Why are we Waiting? Research, Policy and Practice in Recruiting and Supporting Same Gender Couples in Child Adoption

The adoption process is renowned for its difficulties, however gay and lesbian couples face unique, additional challenges when choosing parenthood through adoption. The Adoption and Children’s Act (2002), Equality Act (2006) and the Sexual Orientation Regulations act (2007) are some of the recent policy changes aimed at ‘smoothing out’ the adoption process for same-gender couples (Cosis-Brown & Kershaw, 2008). Resultantly, there appear to be more cases of gay adoption than ever before (Equality Britain, 2005), however, anecdotal evidence suggests that across the UK the practice of recruiting and supporting gay and lesbian adopters is inconsistent. Whilst some local authorities encourage and emphasise the importance of stability and high quality care for vulnerable looked after children regardless of parental sexuality (Mallon, 2007); yet case studies of gay and lesbian couples seeking adoption demonstrate the unique challenges they encounter in the adoption process because of religious views (Hicks, 2005) or the attitudes towards same gender parenting of adoption panels and social workers within an unspoken hierarchy (Ahmed, 2008; Dennis, 2006). Government’s drive towards adoption (Unwin and Misca, 2013) of children in care as a favoured alternative should lead to recognition of same-gender couples as an under-utilised resource of potential adopters to be used in the best interest of the children who are looked after. The poster will present the results of research undertaken by the authors during 2012-13 highlighting how research on same-gender parenthood over the past decades has influenced the recent developments in the adoption policy and practice in the UK and worldwide. The poster will identify areas of potential barriers encountered in translating these policy changes in the current practice of adoption with a particular focus on professionals’ attitudes towards same-gender couples as potential adopters.

Food for Pollinators: Quantifying the Nectar and Pollen Resources of Urban Flower Meadows

Planted meadows are increasingly used to improve the biodiversity and aesthetic amenity value of urban areas. Although many ‘pollinator-friendly’ seed mixes are available, the floral resources these provide to flower-visiting insects, and how these change through time, are largely unknown. Such data are necessary to compare the resources provided by alternative meadow seed mixes to each other and to other flowering habitats. We used quantitative surveys of over 2 million flowers to estimate the nectar and pollen resources offered by two exemplar commercial seed mixes (one annual, one perennial) and associated weeds grown as 300m2 meadows across four UK cities, sampled at six time points between May and September 2013. Nectar sugar and pollen rewards per flower varied widely across 65 species surveyed, with native British weed species (including dandelion, Taraxacum agg.) contributing the top five nectar producers and two of the top ten pollen producers. Seed mix species yielding the highest rewards per flower included Leontodon hispidus, Centaurea cyanus and C. nigra for nectar, and Papaver rhoeas, Eschscholzia californica and Malva moschata for pollen. Perennial meadows produced up to 20x more nectar and up to 6x more pollen than annual meadows, which in turn produced far more than amenity grassland controls. Perennial meadows produced resources earlier in the year than annual meadows, but both seed mixes delivered very low resource levels early in the year and these were provided almost entirely by native weeds. Pollen volume per flower is well predicted statistically by floral morphology, and nectar sugar mass and pollen volume per unit area are correlated with flower counts, raising the possibility that resource levels can be estimated for species or habitats where they cannot be measured directly. Our approach does not incorporate resource quality information (for example, pollen protein or essential amino acid content), but can easily do so when suitable data exist. Our approach should inform the design of new seed mixes to ensure continuity in floral resource availability throughout the year, and to identify suitable species to fill resource gaps in established mixes.