In this article I'll show rise and fall of heteronormative discourses New Zealand government early childhood education reports and policy. On basis of findings from a recent research project that studied heteronormativity early childhood education (Gunn, 2008), I illustrate how genealogical methods of Michel Foucault (1977/1980) offered me a way of exploring institutionalisation of heterosexuality early childhood documents. I describe how concepts of and parent were, 20th century, largely constituted accord with nuclear family norms; then I comment on recent policy changes that I think will support teachers to practise ways that are inclusive and responsive to parental and family diversity. What is heteronormativity? What is discourse? Heteronormativity is concept that heterosexual sexuality is an institutionalised norm and a superior and privileged standard. It is perpetuated via discourses that position heterosexual sexuality as and normative, and which construct heterosexual sexuality as form of sexuality against which all others are compared. Through heteronormativity we are producing a world which we are, as Sumara and Davis (1999) write, learning to 'see' (1) to 'read' [and] to 'think' straight (p. 202). In this kind of context, if you identify as being or having an identity that is not straight, you can experience exclusion and marginalisation. I have been thinking about this through my research (Gunn, 2008), with a particular focus on families which parents of same gender, parent. (2) Discourses, way Foucault wrote about them (1969/2002), are groups of statements belonging to a single system or formation. They produce a particular version of events (Burr, 1995) and carry norms for behaviour, standards of what counts as desirable and undesirable, proper and improper (Alsop, Fitzsimons, & Lennon, 2002, p. 82). Discourses emerge at points history when norms, meanings, metaphors and concepts come together to produce subjects; a term used, as Middleton (2003) explains, in relation to (but not entirely analogous with) individual (p. 41). Foucault (1969/2002) writes of clinical discourse, economic discourse, discourses of natural history, psychiatric (p. 121), constructions through which subjects are produced as objects of intervention. Clinical discourse, for example, produces patient; economics, consumer; psychiatry, lunatic; and education, student. Making available subject positions or, as Burr writes, slots (1995, p. 141), discourses hold subjects (doctors/patients, teachers/ students) a web of relations that offer them different opportunities, rights and responsibilities relation to each other. Foucault (1976/1990) documented this process with respect to heteronormative discourse and production of the homosexual 19th century Europe. Heteronormative discourse produces heterosexuality and heterosexuals as normal, proper and healthy, whilst at same time it produces nonheterosexual sexuality, queers and homosexuals as abnormal, deviant or pathological. In early childhood education production of dominant and normal heterosexuality occurs several interrelated ways. In my study I showed how this occurred relation to sexuality, gender and family form (Gunn, 2008). It is primarily construction of family (as nuclear) that we see heteronormativity playing out New Zealand government early childhood policy and documents. This is because nuclear family is heteronormative its construction. When we imagine nuclear family we make assumptions about people's sexuality, gender relations and close interpersonal relationships that may or may not be accurate: pair of adults nuclear families will be opposite gender and heterosexual; their union will result birth of one or more children; resulting children will have mother and father parents; and those who would be known as parents, will be, or will be assumed to be, biologically or legally related to their family's children. …