to feel as secure as possible.

'We couldn't jointly adopt'

Ken Mason, 42, a gardener, and Helga Petzel, 40, a translator, live in Norwich with their adopted son, Michael, 11. Michael came to live with them when he was seven and was formally adopted by Mr Mason in May 2000. He explains:

We never had any desire to parent a small baby and we felt confident that we could offer a home to a child who had not had all the advantages that we had. Marriage had never been an issue for us: we are not religious and felt it would be hypocritical to make vows before a god we didn't believe in and we also felt that we didn't need the state to ratify our relationship. When we were told that we couldn't jointly adopt, we considered getting married but, in the end, I felt sure that we had what it took without needing to.

It was clear from the outset that it would make more sense for me to be the legal parent as my work is flexible and Helga is the main breadwinner. But Helga is a fully involved parent and she should have the same rights as I have.

We have explained the difference in our legal status to Michael and we also said that if marriage was a big issue for him then we would consider it, but he is such a happy and secure child that there has been no need.

I know there are many unmarried couples who would make great parents but they won't come forward until the law changes.