Paul W.

Kohan
Book Report
Family Values: A Lesbian Mothers Fight for Her Son by Phyllis Burke (1994)

The book I chose was Family Values: A Lesbian Mother's Fight For Her Son a non-fiction account by
Phyllis Burke of the adoption of children by same-sex partners in the early 1990's. In the book, Phyllis
seeks to adopt her partner Cheryl's son, Jessie, who is the product of an anonymous sperm donor and the
artificial insemination of Cheryl. The road to getting legal rights over Jessie is an arduous one amidst the
struggle for equality for gays and lesbians.
During the book, Phyllis is engaged in the plight for equality on two fronts: as a member of political
activist groups and her own personal journal to adopt her son. On the first front, we witness the
progression of the gay and lesbian civil rights groups in San Fransisco toward a political landscape more
just. In riveting description, Phyllis rehashes the suffering of a historically marginalized yet unified,
outspoken, and quickly accelerating group of citizens and the harsh treatment they had to endure only to
be considered equal to others under the law. Although at first Phyllis lingers in the shadows politically,
never publicly acknowledging her sexual orientation, she later becomes active in Queer Nation, a group
promoting universal equality. Through her participation in Queer Nation, she realizes that many small
shifts have excited a rumbling of change and realizing this lessens her frustration with the seemingly
stagnant pool of bigotry against homosexuals. The effects of activist forces during this era can still be
seen today in our own social values and jurisprudence: there is continuously more equality for gays and
lesbians.

On the other front, her own experience of adopting a child illustrates the actual unjust government
actions against homosexuals. In her case, the government set heavier burdens on the couple to prove
that the adoption take place because they were not a heterosexual couple. For example, they had to wait
until Jessie was three years old and had to submit to home inspections. Phyllis's description of these
inspections is powerful and the reader can empathize with how disturbing and humiliating the process
must have been. She writes about hiding books, pictures, art, and other things that might look 'lesbian,'
and answering the inspector's questions about her sexual orientation: when did you know you were
a lesbian and how long do you really expect this relationship to last? The inspector asks, 'is there a
male that Jessie could have in his life?' Phyllis endures this demeaning process only because she is a
lesbian and wants to adopt her son, and she had no choice but to sit by and acquiesce to this oppressive
government procedure.
In the end, the Department of Social Services denies Phyllis's request to adopt Jessie solely because she
and Cheryl are lesbians. The denial forces Phyllis and Cheryl into the court and finally after such a long
endeavor a judge finally rules in their favor and allows the adoption to take place. Finally, Phyllis legally
became Mommy Phyllis.
This book provides a firsthand account of the adoption process and the surrounding...
_______________________________
The couple had to wait until Jessie was three years old before Phyllis could attempt to start the adoption
process. They would have to prove that Phyllis was co-parenting as well as providing financially for
Jessie. Additionally, they had to agree to home visits. Both the wait time till Jesse was 3 and home visits
would not have occurred if they were heterosexual.
During the time Phyllis started her journey to adopt Jessie she became more involved politically in
gay and lesbian rights. We come to realize that she had always stayed in the shadows politically, never
acknowledging to the world that she was a lesbian. However, she starts becoming active in Queer
Nation an activist organization. Queer Nation promoted unity and acceptance among all people- no one

excluded- all treated equally. Their mission spoke to Phyllis as she was fighting for the right to love her
family and to be treated equally. Joining Queer Nation helped her feel less angry with the laws as she saw
small changes occurring in the war against bigotry and hatred.
The first home visit by the Department of Social Services (DSS) was scheduled after months of
postponements; Cheryl and Phyllis go through the house pulling books, pictures or anything that looks
slightly "lesbian". Priscilla Judkins the social worker arrives and proceeds with the interview. The
interview was absolutely disturbing and humiliating! The questions were along the vein of when did you
know you were a lesbian, how long will this relationship last, is there a male Jessie could have in his life.
The entire interview was demeaning and unfortunately, but Phyllis had no choice but to sit through it and
answer all the inane questions.
The report from the DSS denied Phyllis's bid for adoption. Phyllis and Cheryl had been living in a
monogamous and loving relationship for 5 1/2 years but yet their request was denied because they were
lesbians. This denial by the DSS was done to leave the final decision to a Judge. The judge ruled the
adoption should take place. It was a long arduous journey but finally Phyllis was legally Mommy Phyllis.
Since this book was a journey of one persons attempts to leap through the legal hurdles of the traditional
and rigorous adaptation process, it reminded me of our discussions pertaining to custody and nontraditional families, particularly the problems a non-biological parent may face. And on a more general
level this book reminded me of our classs very first discussion on what the definition of family is.
On the very first day of class we went around the room and discussed what the definition of family
was. Surprisingly we got several definitions that pushed the boundaries of the heterosexual dominated
household family. My generation is in favor of a broadly defined definition of family. However,
several jurisdictions within the United States of America limit their definition of family to biological
relationships. For many the limiting of the definition of family heterosexual couples and biological
relationships is because they have never witnessed a same sex family and they are afraid. In the book
Phyllis talks about this fear of the unknown that many of the parents in Jesses school have.

This fear of the unknown is shown when Phyllis and Cheryl are out trick-or-treating with Jesse and they
meet a father and mother of one of his classmates. Phyllis writes about how the discomfort and unease
was almost palpable. It was as if the couple did not know how to interact with Phyllis and Cheryl because
they were two females raising a child together. There was such a level of discomfort that the couple asked
who the mother of the child was, only to be corrected that both Phyllis and Cheryl were mothers of Jesse.
This fearing of the unknown and downright prejudice against same-sex families is found in our laws. It
was John Adams who presented the idea that laws should erase after 20 years, that way we generations
are not governed by passed generations laws. Maybe Mr. Adams had something there; maybe we are
ruled by our previous generations and because of this we find prejudice where there was once fear of the
unknown. But unfortunately for same sex couples this prejudices in the laws is alive and well. And we
saw this in our discussion about custody and non-traditional families.
Since, Cheryl was the biological mother of Jesse and Phyllis had no blood relationship to the child Phyllis
legally had zero relation to Jesse. Phyllis describes this situation as being a biological stranger. We saw
this presence of a non-biological mom being treated as just a biological stranger in the case Alison D. v
Virginia M. In this case a non-biological mother was not allowed visitation of her child because she was
not biologically related to the child. Although, Phyllis was trying to adopt Jesse for different reasons,
mainly incase something happened to Cheryl, this book and case still relate.
The case foreshadows into the potential of what would happen if Cheryl and Phyllis were to end their
relationship. It would be up to Cheryls kindness as to whether Phyllis would be able to see her child,
Jesse, again. And it would not matter as to the level of input Phyllis had put into raising the child. To the
court her going to pregnancy classes with Cheryl or changing Jesses diapers would be meaningless. All
that would matter was the blood that was pumping through Jesses veins.
Phyllis would also become a biological stranger if something were to happen to Cheryl. And this is her
predominate reason for trying to get some type of custody over Jesse. As seen in Alison D. v. Virginia M.,
without blood relation Jesse would not be transferred to Phyllis but rather to Cheryls parents or siblings.

The effect this would have on a child would be chilling. This is the paradox of the jurisdictions that limit
definitions of family just blood relation and yet look for the best interest of the child. It cannot be said
that the best interest of the child would be to be stripped away from his mothers side, and given to his
grandparents or aunt or uncle just because they were of the same sex. One would think the best interest of
the child would rest within the hands of his loving caring surviving mother or father.
The idea of biological strange comes up again when we look to how Phyllis was forced to walk around
with a piece of paper from Cheryl stating she had the rights over Jesse. This paper was to be used in
emergency situations where Jesse needed medical decisions to be made. Phyllis talks about this paper as
being a humbling and damning piece of paper. It was good that Phyllis and Cheryl were legally aware
enough to have such document written up and to be carried by Phyllis. I am just unsure how a court
would look at such a paper if something lets say happened to Cheryl.
In conclusion, this book opened my eyes to the potential issues that same sex couples who are looking
to raise a child have to think about. Even more so it was amazing how much legal analysis must go into
raising the child so that both parties are actually considered to be parents in the eyes of the law. It is a
shame that such a process even has to take place, it is troubling that two loving people cannot freely have
a child and raise that child as they wish.