234: A Family, Maybe- Lane I.

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:11):
And welcome into the Young Dad Podcast, whether you're outside
grill, in changing dirty diapers, or maybe, just maybe
you got a moment to sit back, relax and listen to your
favorite podcast. Whatever you're at, whatever
you're doing, thanks for tuning in and thanks for being here
today. My guest is Lane, a dad,
professor and author of the memoir A Family Maybe, which
tells a powerful story of how heand his partner Jonathan became

(00:34):
a family through the foster caresystem while fighting for
equality as gays parents in pre marriage equality America.
Lane is one of the first openly gay dads in the US to Foster and
adopt, and his story is about more than paperwork and
parenting. It's about love, identity,
resilience and how we protect what matters most.
So with that, buckle up, it's going to be a new perspective

(00:54):
coming to the show today, something we've never talked
about on the podcast before, a story like Lane.
So it's awesome that we get to share new ideas and different
perspectives. So with that, make sure you grab
a juice box, grab a snack, and let's jump in and welcome Lane
to the show. Lane welcome.
I'm glad to be here. Thank you for bringing me on.
I'm excited and I'm excited to have you.
So, so as I understand it, you, you and your your husband were

(01:17):
going through the foster care system and you adopted your
girls. And there's a lot of different
elements here. There's a lot of moving pieces
that I want to touch on, but take us through the story a
little bit about how it all happened and everything.
Yeah, Jay, I love how you introduced me as one of the
first gay parents in America. I really, we really weren't, but
we were. We were part of the first

(01:37):
generation of out gay parents. You know, we weren't the only
one. There were probably thousands of
us all around the country, but we were, we were the first of
the first generation of, of our parents.
I would say that prior to, I would say mid 1990s, late 1990s,
if there was a child in a gay household, that child would have

(02:01):
probably almost 100% would have been the child of a previous
marriage. So there'd be like shared
custody, divorce, you know all that.
However, it was really in the 1990s, late 1990s that some
states, not all, but some statesbegan to open their foster
systems to gay individuals and couples like like us.

(02:25):
And that's when And so at that point, gay parents and became a
kind of a conscious choice, you know, of, you know, family
building. It was not a by product of a
previous straight relationship. It became really something
something of a family. I can actually read a little bit
from from my book of the chapter, which is called
Pathways to Parenthood, which I think might be exactly what you

(02:46):
were just asking me about. So I'll just read it a little
bit, not just maybe a page or two.
My earliest knowledge about gay parenting comes from a once very
popular magazine, Newsweek. I think that was gone, actually,
isn't it? I'll check you, You continue.
Anyways, we'll see. Anyway, so it was once very
popular. Back in 1996, working a student

(03:08):
job at Stanford News Service, I picked up a glossy issue from a
stack of magazines that came in,intrigued by the cover blurb.
Gay families come out. Those were different times for
gay people in America. While the decades of criminal
persecution had largely ended, full equality was still years
away. Just two months before the

(03:29):
article got published, PresidentClinton signed into law the
Defense of Marriage Act DOMA prohibiting federal recognition
of same sex unions. The Newsweek's five page
feature, complete with a star interview Melissa Etheridge and
her partner in a normalizing thekids all right narrative of the
of a daughter of a gay mom gave the reader the true lay of the

(03:51):
land. 1996, Only 13 states allowed lesbian women and gay
men to adopt. California, my home state, along
with Ohio and some New England states, was colored the highly
tolerant green on the map accompanying the article quote.
Even then, the writers noted, usually only one partner is a

(04:11):
parent of record, leaving the other in legal limbo.
Courts allowed adoptions by second parent in some of those
states, although the law is still in flux and a quote flux
characterized the state of beinga gay parent.
In some states, one could still lose a child, even one's
biological child, because of being a homosexual.

(04:33):
To protect their children and families, many gay parents had
to stay in the closet, but some began to confront their kids,
schools and other public institutions to demand
acceptance. The Newsweek article sparked
hope in me. There was a way for a gay man to
have children and likely I was living in a green state.
I saved the clipping and starteda file, but I wasn't ready.
As a single grad student living in San Francisco, I never saw

(04:55):
myself as as anyone's husband. Relationships will come and go
without affecting me deeply. But what I saw, like a prophecy
within, was an image of a singlefather with two kids.
Entering the adoption process years later was simply following
my inner path. I knew I would never be
fulfilled if I didn't have kids.So I'll stop here.

(05:17):
I my vision really came true. I became a father of two kids,
but not a single, but a married one because the following year I
would meet my husband Jonathan. And now we've been together at
28 years. And so he eventually warmed up
to the to the idea of expanding our family with with two kids.
Very cool. I've always, I've always
wondered that too, because especially as I've gotten older

(05:40):
and became an adult and whatnot and had kids, I actually did a,
did some research on this Once Upon a time and I looked at the
number of kids in the United States in foster care.
But then I looked at the total eligible families and you could
take all the kids in foster careand plus the ones in the like
adoption system and whatnot. And I think I was doing this for

(06:01):
like a school project in relation to like abortion as
well, but that's a whole other topic.
We're not getting into that. But I took like the the babies
that are aborted every year, plus the foster care kids and
minus the amount of eligible foster homes and families that
are on the adoption list and there was still a surplus.
Of course there. Was still a surplus.
And so then I was like, I started questioning it a bit.

(06:22):
I'm like, OK, well, how do we still have this system that's
hurting kids rather than puttingthem in homes that want them?
And I've always wondered, like, I've never had an issue with it.
I'm like OK, if a if a gay couple wants to adopt then let
them stopped and raised a kid like it's not an issue.
Like the It's probably a more loving home than some regular

(06:44):
heterosexual couples that. I wouldn't want to compare.
We're we're, we're no, we're really no different as parents,
I should say, you know, overall,you know, than our neighbors
next door. We're no better and no worse.
You know, we're, we're all the same people.
But The thing is, what you really, you know, hit the nail
on on the head with is, is, is that the states began to open
their foster systems not becausethey're all that LGBTQ friendly.

(07:08):
It's just because they're way too many kids and not enough
homes. So at the time in 2000.
There is homes though. There's there's homes, there's a
surplus of homes in 2025, there's a surplus.
Well, maybe there is a surplus of homes backed.
Well, there are still 368,000 kids in the foster system in the
United States today. I mean that's that's 368,000 too

(07:29):
many as far as I'm concerned. And there's like 1.2 million
homes that they could go to. OK, that, that that would be
that would be, that would be nice.
Back in 2004 when we went into the process, the Los Angeles
County had and still has the largest foster system in the
country. At that time, there were over
30,000 kids without a permanent family in our in, in our county,

(07:52):
which was 1/4 of all the kids inCalifornia, foster kids in
California, and a large chunk ofhalf a million kids at that time
in the United States, in our country.
So Fast forward, what is it 20 years?
There are fewer kids, but there's still 360,000.
It's still too many. And I, yeah, I would say this

(08:12):
is, you know, I started looking at the historical roots of the,
of the foster system and of the adoption laws and all that.
And it's interesting because what I found was that the first
state to actually pass an adoption statute was
Massachusetts, which is our probably most liberal and
progressive state. So it wasn't, it was, I think it

(08:34):
was in sometime in the mid 1850s, eighteen 40s or 1850s
where they decided to actually finally have some sort of a law
by what to do about the orphans,as was what they would call them
then. And what they did, they had to
sort of create some sort of a system.
And the system's been replicatedin pretty much every state ever
since. And what's underpinning the

(08:54):
system is the idea that the child is a property of their
parents. Now, if you if you kind of go
back to 100 years ago, you know who else was a property?
Slaves. Yeah, but also wives.
Well, yeah, slaves and wives, yeah, you're right.
OK. So the children were treated at
just as much of A property as they were.

(09:14):
So basically to this day, we'll use terms like to detain, to
dispose of a of a child. You know, we call them
disposition cases. Those are the cases that make
the final decisions about what to do with the child.
So we detain the child, we, we dispose of the child with, it's
all the same terminology and pretty much all the same idea
behind it that that, you know, the child is the property of

(09:37):
their parents. And this may be very disturbing
to, to, to question that. But I do question that because
I'm a queer person and an immigrant.
And I'm coming to the system andasking, why is it taking by
default that that if the child had been removed from the
family, the family still has a primary claim over the child?
I mean, the circumstance must have been so bad that the state,

(10:00):
which really does not want your children, does not need your
children. It's burdened with in our state,
10s of thousands of kids in the system.
Do you think they need more cases?
But if they have to remove it, then you know what?
You know, why is it? Why is it that that that this
takes precedence above all? Because what I see, what I see
and what we experience, and to some degree my book is a

(10:21):
testimony to that, is that in many cases it's not possible for
the child to go home. And so instead of prolonging the
limbo, the purgatory, the trauma, you know, it should be
really fast forwarded to the alternative track, which, which
would be adoption. But that's, this is not, that's
the idea. That's actually they're federal

(10:42):
laws which support that idea. But in reality, it's all about
returning, returning, return, return the property.
So that's, that's, that's what we experienced.
Yeah, no, that it's interesting that you bring that up because
I'm thinking about it and I've seen it play through that
system. And it's not always what's best
for for the child, it's what's best for that the parents or

(11:04):
just what's best to to unburden the unburden the system.
But then a lot of times these kids just get trapped in, in the
cycle of going from, you know, with the parents, parents
relapse, kids back in the systemand they're with the
grandparents. There might be some older
siblings already there. Yeah, or something like that.

(11:26):
Right now there's somewhere withsomeone and they're not
necessarily better off or being taken care of.
And now they're just in this limbo until the kid turns 18.
And then the state can just, youknow, wash their hands of it and
say, you know, now you, we'll still give you insurance and
we'll still give you, you know, some resources and whatnot and
to, to go to college, things like that.

(11:47):
But we're not addressing any of the the traumatic experience
that may happen. Let's look at it from the
child's perspective. It's their life.
It's their childhood has been sort of wasted in this limbo
with all kinds of attachment issues, with all kinds of
traumas from being gone from place to place and ultimately no
real network to support them once they become adults.

(12:07):
You have to rely on this statement.
And we know. We know what kind of social
problem programs we have here. Yeah, not 100%, but then then
those kids go down the exact same path and then you just
created another generation that leads to government dependence,
right? So now instead of you.
Or underworld criminal activity,a lack of education, high rates

(12:30):
of just about anything you can. All those things.
So to me, to me, the idea that you should, you should just take
reunification as it is termed inthe system, you know, and and
take that as the sort of as as the main.
No, that's not. And that that's what I would
argue against. If, if, if, if I'm I'm often
asked, well, what, what would you what, what kind of an

(12:51):
alternative would you propose? What I would propose is to
actually to implement the laws the that are already in place.
Because we have a law passed in the late 1990s under the same
President Clinton which said that from the time the child
enters the system, there should be a A2 kind of A2 pronged
approach as to do what to do with a child.
One is to try to return them to their family and two is to to

(13:16):
set them up for, for the adoption track or whatever the
long term foster care or adoption.
What's what's happened or what happened in our situation?
What I witnessed, because my book is a testimony.
It's not a social studies. It's not, I'm not, you know, I'm
just telling you this is what it's like when you try to go
through the system. And that's what you can
experience when things go wrong.But what what we experienced

(13:38):
unfortunately over the course ofseveral years is that the system
was completely focused on returning the children to the
parents who were not capable of taking care of them.
That's that's the bottom line. Yeah, no, I, I, I don't disagree
with you at all because that's, it is, that's exactly what it
is. So I guess when it comes to some

(14:00):
of the language like reunification or any of the
other language that they use in these cases, now you feel it.
It takes away from the child, ittakes away from their care, it
takes away from their well well-being at all.
Yes, I think so. I think because then the the the
focus is on the process and on the sort of like this pie in the
sky idea of what the child's family should be.

(14:22):
And what I'm arguing for is thatif a child is placed with a
family, like in our case, fosteradoptive family would would took
in the children not to foster them.
Really, you know what, we're putting so much more into it in
every single sense then but to adopt them.
And the child is with us week after week, month after month.
And as it happened year after year, that child has a family.

(14:45):
I'm sorry, this is the real family.
This is a 24/7 family, not something that she would rather
see instead. And that's that's what I would
argue for. And as you will read my book,
you will see what, what kind of a, what kind of obstacles the
system puts up in order, you know, in order for that not to
happen, to try to serve this vision of the family that it
really does not exist at the expense of the family that

(15:07):
exists at the expense of almost trying to break it up as in this
way, my, my book is called the family, maybe because we came to
that point quite a few times. So what obstacles are in place
then? Because we have the language
that favors that. We have a system that favors
maybe not the best parents in every situation, but what other
obstacles are really out there? OK, well, of the things that we

(15:29):
experienced first hand was that one is that we were not we the
24/7, 24/7 parents around the clock parents of these kids were
not allowed to be part of the case.
How? How?
But you have the best information.
We weren't because the case in the court, you have the judge

(15:50):
preside, presiding judge, you have the birth parents with
their legal counsel each separate.
You have the children's attorneyrepresenting the kids and you
have the county. Now the County Council
represents the county that theirjob is, is to make sure that the
county is not at fault over anything that they're doing it.
They're not concerned so much about the kids, but concerned
about the county not being, you know, sued.

(16:12):
Let's just put it that way. Of all these people, the only
people who actually met our kidswere the birth parents, the
judge, the children's attorney, the parents attorney, the County
Council in the entire three-yearordeal never actually met the
children to that. Not even the not even the

(16:34):
attorney. Not even the children's
attorney. The children's attorney was
obligated to send a representative twice a year to
our home and report and everything, everything that was
taking place that was based on reports in the files.
OK, so we're talking about the files.
So you've got, you've got this file, this is one child, there's

(16:55):
another file, there are hundredsof files lying and they're all
being adjudicated, All being adjudicated.
Do you think this is a real people?
No, they're just, they're, they're paid people, they're
paid professionals. They're there to do a job and go
home. I'm talking about the kids and,
and The thing is. Oh yes, the kids are very real.
They're. Files.
They're two-dimensional files with the reports died by done by

(17:15):
someone else. I got you.
No, I got you. So this is one layer of the way
the system doesn't work. Another layer is that everyone
has their agendas and biases andprejudices.
In our case, I would say that the strongest prejudice was not
really against us being a gay couple.
There was only one social workerwhere we experienced that.
But but the the the the prejudice on the on behalf of

(17:38):
the judge towards reunification just there my show old school
that kids go back to their parents.
Oh, it wasn't really possible todo.
No matter how many chances she kept giving them, she kept, you
know, bending the laws like he wouldn't believe.
You'll see, you'll see how it would it would really play out

(17:59):
in real life. No, I've seen it.
She had her belief, very strong beliefs, very strong beliefs.
So when we actually went into the courtroom with a private
attorney asking to be, to, to begiven the de facto parent
status, which would be, which would allow us to be in the
courtroom. And it wasn't take away from
anybody's parental rights. They're still fully protected.
But what would be able to be part of the part of the case to

(18:20):
report to the court to, to dispute what we see or what we
hear, what we're thrown out within minutes and what we
didn't, we weren't really allowed to come back until we
were already in the adoptive, adoptive stage.
So this is another layer of, of personal biases and prejudices.
The, the, the third layer I would say is that people change.

(18:43):
You know, there's a situation I describe my book when we, we,
you know, we arrive at the, you know, the courthouse for, for a
very important hearing. And I come up to the, to the
child's attorney to speak to herabout something.
And she says, I'm, I'm no longerin your case.
I'm like, what do you mean? And so, well, I mean, I had too
many cases. I had to pare it down a little.
So, so some, someone else is taking over and here she is.

(19:06):
So this new attorney is walking into a very complicated case,
you know, with multiple parents,two kids, two kids, two
different cases, knowing nothingabout it and in a very, very
important court date on, on, youknow, And so people change, you
know, and I would say the final,the final layer in all this,

(19:27):
there is something else. Yes.
Now I'm very critical of the system, but I actually, I
actually believe that everyone means, well, there is no cabal
out there trying to, to, to persecute and make these
children suffer. They suffer because of, because
of the way it's set up, not because, you know, a social
worker really wants the childrento suffer.

(19:48):
The judge. And what I, what adds to that is
that I, I did some research. Like I said, I looked up the
number of cases that they're looking at.
Even the judge who I'm so critical of in the book in
California Children's Court judge supposed to have about 160
cases. They would have up to 600 cases.

(20:09):
Any water that they really like,they have very little knowledge
of Another file, another file, another folder.
That takes away from them too though being able to properly
understand the case in its totality.
Which is which? Which isn't due process, though
that doesn't give the people their constitutional right.

(20:34):
Yes, I would, I would I, I, I have to agree with you on that.
I I don't I I mean the rights are observed, the laws are
followed more or less although. Yeah, they're following a lot of
the. Loopholes that I noticed that in
those laws there's. A lot of loopholes, and that's
how laws are set up, right? A lot of them are set up for
loopholes. Or like in Washington state, we
have what's called RCWS and thenwe have WAC codes.

(20:57):
OK, RCWS and wackos. And I've sat in courtrooms
before. I actually was going to bring up
an example of what I've seen this in two, but I was working
with the family month once and the mom, she she worked super
hard. She did all of her pro drug like
rehab program. She did every program, she did
every, she did everything and then some to get her kids back.
She she worked, she got a job, she got the housing she got, she

(21:19):
got everything. She did everything she was
supposed to and then some. She got active with the kids
counseling program. She did everything.
And then she she earned those kids back.
She worked her butt off to get them back.
She showed up. She never missed anything.
She she worked, she worked. But it was interesting during
the process because you would see like, OK, well, technically,
yeah, that would violate this RCW.

(21:42):
But because of the whack, it's, it's more Gray now kind of thing
and there's more room for interpretation.
And so I feel like that happens a lot in, in family court with
these cases that there's, there's so much Gray created to
make it so much up to interpretation to where it
really falls on the, on the judge to make a, to make the
call, which isn't, which is good.

(22:03):
But also like you're talking about here, there's a lot there
can be biased, they could be prejudice, there can be past
experiences. There's not a lot of time to
review the case. So they get like a snippet of
it, but then they looked and they're like, oh, this, this
reminds me of in their head. They're like, oh, this reminds
me of that case from last week. That was my ruling there.
I'm going to give the same ruling now just for my own
consistency kind of thing without fully looking at the

(22:25):
details. And once the details are looked
into it took for another case I was for another family I worked
with. The dad ended up getting full
custody in the end of it but it was such a battle for him
because the mom had filed like 150.
No joke. There's like 500 pages of just
false CPS reports, 500 pages of this false CPS report.

(22:48):
And until the judge actually wasable to look in and the dad just
kept going and going and petitioning, going and
petitioning, going and petitioning, taking literally
every week. When it was family court, he had
a court date. He had a time in front of the
judge to where he would just petition, petition, petition,
just to get the judge to open his eyes.
And then six months later, sevenmonths later, eight months

(23:10):
later, the judge finally reviewed it and he he stopped.
He said, you know what, I'm not going to say anything today.
I'm not going to give a ruling. I'm going to spend the next two
weeks reviewing the reviewing the case in full.
And then I'll come back to you with a with a decision.
And I was like, did that, that just happened finally.

(23:30):
And then he came back a couple weeks later and his mind, his
demeanor was changed. The way he was talking about the
other party was changed, the wayhe finally understood the whole
case because he was able to finally make the time.
He probably stayed late, worked over, took it home with them,
who knows, just to give a full judgement because he started

(23:50):
putting the pieces together. He's like, this doesn't, this
isn't adding up. Why isn't it adding up?
And so then he did it. But judges don't do that, hardly
ever. And again, I it's not because
they're evil, it's because they're because they don't work.
There are too many, many cases. They're all, all kinds of
things. What you describe, what you're

(24:11):
describing is what's happening in the family court, in the
juvenile dependency court where where our kids case were
adjudicated. The state is the parent, you
know, because the children of ward wards of the state.
So it brings a whole other layerof of of protection, but also

(24:33):
complexity until is because, youknow, I have one of the chapters
of my book is called the one that when the county is the
parent, because it's very interesting to to see.
It's sort of fun trying to function as a, as a, as a parent
through this collective of people involved, you know?
Trying to take us through that alittle bit, if you if you would,
if you could dive into that a little bit, you know?

(24:53):
I'll just, I'll just kind of setaside like I'm going to go in a
little aside, but it's not not quite it's book.
Go for it. In the midst of all this, I went
to New York for a conference anda friend of mine took me to an
exhibit at, at the Whitney and there was a Whitney Biennial
when they did all kinds of conceptual art and all that.
So I remember, I, I walked into a room.
I just don't remember what chapter it is, but doesn't

(25:15):
matter. I, I walked into a room.
It was like all those colleges paintings.
It was all very nice. And it was called, you know,
something like paint, you know, artwork by Arena Spaulding.
So very nice to read. And then you read this, you, you
go through all this all you, youget the idea of, of an artist.
And then you read that actually,Arena Spaulding does not exist.

(25:37):
It's a collective of artists whotogether produce all kinds of
pieces under that name. So it just struck this like,
wait a minute, that's us back inCalifornia, all of us, you know,
with everyone involved and everyone's stepping on each
other's toes and stuff, you know, trying to play the parents
to these kids. We're the caretakers, The judge

(25:59):
is making decision, the birth parents trying with their
visits. It's like, so, so who, who, who
was a parent. Think of the county as a parent.
So the county has a huge responsibility.
You know, they have to detain the child.
They did not release the child back.
So now they, they have to take it, take care of it.
So it's done and done in a very sort of cold and bureaucratic

(26:20):
way. And it's, you know, everything
is normed, paid, you know, receipts, you know, checks,
check, check. Fast forward 20 years.
Last year, LA Times ran an expose of parenting classes.
What, what they discovered was that when they, when the judge

(26:44):
in in in, you know, the judge gives an order to a birth parent
saying, OK, you need to do this,this and that, I'll say that
includes the parenting classes. Turns out parenting classes are
not in any way in any way license for like there's no
oversight. You know, Jay, maybe you should
open a parenting class and then start taking in the class.
So. It's funny because you you have

(27:05):
to do the parenting classes for all sorts of situations.
They want you to do it on a reunification basis.
They want you to do them in a divorce.
They but they give you like so many options and.
I can't speak for the state of Washington, but in the state of
California, which is our largeststate in the union, they were.
They weren't regulated. So, you know, but on the floor
would be OK. Yeah, you can be.

(27:26):
I completed 10, you know, 10. Oh yeah, you found it is.
This the article? Oh.
My gosh. Yeah.
You found it right away. Yeah, yeah, right on.
Right on. I'm a millennial.
I'm a I'm a good Googler. Yeah.
And this, this, this is just but, but yeah, the parents will
go to this. You know, some of them, some of

(27:46):
them are sure are reputable, some of them probably not.
But you get you. Get time so you can't do what
you get. Yeah.
I'm just reading through this real quick.
The state does not ensure that parent education programs meet
any sort of standard. Allows parents facing abuse
allegations today classes that experts have deemed low quality
and cannot provide research evidence for half the program

(28:08):
listed in the state funded database meant to act as a key
tool for local officials to ensure child safety.
OK, so. A key tool to ensure child
safety. And this, this goes back exactly
what we were talking about righttowards the beginning, right.
So how do we have you can Googleit.
I, I would invite everyone listening to Google it.
I did all this research on ChatGPT.

(28:29):
It'll take you 2 seconds, the amount of eligible foster homes
in this foster systems. And then you read something like
this. It just shows like, OK, where
truly you, I, I have to ask the question, where does all the
money go? All the money that funds the
foster care system, all the money that funds these parenting
classes? Like who?

(28:50):
I'd be curious to know who are all these state funded in the
state funded database? Who are they all connected to?
Because I bet. They I'd like to go back to the
idea of the collective parent because everything you do as a
parent, Jay, and as I and as I do as a parent, you know, if
you'd be if you start to subdivide those parents and
tasks and responsibilities and give them to professionally

(29:10):
licensed trade people that comeswith an hourly rate.
So everything for providing a home to psychological services,
to transportation to food. I mean, all of that cost in the
year that we went into the system 2004 the budget.
Oh my gosh, The, the, I'm tryingto remember, I think the budget

(29:32):
of of the Los Angeles County Department of Children Family
Services was 1.6 billion. This was over 20 years ago.
I can only imagine what it is now.
I know that the overall budget of the county is I think is in
the trillion, but I'm not sure. But there was 1.6 billion back
back in 2004. So yeah, the cost, the cost is
tremendous. The cost is tremendous.

(29:52):
And I think those of us who are fiscally concerned would be,
would be, would be concerned about, well, it's, is, is this,
it's not like, it's not like people are still in the mind.
It's like, is this the best mechanism to, to, to spend that
type of money? For the sake of what exactly?
Because I think we're still going back to the purpose.
What's the purpose of this wholesystem?

(30:13):
What's the is it exactly becausethe purpose is if the primary
purpose of the best interest of a child, then it's the child's
interest that needs to be evaluated first birth parents
and then then before adoptive parents.
Like it's about the child shouldbe about the table.
It was never about the child in our story as you read it.
It was never about the children.Yeah.

(30:34):
So the D LA County DDCFS operating budget is around $3
billion today. OK, it doubled in 20 years.
OK with fewer kids, by the way. So I guess it doesn't that you
say that, right. But listen to how that sounds.
It doubled in 20 years with fewer kids now than there was 20
years ago. Like what?

(30:57):
What, like you said, what is thepurpose?
What are they doing except for taking away opportunities from
good families like you and your husband who want, who really,
really, really want to raise children, who want to experience
that? Because I was just talking to a
mentor of mine. He's like a second dad to me.
We were just talking about all his kids and who are rather

(31:18):
close in age to myself. And he was, we were talking to
exchanging texts on Father's Dayand talking about it.
He's like, I think it's needed for every man to go through, you
know, parenting because it, it'slike the best.
It's the next piece of evolution.
It's a key piece of human evolution kind of thing.
To where it does, it does. Something interesting because
what you're talking about is parenting classes and we did

(31:40):
have to complete like I think 33hours of 33.5 hours, if I
remember correctly, a parenting classes.
And then and then as long as we were foster parents, we had to
continue to take additional like15 hours, 15 hours of classes a
year. So it's like, but but what I
wanted to say, and those are by the way, were very helpful.
I helped to raise my younger sister.
That's why I wanted to adopt A girl or two girls, because it

(32:03):
was something I was familiar. With I think there's so many
other gay families out there like like yourself said, don't
get this opportunity because thesystem put so many barriers in
place to make it why we have 300,000 children in it when it
could be. Honestly, I didn't mind being
being being fingerprinted and round the criminal check on me.
That was perfectly fine. You know I don't.

(32:25):
Think the people who want to do it.
But, but, but I wanted to tell you, is that the difference?
You know, again, like you said, you said I've never had a gay
dad. The difference between a gay dad
and a straight dad, Jay, is thatgay parenting is always
intentional. It's never an oops, It's never
an afterthought. It's never as like you know, you
know. A good point Lane, you make a

(32:46):
good. Point So we share the way we
share the way we, we, we, we grow our families.
It's always planned. It's all actually, I say in my
book, it's always conceived in the mind, the shadows conceived
in the mind rather than in the warm sense.
That makes sense when that sense, like with us, we planned,
we we took us, I think like a year to get certified homestead,

(33:07):
the whole thing and the amount of scrutiny, scrutiny that we
were under, trying to be the perfect parents, as perfect as
possibly be. But of course, we're human all
but still, as opposed to the very low bar set for birth
parents made me wonder exactly what you said, like, I mean,
why, why is it so? I mean, what, why, why are we

(33:28):
held to such A and in a possiblyhigh standard and the birth
parents to such a low standard, you know, I think.
That turns other families off from doing it like other gay
couples like possibly or lesbiancouples or.
Straight or many other straight couples or individuals who want
to and then they send their kidsback because they, they, the

(33:49):
system did not treat us any different because we're
everybody was pretty much the same way.
But I would, I would say that, that, but any, you know, let's
say a, a, a single straight guy,you know, deciding to foster,
adopt A child or two will be subject to the same scrutiny,
with the same scrutiny and, and the same, you know, and we were
under the microscope. It was so intrusive, you know, a

(34:12):
social worker who's supposed to visit the child once a month and
she wouldn't come. And then she on December 31st
and 1:00, she says, I'm in your neighborhood.
I want to stop by like this, like New Year's Eve, You want to
stop by? And what?
Yes, what we have to say was to say yes.
Come on. Yes.
You have to. You have a choice.
We'll change everything just so you can stop by and put it that
you saw that you children for 5 minutes and you can put in your

(34:35):
words to the court. So it's, it was so intrusive.
It was so intrusive. Yeah.
And, and it's like, OK, well, ifthat's the way you treat us,
maybe you should treat everyone the same way.
Why don't you go like from home to home and try to investigate
every single thing that that is being alleged about it?
You know, it's like or, or, or. Yeah, it was just very
interesting. Those, this, this, this double

(34:56):
standard. Yeah.
And I think we, I think that's very clear, right?
Because I, I've seen it, you know, the, the, the birth
parents, their standards are, are very, very, very low.
And when I first got in, so I work, I have my master's in
mental health or in developmental psychology and I
work with a lot of youth and families and what not.
So I've been on the, something through some of these court

(35:18):
cases with the youth and families I've served.
And I, I see it and I've been the courtroom and I so often
have left just scratching my head to where it's like they
only got to do, that's all they got to do to get their kids
back, stay clean for a month andthey'll get, they'll get a lot
of their rights restored. And then they start to have

(35:38):
overnight visits and they can bring whoever they want around
the kids and all these things. It's like, but then I see that
happen. But then I see a dad who is
working a full time job, has hisown business, always just
showing up for the kids, never missed a visit.
And he's dealing with 500 pages of CPS report going week after
week, having to almost quit his job.

(36:00):
He had to put his own personal business on hold just to focus
on paperwork after paperwork after paperwork, after all these
things. And he represented himself at
the end of it. Because Laura just got too
expensive. Because it was dragging out so
long, because the mother was dragging it out and dragging it
out and it, it was just a mess. But he had to work.

(36:21):
He had to work well times as hard.
Then this other mother who really all she had to do was
complete a little checklist thatthey gave her and they gave her,
but they gave her every service.OK, They're going to come.
This person's going to come see you at this time.
I'm going to come see you at this time.
Use this service, put the kids in this, do this, show up here.
Here's your appointment, here's your schedule.
It's all given to them so they don't even have to try or put in

(36:42):
the work. Literally they have to show up
and then if they show up, good. You know, we, we were lucky that
I was able to handle the visit because we had up to 4 visits a
week because the, the parents were separate.
So we're two each, and they lived.
Girl types. It's huge.
I would drive 30 miles, literally 2 visits to see 1 and
20 miles to see another and then.

(37:03):
That's so hard on those girls though, because that's so much
added to their schedule. Like I don't think that's talked
about. Like that's not talked about
because they go from they go, they go to school, they go to
school all day, they get home assoon as you're in that you're
driving 3040. Well, you're in Southern
California. So an hour to go time hour.
Infants and toddlers, but it's, but it's, if, you know, all of

(37:25):
this had to happen by the way, the way usually Monday through
Thursday between like 10:00 and 3:00 or 10:00 and 4:00 because
other people were coming. The, the birth parents were
coming. The, the social worker who was
supposed to report on us was coming from another corner of
the county. And all this converging on some
sort of a park where, where we're meeting and, and the, and
The thing is like for us, so forus to be able to do that, you

(37:48):
know, I was teaching, I was teaching, I was switching
careers, basically starting to teach at that at that time.
So I, I would, I was an adjunct in four different Community
College districts. And I would schedule my classes
early in the morning or night classes.
So the middle of the day would be open for all this craziness
going on For, for, for, for driving Plus, you know, yeah.

(38:12):
Because there would have been noother way.
There would have been no other way.
I I, I can't see, I just can't see.
You're asking why, you know, whythere's so, so few homes.
If anybody wanted to do for as little as as we were getting and
and we were paying three times more than that just for the
daycare out of which I would pick them up to take them by the
way. But I just, it just, I don't see

(38:33):
how this works. I just, I just don't see how
this works, you know, because the, the, all these mandates or
what the state, what the foster parents and, and to some degree
what the birth parents are supposed to do is just, it's
such a, such a huge burden on everyone.
I don't, I don't think it's, I don't think it's working.
I just don't think it's worth. No, it's not.

(38:55):
It's not. It doesn't work.
That's why we still have 300, four, 100,000 kids in foster
care, right? And they're still there, they're
still stuck in the system or they're going through this
process day in, day out wondering, oh, is today the day
I'm going to go back and live with mom?
But is tomorrow the day I'm going to get picked up?
Are they going to come take me tonight or what's going to

(39:17):
happen kind of thing and just living in.
This foster home and another foster home.
I'm acting out. They don't want me here.
They give a county notice and off, off he goes.
You know, to to the next one. Yeah, that's, that's the
reality. New school, new everything.
Yeah. And then you come in as the kid
and you're you're stigmatized and like it's the system doesn't

(39:38):
work for the kid, right. The system does not work for the
kids. But again, it goes back to what
you said. The system is set up for what's
most convenient for the system, not what is in the true best
interest of the child. Yeah.
I mean you say that directly, but that's my, that's I'm
interpreting it. That when you were describing
what you saw in in the family court and the low bar said, you
know what, what I what I hear that is 2 agendas 1 is, is to

(40:01):
reunify. So the birth parents to the
child, you know, you know, basically are more important
than than the well-being of the child.
And the second one is the the the state trying to basically.
Push them out of the system. There are too many of you.
You're too expensive. We can't handle it.
Is just take them back, please. So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

(40:26):
And adoption is in our case is an option.
But those options, by the way, begin to dwindle down as a child
gets older. If the child has medical issues
and if it's a sibling set, you know, if you know 1-2.
But what about if it's five? Because the same birth parent
went on to produce more and moreand more, you know, I mean, I

(40:47):
can tell you stories not not ourpersonal, but but of, of
something, you know, to that effect, but.
Random question here though thisis really random.
While you had them and you were going through the foster to
adopt process, were you guys allowed this?
You don't have to answer this, just a random question.
Were you guys allowed to claim them?
Like for tax reasons? Well, it was very interesting,

(41:08):
you have to realize. That that was really random.
To answer, because it's it's kind of a it illustrates the
secondary point of my book, which is the, you know, the
first generation of how gay parents as being part being part
of the fight for equal rights during those years, because you
have to remember that we. Haven't even talked about that
at all because there you guys didn't.

(41:30):
That sounds bad when you say youguys but but gay?
Sorry, sorry, but there wasn't. Not.
Wasn't equal. We were nothing to child to each
other in the eyes of the federalgovernment and we were domestic
partners with very limited set of rights in the state of
California and all the way till the adoption of the kids.

(41:50):
So you know when we adopted the kids, we adopted them.
This is this how absurd the whole situation was.
We were two single men adopting 2 related children because our
kids are sisters. Two single individuals adopting
2 related children straight. You know, strangely enough, with

(42:11):
that actually came some tax benefits because we could claim
each of them as a head of household because we were we
each of the head of house. However, once we got married in
2008, the state of California finally allows same sex marriage
and we got married and it lastedonly five months because well,
our marriage lasted after that suit.

(42:32):
But at five months later, the same sex marriage was outlawed
in California through a proposition, the so-called Prop
8. So from, from to from November
2008 until 2015, there was no same sex marriage.
And there were 18,000 married couples like us stuck in a limbo
where we were married in the state and we were no one still
to the federal government. And our taxes were a complete

(42:54):
mess because we had to file whatwas called phantom, phantom
taxes. We had this stellar accountant
who was filing, you know, basically as if we're married
for the state and as if we're single for the federal.
In the end, we got audited. Yeah, Yeah, I can see that.
I can see that. Got audited and it turned out we

(43:16):
actually overpaid our federal tax by about $115.00, which we
got a refund on. So it just tells me how
brilliant it was to pull the whole thing off.
But but I'm, I'm laughing about it.
But this was no laughing matter,because we were we.
Were hindsight 2020? Yeah, Yeah, We were, you know,
we were discriminated, but we'rediscriminated financially from a

(43:36):
tax, you know, advantage, you know, standpoint and in many
other ways. And we, you know, our part of
the fight was, yeah, we marched in the parades, we signed
letters, we contributed to the. But we also testified for the
Judiciary Committee of the Senate, U.S.
Senate when they they're trying to overturn DOMA.
And it didn't work. It didn't work out in 2012.

(43:57):
Then we submitted the amicus briefs to some cases and other
states. It just we tried to do all we
could. We tried to do all we could.
So, yeah. So in a way, honestly, in a way,
in a way, I kind of miss that. Not the discrimination.
No, I miss the fact that back then, 15 years ago, having a

(44:22):
family as a gay man was a political act.
Today it's not so much because today in the way of all the same
rights, pretty much, you know, all across the country.
And so it's, you know, it's still hard to raise a family.
It's hard to adopt. You have to go through all the
shenanigans too. But back then it was a political
act and and that that piece, youknow, claiming our space and,

(44:44):
and, and winning, winning. I kind of, I'm, I'm glad.
I'm glad we were part of it. And so I, I guess another
question that just kind of comesto mind here, and I think this
is a, a very much in conservative circles.
I can think of myself as a conservative, but I, I'm open
minded on a lot of ideas. So I'm not far, far, I'm not too

(45:07):
far, but I'm, I'm conservative in a lot of ways.
One thing I've heard or used to hear, because I was a teenager
in California during Prop 8 during this battle, I was in
high school. I was in high school during it,
towards the end of it and then in my college days.
So I remember when Prop 8 was when it was everything was said

(45:29):
and done in 2015. I remember that.
But one thing I remember hearing, especially in in church
circles and whatnot, was that, you know, gay parents raised gay
kids. So did you raise 2 gay girls?
Actually, no, both daughters have boyfriends and I guess they
got this really good taste in men from us.

(45:51):
I love that it. Would honestly, it would have
been fine, but they just happened to be who they are.
I mean, and, and who they are, is, is, from what we've seen so
far, is heterosexual. So would would you say that, I
mean, you obviously can really only speak from your experience,
but other gay couples that are raising kids, are you are gay
couples pushing their own beliefs and their own what is it

(46:14):
sexual orientation onto kids or is that just something that's
kind of blown up in? Sexual orientation I'm, I'm, I'm
yet to, I'm yet to meet a straight guy who wanted to
become gay just before he was, you know, his, his parents want
him to really, really, really become gay.
You know, no, I, it's in generalthe LGBTQ community as a

(46:34):
community, which tends to be more liberal and more open
minded and more accepting, partially because of the way
we've been treated ourselves. So with that, with that in mind,
I think we're, but I would, I would tell you, Jay, that I've
actually spoken on, on some veryconservative shows.
And what I found is that this whole divide, I mean,

(46:54):
unfortunately it's only gotten worse in the last few years, but
I don't support that divide because because I'm a liberal,
you know, and, and I support certain causes.
I vote certain way. Right.
And we're having a great conversation right now being
being 2 very different. People, as you can see, as you
can see right here, we have a lot of issues that that that
concern both people on the left and then the center and on the

(47:17):
right. And I think I'd see the way
actually, instead of trying to boycott each other and then sit
on one side of the aisle, I think we should reach across the
aisle. And I think, I think it's, I
think it's precious to really to, to really try to have a
conversation and maybe compromise or maybe come up with
something completely new. But but that will not happen

(47:38):
without a conversation. That will not happen without a
dialogue. And so I dislike, I dislike the
way things have been recently where everybody supposed to go
into the little corner and just,you know, if you're this, you
just that if you're listen to that, well, not necessarily.
And I think the issues are so much bigger and the concern
about child welfare runs all across it's.
Universal. Spectrum when I speak somewhere

(48:00):
and people come up to me and, and, and talk to me after, after
the fact. And they, they, you know, they
don't see like a gay dad. They, they, they see someone who
is familiar with a foster care system or with adoption and they
have gone with something some and, and I don't know what their
sexuality is and I really don't care.
But but the stories, the the experiences are for the same.

(48:21):
Right, I hear you, I hear you. And like I think that a great
example of that is what we've been doing for this whole
podcast right now, right, like I'm a heterosexual conservative
man, right, and you're AI mean you didn't say it, but you're a
you're a gay or queer liberal man.
Very we're, we're very differentjust with that alone, but we're

(48:42):
having a conversation over something important.
But that's the one thing that will never happen in and the
state capital of California and the state capital of Washington
and the state and the United States capital of Washington,
DC. 2 people very much like us that care very much about this
one singular issue will never start the conversation.
We'll never, we'll never look across the aisle at each other

(49:04):
and we're both politicians in DC, which pray to God, neither
of us ever will be. We look across the aisle at each
other. There will be a predetermined
amount of hate that we're supposed to have for each other.
Any idea that I bring up, you'regoing to hate.
Any idea that you bring up, I'm supposed to hate, even though
you may really like my idea. Or I may really like your idea,
but we're never going to have a further dialogue on it because

(49:26):
we're not supposed to. Yeah, I think there's a lot of
stereotypes. Stereotypes and and certain
expectations of, of how people are supposed to act because of
who they are, where they came from or what their race or
ethnicity or age, whatever. I think people are much more
complex. I think they're much smarter.
They're much smarter than that, you know, And I think that on
the individual level, people support some issues, and they

(49:51):
may also agree with some issues across the aisle as well.
I think we're more. But they're too afraid to speak
out because they'll be seen as, oh, you're just this or you're
just that to me, To me, honestly, because I, you know, I
mean, I was slightly, I'm a little older than you are.
I'm more like the child of the 90s where was like global
village and everybody bring everything in and like, you know

(50:11):
what you're asking me about our,you know, it's more.
Community. Based it's a cultural families
and they're like, Oh yeah, let'sjust keep adding keep adding on,
you know, like the you know and and and maybe something new will
come out of this, you know something something new and
vibrant. You know that and and it's that
whole ethos is so different fromthe way things are now.
You know, you're supposed to, like, follow a very sort of

(50:31):
narrow line as to who you shouldbe and how you should be or the
other. So this.
Yeah. So I'm glad, I'm, I'm glad.
I'm glad you brought me on. I'm actually glad I have this
opportunity. To it's always.
Fun because because I, I would, I would like stories like ours
to get out there and and I'd like your story to to get to to
the people that that I socializewith.

(50:53):
Absolutely. Because we have we have the same
idea. We want the same things.
We can both recognize at the endof the day, the system sucks,
It's failing these kids, it's not for their best interest, and
it needs reform at the end of the day.
I'm sure we have. Yeah, I agree 100% on that.
And we agree on ideas on how to fix it, too.
And that's all it. That's all it really takes is
just having a simple conversation.
I'm not judging you. I don't care that you're gay.

(51:14):
It doesn't affect me at all. You don't care that I'm
straight. It doesn't affect you at all.
We're both dads. We're both raising kid.
Well, you already raised your kid.
Well, you're still raising them.But I'm more in the trenches
than. You are we have to Nets thing,
yeah. You're not in the trenches
anymore. You're you're you're a bit out
of out of the. Trench The thing is Jay, as you
probably notice, your kids are always ahead of you and you
could try to catch up to them asthey so with us.

(51:35):
Like barely do we get the pre teenage there became teenagers,
you know, and barely did we survive their adolescence.
You know, now they're now they're young adults, young
adult women and they they moved out, but we're still very close.
Need matter of fact for Father'sDay.
They're both home. Our younger daughter goes to
goes to school. She's she's at UC Santa Barbara

(51:57):
and our older daughter is livingdowntown LA works at a theme
park. And so we're still very much
kind of close to knit knit family.
We would text, we sometimes FaceTime and and we definitely
see each other quite a bit. So as it.
Should be as it should be, but it's.
Different because, you know, we were not now kind of learning
how to handle that, how to manage having adult children.

(52:18):
Adult children, yeah. So I guess the only thing we
didn't really touch on here thatI really wanted to touch on is
your guys's family dynamic and how you navigated it.
So you're Jewish and Russian that your husband's African
American, your daughters are Hispanic.
How the heck did you guys navigate that from your own

(52:40):
cultures and faith is to mixing in the your daughter's husband's
and mixing it all together into one.
I guess what you just mentioned,you know what the the creation
that came at the end of it. Right.
So it kind of goes back to before we had the kids.
You know, when John and I met, like I said, 28 years ago, we

(53:01):
kind of have this understanding that each of us will bring into
the relationship what's important to us.
And so it didn't, never botheredme that John will put up a
Christmas tree, but we have Shabbat dinners actually go all
the way back till since we met because that's important to me.
You know, we raised the kids Jewish, but not without a dose
of, of, of, of, of, you know, John's beliefs in John.

(53:24):
Because The thing is, he could have he could have brought in
more, but he wasn't all that interested in organized
religion. So that was his choice.
But he never converted to Judaism.
He is still a Christian at heart.
And it's. Is that pretty?
Is that pretty common in the gaycommunity?
Like not really a big fan of organized religion.
I would say many people are, areprobably not interested in

(53:46):
religion, but many people are. You know, I I belong to I mean,
we raise our kids and, you know,conservative in the with the
conservative, with the conservative movement.
There are quite a lot of, you know, people of faith who
happens to be L GB TQI mean. It's, it's just, you know,
faith. You know, yeah.
No, I hear you. You know God loves all the

(54:06):
children so. So, yeah, so, yeah, so were
they. So the kids, yes, they're
Hispanic and white. And one of them, because they're
half sisters, is partially mixedrace as well.
So there's The thing is, we feltthat it's exactly because our
ours is a close adoption. So there's no contact with the
birth family, but that's how it,it, it happened in the court.

(54:28):
So, so their cultural, I mean, not cultural, their, their
family roots have been cut. And so I, I always use this
metaphor of grafting them onto our family trees.
So we wanted to feel that, yes, they do have a home.
Yes, they do have communities that that welcome them.
So raising them Jewish, we're bythe way, there are a lot of
adoptees, a lot of interracial couples, especially here in, in

(54:52):
Los Angeles. And also John's family was was
present in our life very much, you know, they come out from
Central Valley. Well, that that piece was also
there, but we also tried to expose them to the Hispanic
culture. So we had, you know, Spanish
speaking babysitters and staff at the preschool and, and we
have the Museum of Latin American Art where they went to
camps. You know, I would take them to

(55:15):
David dad and paint our faces. And at the end, I'll be honest,
at the end of the day, I was more excited about it than they
were. They're like, oh God, here we
go. Yeah, so cool.
Though I feel like I feel like kind of I've done my duty in a
way. I've exposed them to some of the
culture which they can claim if they need free.
Parent. Groups, they know where to

(55:36):
start. If they decide not to, that's
their choice because they're adults now, they can make their
decisions. But my job, I felt, was to
expose them, expose them. And we travel quite a bit too,
you know. Very cool.
That's, that's so cool. All right.
Well, Lane, our the last little part of the podcast is 4
questions that I have dubbed thedubbed the Dad Zone.

(55:56):
To wrap us up. Is there anything you want to
mention from our main point of our conversation?
Are you ready to jump into the Dad Zone here?
I'm ready to jump to the dad zone all.
Right, let's jump into the dad zone.
So first question here in the dad zone, and this is to help
us, you know, we had a pretty serious conversation.
So a little bit of fun here at the end helps.
It helps to come back a little bit.
So I you're hosting a dinner party, you get to invite three

(56:18):
people dead or alive to said party.
Who's coming? Dead or alive?
Dead or alive? Yep.
Anyone in history, ever? Well, one person jumps in
because I, you know, I write nonfiction.
So John Didion will be 1. Shanita Connor.
I've been thinking about her forsome reason recently.
And the third person? I'm trying to think of an honest

(56:39):
politician. Good luck.
You mean that? I really don't think we've had
one I. I knew was, I don't know.
I mean somebody who probably like lots of hovel.
He was, he was a a Czech playwright and an advocate for
human rights who happens to be elected as president of the of
the Czech Republic. And then, yeah, but it's like

(57:00):
somebody who is trying to do good without having any agenda.
Yeah. That would be the third person,
a great singer, a great writer and a an honest politician.
I like that combo. And then before I ask you the
second question here, just to wrap back to an earlier point.
Newsweek is still a thing. They stopped published, They
stopped with their print format in 2013.

(57:24):
So it ran from 1933 to 2013 and now it's all online, but it is
still active. OK.
But that's just a random sidebar, I just want to make
sure we close that out for the listener in case they were still
wondering. What is your guilty pleasure
food? In terms of food, that's that's
a good one. I do, I do love carbs.
Oh my gosh, Oh my God, I do lovecarbs.

(57:45):
Can't, can't live without them. And I'm trying to reduce them as
I'm getting older, but it's hard.
It's hard work. It's so good, hard work.
OK, OK. I know that there's a lot of
hate against designer Donuts, but some of them are so good.
Blueberry Donuts. So good box of designer Donuts.
We love it. And then second last question

(58:06):
here in the dad zone, does pineapple go on pizza?
No, no, I don't eat ham. So it's kind of.
True, true. So.
You pork, you can take pineapple.
You can take ham as well. That was such a pork question on
my app, I didn't even think about that.
Thanks for being a good sport about that.
One last question here. What is one piece of advice that

(58:28):
you would give to a new dad, age18 to 22 years old, just
starting out his fatherhood journey?
You know, I think the most important lesson that I learned
from, from my journey as a as, as a father is to keep an eye on
your partner. And that might be surprising to
you, but I believe, and it worked for us, maybe not for

(58:49):
everyone, but it worked for us, that, that the centerpiece of a
family is if you're, if you're in a relationship, it's you and
your spouse, significant other, whatever you call a partner,
that's where the family begins. This is this is this is the
basis of a family. So don't take them for granted.
Don't take them for granted. You know, love them, give them,

(59:10):
give them more, love them more. Don't expect much back.
And and so basically keep keep an eye on your partner.
I love that. I love that.
Because, because, because I've seen so many couples splitting
up over, you know, and as they're raising kids.
And I believe that you should bethere when you when you start
the kids, when by the time they become adults, you should still

(59:30):
be together. So I I say that's probably the
most the most important thing I.Love that.
I love that. Well, Lane, thank you so much
for the time today. It's been a great conversation.
Thank you for reminding us that fatherhood is less about the
labels and more about the love and that and that the fight for
our families can also be the deepest expression of a
connection to everyone listening.

(59:52):
If you want a memoir that will challenge your assumptions,
inspire your spirit, and remind you what family is really about,
go ahead and grab Lane's book, AFamily Maybe and You.
I believe you can grab that at laneiguden.com.
Yeah, but also an Amazon bookshop, Barnes and Noble,
wherever the books are sold. Wherever the books are sold and
I'll link it and show us for youguys.
And with that Lane again, thank you so much for coming on.

(01:00:14):
Thank you for having me view some new ideas and just for a
great conversation today. I really appreciate it.
To the listeners before I beforewe before I close this thing
out, you're listening to a podcast.
You know what to do to show yoursupport for the podcast.
If you haven't done it yet, thisis like 200 something episodes
into it. Do the things, leave a review,
leave by stars, subscribe over on YouTube, do all the things.
If you want to support the podcast, there's a bunch of

(01:00:35):
different ways you can do that. Simply just click the links in
the description. You can do that very easy.
Support the podcast that way as well.
And then I think that's everything.
You can head over to youngdotpod.com for interactive
activity guides based on every single episode and transcripts
as well over there as well. So with that, until next time,
take care of yourselves, stay well, and we're going to catch

(01:00:57):
you right here next time.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}234: A Family, Maybe- Lane I.

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Cardiac Cowboys

All Episodes

234: A Family, Maybe- Lane I.

Stuff You Should Know