A book about Rainbow families in social and health care and school services
26/11/2007
Submitted by
ILGA-Europe
A book about Finnish rainbow families as service users was published in November 2007 by the Ministry of Labour in Finland together with the national LGBT organisation Seta within the Rainbow families project of Seta. Below is an abstract.
The book is available online at http://www.seta.fi/perheprojekti/...ts/suomalaisetsateenkaariperheet.pdf. It is published in Finnish only. The printed book can be ordered for free from the office of Seta, toimisto@seta.fi.
ABSTRACT
Paula Kuosmanen and Juha Jämsä (edit.) Finnish Rainbow Families in Social Welfare and Health Care Services and Schools.
SEIS – Suomi eteenpäin ilman syrjintää –julkaisu, Työministeriö
Edita Prima Oy, Helsinki 2007. ISBN: 978-952-490-157-4
The book reports the results taken from the Rainbow Family survey, which was aimed at “Rainbow Families”, i.e. lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, trans-gender and non-heterosexual parents. The survey was conducted during the period 13th of September – 19th of October 2006 over the Internet and as a Rainbow Families Association member survey. All respondents (N=178) were encouraged to answer over the Internet either to the general survey (N = 167) or the Trans survey (N = 11). Out of the respondents who answered to the general survey 90% were women and 10% (16) were men. A majority of the parents were living in female-female nuclear families, which comprised 49% of the survey respondents. Also parents living in female-female step families (13 %), in rainbow families of three or four parents (9%), in families with trans-gender parents (8%), in multiform families (8%), in families with an independent mother and father (6%), in families with remote parents (3%) and in male-male nuclear families (2%) were taking the survey. Two fathers, one from a male-male step family and the other from a foster parent family, also took the survey.
Of the Finnish rainbow families’ parents surveyed, 68% had visited a fertility clinic, 81% had visited municipal maternity clinics during pregnancy, and 18% had paid visit to family counselling provided by various agencies. Respondents reported a fear of discrimination in family counselling and rainbow families living in smaller places of residence were less likely to pay a visit to a family counsellor. Health care services were found to have discriminatory practices: At some fertility clinics, all independent women and female-female couples were subjected to evaluative psychological interviews and brochures and forms in maternity clinics were outdated and addressed only to heterosexual nuclear families. The forms instructed health care nurses to ask rainbow families, particularly one of the largest client segments—female-female nuclear families, inappropriate questions and the personal information of social mothers could not be properly put into the client register. Of the rainbow family parents surveyed, 40% were left with the impression that the nurses in maternity clinics were not familiar with the special needs of rainbow families.
Children of Finnish rainbow families were taken in municipal day care centres at least as often as Finnish children in general. Conversely, rainbow families made considerably more use of private day care facilities. There seemed to be a lack of dialogue between day care centres and rainbow family parents. Of the rainbow family parents surveyed, 41% could not say whether the staff understood the special needs of rainbow families, and 51% of the parents could not say whether alternative family forms, such as rainbow families, were discussed with the children. Also, 29% of the parents could not say whether the special needs of their children were being taken into consideration in the day care. Of the rainbow family parents surveyed, 55% believed that their own family form was known in school, but only 28% of the parents felt that the teacher was aware of the special needs of rainbow families.
Of the respondents surveyed, 19% had experienced discrimination “in some services” and 23% had investigated the prejudice of some services in advance. Based on a qualitative analysis of the research data as well as previous research, it can be deduced that the explanation for discrimination is that the practices in social welfare and health services are designed for heterosexual nuclear families, thus making them unsuitable for rainbow families. Discriminatory dimensions were also discovered in the dialogue with day care centres and schools when charting the special needs of rainbow families. Based on a qualitative analysis, it seems that rainbow family parents living in an easily recognisable nuclear family arrangement are less likely to receive discriminatory treatment, except when using a fertility clinic, as the case above showed. This result cannot, however, be considered statistically significant, because the amount of the data of rainbow families is insufficient.
Finnish family legislation discriminates against rainbow families and children in that it does not afford social parents opportunity to legally verify their relationship with the child, nor does it allow the child to have at least two parents/guardians or visitation rights to all his/her parents. Half of the respondents stated that the family had applied for co-custody for the social parent, which does not, however, involve any legal obligation to support the child. Child welfare supervisors’ statements in granting maintenance support and protocols for determining paternity varied widely from municipality to municipality and, in some cases, were discriminatory. Amendments made to family leaves in 2006 also fail to give equal consideration to rainbow family parents. All spouses of rainbow family parents are left without a leave equivalent to paternity leave, which is compensated by health insurance, and only registered couples who had registered their relationship before the birth or adoption of the child are entitled to take parental leaves and adoptive parent childcare leaves. The report summary lists concrete recommendations for the elimination of discriminatory practices and improvement of legislation.
Keywords: rainbow families, rainbow family parents, trans-gender parents, sexuality, sexual minorities, gender, gender minorities, client practices, discrimination, family legislation, equality, social welfare and health care services, family services, health care, reproductive health care, fertility treatment, pregnancy monitoring, family counselling, day care, educational institute.
The book is available online at http://www.seta.fi/perheprojekti/...ts/suomalaisetsateenkaariperheet.pdf. It is published in Finnish only. The printed book can be ordered for free from the office of Seta, toimisto@seta.fi.
ABSTRACT
Paula Kuosmanen and Juha Jämsä (edit.) Finnish Rainbow Families in Social Welfare and Health Care Services and Schools.
SEIS – Suomi eteenpäin ilman syrjintää –julkaisu, Työministeriö
Edita Prima Oy, Helsinki 2007. ISBN: 978-952-490-157-4
The book reports the results taken from the Rainbow Family survey, which was aimed at “Rainbow Families”, i.e. lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, trans-gender and non-heterosexual parents. The survey was conducted during the period 13th of September – 19th of October 2006 over the Internet and as a Rainbow Families Association member survey. All respondents (N=178) were encouraged to answer over the Internet either to the general survey (N = 167) or the Trans survey (N = 11). Out of the respondents who answered to the general survey 90% were women and 10% (16) were men. A majority of the parents were living in female-female nuclear families, which comprised 49% of the survey respondents. Also parents living in female-female step families (13 %), in rainbow families of three or four parents (9%), in families with trans-gender parents (8%), in multiform families (8%), in families with an independent mother and father (6%), in families with remote parents (3%) and in male-male nuclear families (2%) were taking the survey. Two fathers, one from a male-male step family and the other from a foster parent family, also took the survey.
Of the Finnish rainbow families’ parents surveyed, 68% had visited a fertility clinic, 81% had visited municipal maternity clinics during pregnancy, and 18% had paid visit to family counselling provided by various agencies. Respondents reported a fear of discrimination in family counselling and rainbow families living in smaller places of residence were less likely to pay a visit to a family counsellor. Health care services were found to have discriminatory practices: At some fertility clinics, all independent women and female-female couples were subjected to evaluative psychological interviews and brochures and forms in maternity clinics were outdated and addressed only to heterosexual nuclear families. The forms instructed health care nurses to ask rainbow families, particularly one of the largest client segments—female-female nuclear families, inappropriate questions and the personal information of social mothers could not be properly put into the client register. Of the rainbow family parents surveyed, 40% were left with the impression that the nurses in maternity clinics were not familiar with the special needs of rainbow families.
Children of Finnish rainbow families were taken in municipal day care centres at least as often as Finnish children in general. Conversely, rainbow families made considerably more use of private day care facilities. There seemed to be a lack of dialogue between day care centres and rainbow family parents. Of the rainbow family parents surveyed, 41% could not say whether the staff understood the special needs of rainbow families, and 51% of the parents could not say whether alternative family forms, such as rainbow families, were discussed with the children. Also, 29% of the parents could not say whether the special needs of their children were being taken into consideration in the day care. Of the rainbow family parents surveyed, 55% believed that their own family form was known in school, but only 28% of the parents felt that the teacher was aware of the special needs of rainbow families.
Of the respondents surveyed, 19% had experienced discrimination “in some services” and 23% had investigated the prejudice of some services in advance. Based on a qualitative analysis of the research data as well as previous research, it can be deduced that the explanation for discrimination is that the practices in social welfare and health services are designed for heterosexual nuclear families, thus making them unsuitable for rainbow families. Discriminatory dimensions were also discovered in the dialogue with day care centres and schools when charting the special needs of rainbow families. Based on a qualitative analysis, it seems that rainbow family parents living in an easily recognisable nuclear family arrangement are less likely to receive discriminatory treatment, except when using a fertility clinic, as the case above showed. This result cannot, however, be considered statistically significant, because the amount of the data of rainbow families is insufficient.
Finnish family legislation discriminates against rainbow families and children in that it does not afford social parents opportunity to legally verify their relationship with the child, nor does it allow the child to have at least two parents/guardians or visitation rights to all his/her parents. Half of the respondents stated that the family had applied for co-custody for the social parent, which does not, however, involve any legal obligation to support the child. Child welfare supervisors’ statements in granting maintenance support and protocols for determining paternity varied widely from municipality to municipality and, in some cases, were discriminatory. Amendments made to family leaves in 2006 also fail to give equal consideration to rainbow family parents. All spouses of rainbow family parents are left without a leave equivalent to paternity leave, which is compensated by health insurance, and only registered couples who had registered their relationship before the birth or adoption of the child are entitled to take parental leaves and adoptive parent childcare leaves. The report summary lists concrete recommendations for the elimination of discriminatory practices and improvement of legislation.
Keywords: rainbow families, rainbow family parents, trans-gender parents, sexuality, sexual minorities, gender, gender minorities, client practices, discrimination, family legislation, equality, social welfare and health care services, family services, health care, reproductive health care, fertility treatment, pregnancy monitoring, family counselling, day care, educational institute.
