When they got the call from the state Adoption and Foster Careunit, Kathleen Brophy and Maria Melchionda expected the news thatthey would soon be adopting their first child. Officials had alreadytold them they were prime candidates, and they recently completed thestate training course. After more than six months on the waitinglist, they figured it was only a matter of a little time before theywere told a child was awaiting them.
Instead of being good news, however, the call was to tell theBrockton couple they were no longer a prospective family. The reason:Not that they were a same-sex couple, but because they owned a 3-year-old German shepherd.
'I was in total disbelief,' Melchionda said. 'We'd come so far,and then this.'
Last year, the Department of Social Services began following newguidelines that disqualify adoptive parents who own a pit bull,rottweiler, or German shepherd because they are considered 'highbite' breeds. DSS insists it's a matter of safety following the deathof a 5-year-old boy in Springfield. But the decision has driven awedge between some adoption groups and enraged dog owners who say theDSS decision could help lead to the end of families having largedogs, because they are already contending with rising homeowners'insurance rates.
'It's a choice,' said DSS spokesman Michael MacCormack. 'And wehave to make sure that a kid is safe. . . . If you choose [to keep]your pet, we cannot place the child if we cannot assure theirsafety.'
Research compiled for DSS by insurance representatives indicatedthat nationwide, 4.7 million dog bites occur a year and most are bypit bulls, rottweilers, German shepherds, and mixes of those breeds.Indeed, more bites from pit bulls, 243, were reported to theMassachusetts Bureau of Health in fiscal 2002 than any other breed ofdog. Following pit bulls were Labradors, 174, German shepherds, 152,and rottweilers, 126.
Still, some adoption advocates don't think DSS should be judginghouseholds based on their breed of dog, especially since plenty ofnon-adoptive families bring babies into homes with large dogs.
'One of the reasons adoption has been such a successful socialinstitution has been that law and society have treated adoptivefamilies the same as biological families,' said Thomas Atwood,president of the National Council for Adoption in Washington.'Prohibiting adoptive families from having dog breeds that are notbanned for biological families violates that principle.'
'Adoptive parents are as protective of their children as arebiological parents,' he added. 'If having a German shepherd candisqualify prospective adoptive parents, what's next? Junk food inthe house? Video games?'
But while Atwood believes the risk of a large dog attacking achild is small, Joan Clark, executive director of the Open DoorSociety, an adoption organization in Holliston, said DSS is right toput the protection of the child over the pets of the adoptiveparents.
She said in-depth investigations of each dog would be preferableto an outright ban on certain breeds, but that DSS can't afford extrahome visits and the state can't risk having another young childharmed by one of these heavy animals.
'The agency's requirement is not to make the potential parenthappy,' Clark said. 'Their goal is to find safe homes for thechildren.'
For dog owners, it's the worst blow since a nationwide push byinsurance companies to deny homeowners' insurance to families who owncertain dog breeds.
'There is going to be a time in this country when it's impossibleto own a dog over 25 pounds,' predicted Robert Clark, owner ofParagon Dog Training and Kennel in Northbridge.
The American Kennel Club, which has been fighting insuranceregulations, says the adoption policy is an extension of the problemand that any dog should be 'judged by the deed and not the breed,'according to legislative director Stephanie Ortel.
A DSS caseworker met Brophy and Melchionda's dog Max in fall 2001,but that was before the guidelines were implemented, so the twopublic school teachers were placed on the waiting list and movedalong the adoptive process. By June, they were off the list.
It's DSS's latest move since closing seven foster homes because ofdogs and a snake, to tighten safety requirements after the 2001tragedy in which 5-year-old Kyle A. Ross was mauled to death by hisfoster family's rottweiler in Springfield.
Massachusetts joined Vermont, Maine, Arizona, and Wisconsin asstates with language in their adoption policies that restrictspotential parents from owning dangerous dogs. However, Massachusettsappears to be the only one to specify those animals by breed.
MacCormack said the rules are not yet official policy, but shouldbe within a year after progressing through the department'sregulation process.
Michael Cahill, rabies program coordinator for the Bureau ofAnimal Health, said measuring bite statistics by breed can bemisleading. He downplays the statistics, explaining that the highpopularity of German shepherds and labradors creates a falseperception of a greater danger.
'It's because there are so many of them that even if a smallpercentage of them bite, it looks like a large number,' Cahill said.'I wouldn't say any other breed has any greater disposition to bitethan any other. It has to do with the training, or the lack of.'
Brophy and Melchionda are convinced their sexual orientationplayed no factor in their dismissal. DSS officials say they have beenfacilitating adoptions to same-sex couples regularly sincequalification requirements were changed in the late 1980s.
'If anything, we sometimes get criticized by conservative groupsfor placing a child with a same-sex couple,' MacCormack said.
MacCormack said they would reconsider Brophy and Melchionda asprospective parents if they ever gave up Max, but the couple saysthat's simply not an option.
'We are not going to give up our dog,' Brophy said. 'Every familydeserves the right to run their family the way they want. I grew upwith animals. Everyone I know has a pet, and we want a pet, too.
Franco Ordonez can be reached at fordonez@globe.com.
