I posted yesterday about the Census, and in replying to a comment I was reminded of a conversation we had here about a year ago regarding the Census and non-biological parents. I’m dusting it off, incorporating some of the comments, and posting it again, since those of us in the U.S. are receiving our Census forms this week.
If you’re a non-biological, non-adoptive parent, please let us know in the comments how you’re completing the form!
Let’s say you’re a couple with kids. One of you is a biological parent and the other is non-biological. Imagine you live in a place where a non-biological parent cannot do a second-parent adoption, or in a place that allows a non-biological parent to go on the child’s birth certificate without needing an adoption. Doing an adoption as well is a good idea for when you travel, but let’s say you haven’t done this yet—or have, but don’t consider yourself an “adoptive” parent to the child you planned with your partner from the start.
The Census questions ask about the first person in the household. For each additional person, they ask, “How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box.” How would you mark this if you are the non-biological parent, answering the question about your child:
- Husband or wife
- Biological son or daughter
- Adopted son or daughter
- Stepson or stepdaughter
- Brother or sister
- Father or mother
- Grandchild
- Parent-in-law
- Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
- Other relative
- Roomer or boarder
- Housemate or roommate
- Unmarried partner
- Other nonrelative
That’s right. There is no appropriate way for a non-biological parent to indicate their child, even if they are legally on the child’s birth certificate, unless they have done an adoption and are willing to identify as an adoptive parent. Not that there’s anything wrong with being an adoptive parent—far from it—but there’s a difference between adopting a child from outside of one’s family and being forced to adopt the child one has planned from the start with a partner. From a demographic and sociological perspective, that’s useful information.
One could of course choose “Other relative,” but that seems insulting as well as inaccurate.
Yes, you could just make sure the biological parent was listed as “Person 1,” but some families might not want to do that. Consider that Our Families Count advises:
Census reports some statistics based on the race/ethnicity of the “household”. In these cases, they categorize households by the race/ethnicity of Person 1 (head of household). Given that people of color are often under counted, LGBT people of color in bi-racial relationships should consider identifying as the head of household.
As S noted in her comment on my original post:
They’d be much better to have an option like “child by birth” rather than “biological child,” to denote someone who became a legal parent by virtue of the child having been born into that person’s custody. Because even a heterosexual couple who used donor sperm to conceive the kids wouldn’t technically qualify to check off “biological child” either, if the dad is Person 1 filling out the form.
Not only that, but because the Census form only asks for the relation of everyone in the household to “Person 1” (whoever you decide that is), the relation of “Person 2” to the child is completely lost. S observed:
A family composed of children living with one biological parent and one stepparent, or one biological parent and one adoptive parent, can look exactly the same as a family whose children are living with two biological parents, if a bio parent is listed as Person 1. Alternatively, if the stepparent or adoptive parent is Person 1, then you lose all record that the child is living with any bio parents.
This is thus “an enormously inaccurate way to gather data about family structure, and not just because of gay/lesbian issues,” she said.
Hear, hear. Maybe by the time Census 2020 rolls around, we’ll have a form that better reflects the lives of all Americans.
Yes. I think it’s a fairly archaic patriarchal way to do it. If you look at the form, it asks that person one be the renter on the lease or owner of the home. In our case, only my partner is the owner of the home (for fiddly tax reasons) so she gets designated as the only parent to the children. And all other members of the household are defined in relation to her. I am certain that when these forms came into being a man was always the head of the household and everyone was defined as “his” in one way or another. It really doesn’t reflect households today at all, whether queer or not.
Thanks for posting this — I hadn’t even thought about it. I was so excited about marking “married,” and now I have to work out this dilemma! It will be a headache for anyone analyzing the construction of queer families.
We own our home jointly so either of us can be Person 1. Even though I helped plan the kids’ conception and cut their umbilical cords, my parenthood falls under the cloak of invisibility — neither bio, adoptive or step. For simplicity, I think I’ll suggest my partner be Person 1, and then she can write that she’s married to me and has 2 bio kids.
This is interesting. Having listened to several radio programs related to the census and the data collected, there are many problems with the form. However, I personally don’t see the big deal with saying one is a biological parent if one is listed on the birth certificate. One wouldn’t technically be biologically related, but I think checking the box would satisfy the intent of the question. Similarly, I am an almost-adoptive parent. My spouse and I are legal guardians and should be adoptive parents within 2 months. I don’t feel that I’m doing anything wrong by checking “adopted son” for our almost-son. We have had custody for well over two years. Yes, the form is imperfect, but I can’t imagine I’ll be prosecuted for “lying” when I attempt to answer the question according to what I believe to be the intent of the question.
well, i think the heterosexual couple using donor sperm may be able to skip on through, considering that dad is more than likely listed on the child’s birth certificate – no questions asked. therefore, naturally, i think they could easily fit into the biological boat, but i can also see how that’s uncomfortable from a technical standpoint.
i think the wording was foolish. it should have just been “child” and then “adopted child” and then “stepchild”
i don’t know. this is annoying me. and there is no real clarification on the issue. it seems like our families count just wants us to fill out the dang thing and is convincing us to do so, but isn’t really providing any guidance in situations like the ones listed above.
how can we get an answer? i almost feel like not filling it out, and then waiting for the census people to show up at my door, so i can ask them in person. and make them produce an answer.
Here is the response I got when I e-mailed this question to OurFamiliesCount.org.
Take-home message: “Choose what fits best.”
–quote–
>Thanks for raising this question. We are aware of these concerns for a number of families, and we >will share your feedback with the U.S. Census too.
>
>Census categories for many household relationships do not always easily fit every family. This can >be especially true for LGBT families with children. When describing household relationships (to >Person 1) especially when referring to children, respondents should select the option that they >believe best reflects those relationships.
>
>Best wishes.
>Tom Sullivan
>HRC Family Project
>Member of the Our Families Count project
>www.ourfamiliescount.org
— end quote
Just a guess, but maybe elaborate elsewhere in the Census form–there’s extra room,
and tell them to please contact you if they need clarification.
Sad what the form leaves out.
The other thing that bugged me was how to account for our foster/not yet adopted son. This is our 2nd time going through the foster to adopt process, and it can take years to be finalized. In the meantime, marking the box for other non relative feels wrong
Pingback: We’re here, we’re queer, etc. at Lesbian Dad
Recently, I found the 2010 Census form hanging on my door. As I began filling it out, I came across a dilemma. The U.S. government wants to know if my children are adopted or not and it wants to know what our races are. Being adopted myself, I had to put “Other” and “Don’t Know Adopted” for my race and “Other” and “Don’t Know” for my kids’ races.
Can you imagine not knowing your ethnicity, your race? Now imagine walking into a vital records office and asking the clerk for your original birth certificate only to be told “No, you can’t have it, it’s sealed.”
How about being presented with a “family history form” to fill out at every single doctor’s office visit and having to put “N/A Adopted” where life saving information should be?
Imagine being asked what your nationality is and having to respond with “I don’t know”.
It is time that the archaic practice of sealing and altering birth certificates of adopted persons stops.
Adoption is a 5 billion dollar, unregulated industry that profits from the sale and redistribution of children. It turns children into chattel who are re-labeled and sold as “blank slates”.
Genealogy, a modern-day fascination, cannot be enjoyed by adopted persons with sealed identities. Family trees are exclusive to the non-adopted persons in our society.
If adoption is truly to return to what is best for a child, then the rights of children to their biological identities should NEVER be violated. Every single judge that finalizes an adoption and orders a child’s birth certificate to be sealed should be ashamed of him/herself.
I challenge all readers: Ask the adopted persons that you know if their original birth certificates are sealed.