Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt - CPS

We haven't heard anything so probably not.
Wouldn't be surprised if he's another that tries to get himself into Broadmoor instead of Prison. Last we heard he was refusing to eat.
How the hell did they end up adoptees?

Has anyone in prison attacked them yet?

The anniversary of little Preston's death today. 27 July. 3 years ago. It's hard to believe anyone could be so cruel and messed up and that nobody intervened.

That is the most heart breaking thing I have ever read, I cannot comprehend that a person could do that to a child.

I have read the whole thread and didn't see it, that's why I asked if someone could point it out. So if there is an example of right wing bigotry please point it out so I don't risk aligning myself with bigots, thanks

Sorry, what? Nobody is being treated as the messiah. By whom exactly? What "narrative?" Why not just stop being so rude to people and making wild accusations? It's coming across as unhinged and targeted.

And yeah, accusing people of right wing bigotry is not quite as FACTUALLY CORRECT as you seem to think. Card carrying leftie here, for example, I don't tend to have much time for actual right wing "bigots" myself though I tend not to throw the term "bigot" around, as its so hyperbolic. I have no idea of the political affiliation of the poster you've decided to insult this time.; she just said she didn't object to other people being conservatives. And I don't treat anybody as "the messiah" thank you. No need to. What a very odd thing to say.

As I said, give it a rest. I see you've done this on other threads too, including throwing insults and extreme rudeness at people who objectively have considerably more professional experience than yourself. It's just derailing, Really, don't be surprised if people choose to bypass your posts. I certainly will be in future. There is no need for the constant insults.

It’s quite easy to read back through the whole thread.

Can someone please point out the bigotry and right wingness? I seem to have missed that, and I wouldn't want to accidentally align myself with people who are right wing bigots

I missed this post.
Well OK so you're being consistent, fair enough.
I think that your last sentence is passive-aggressive because of course as I have explained countless times there's a lot more to it than my personal opinion.

It shouldn't be controversial to say on this section of mumsnet that men are just downright more risky than women.

Given this, I don't think my stance is entirely unreasonable.

You've come across as quite a sensible person in the main: always calm, polite, arguing fairly and non-aggressively, but since your comment about 'non-consensual monogamy' (or open relationships as I like to call them) maybe being OK in a family unit, I'm not so sure that you are that sensible about the issue of adoption at all.

They are clearly not OK. They are inherently unstable.
Even if the couple are OK, once you introduce third parties into a relationship, the potential for chaos is present.

I must come across as an old fashioned here but the truth is that I like a lot of people who have non-traditional lifestyles.

I just don't think they're necessarily compatible with family life, that's all.

So do I. What a very silly, arrogant, rude,and ignorant thing for them to say. To a poster who's been nothing but calm and polite to what has been some really quite unpleasant provocation from the same individuals in the last day or so.

Give it a rest, you two. You know who you are.

This case has highlighted the horrific risks with a lack of oversight and a lack of proper investigation once initial concerns are raised.

If more oversight prevents more cases like this, IMO it is worth any temporary stress it might cause adopted children at having visitors. And if more children are moved again, it is presumably because the adoptive parents have been found to be unfit.

your bigoted and right-wing nonsense

I disagree.

That should say FACTUALLY CORRECT.

I just don't understand your attitude towards this.
Things like consensual non-monogamy- or what I like to refer as being open relationships- are "inherently unstable owing to various factors that have been pointed out here already.
Also, there's no controlling how a third party will react. Or a third party's wife/husband.
It's not just the couple.

A family is a unit. What affects the parents affects the child and vice versa.
They do not consist of a couple with a child there, they're a unit.

Mum has a STI, that may make her irritable. That's going to affect the child.

This idea that you seem to have that there's all this ethical non-monogamy going on is, I think, not grounded in reality.

If people don't want to be monogamous fine, to be honest it is boring, but they've no business introducing a child to an inherently unstable situation.

But that makes a ton of assumptions. I agree SWs would probably want to probe the stability of a relationship.

The idea that open relationships are inherently unstable, or asymmetrical. Most people who practice consensual non-monogamy have fairly stringent sexual health practices and I’m not sure that someone contracting an STI has an impact on how someone parents anyway.

So yeah in that respect at least, consensual non-monogamy should not be an automatic barrier to adopting.

I think you’re attaching a lot of weight to a marketing slogan. The point of ‘You Can Adopt’ is to challenge myths about circumstances that used to be perceived as a blocker to adopting.

It’s not a literal claim that anyone can adopt.

What I'm about to say applies to all couples.
In theory of course a couple having casual sex outside the marriage and it not affecting anything else is OK.

There is, however, a lot of things to go wrong in reality:
Possible pregnancies (some people are bisexual so this applies to same sex couples, too.)
Sexually transmitted diseases.
Sexual jealousy.
Risk of preferring somebody else.
Risk of intimate partner violence from a non-regular partner.
The partner of a casual sex partner getting angry because they're not in an open marriage.

That list is by no means exhaustive.

Monogamy is a key feature of a stable familial relationship.
I think that's a given.
It doesn't really matter if it's consensual or non-consensual, all the above can apply.

Though such a lifestyle may be boring to some. And I make no judgement on that.

"By contrast, if parents are having casual sex outside the marriage with partners the kids are never going to meet and without impacting on the core relationship between the two parents, then that doesn’t really have a bearing on someone’s ability to be a parent."

Btw this should ring alarm bells. It means the relationship could be fragile - one partner may be controlling and demand whatever he/she wants and the other partner feels unable to disagree.

The relationship and family could be less important than the sleeping around. Sws want the adoption to be the priority.

There are issues around sexual disease, meeting people with low boundaries - the prospective adopters having low boundaries.

It's such a risky scenario. I bet most people wouldn't mention.

Up til recently you might think your lifestyle isn't compatible with parenting a young child, only now "anyone can adopt" so off you go.

I do think that sws would be very interested in how someone's non-monogamy would impact a child but that's not the same as saying a firm no. They definitely don't want adopters splitting up, bringing men back to the house that sort of thing. They may say you can't do that going forward. But remember "anyone can adopt".

I don’t see how some made up claims from a university is proof that anything goes.

I think polyamory would be a major issue for any adoption assessor but that’s because of the prospect of the child having potentially unstable parenting relationship.

By contrast, if parents are having casual sex outside the marriage with partners the kids are never going to meet and without impacting on the core relationship between the two parents, then that doesn’t really have a bearing on someone’s ability to be a parent.

Yes. I don’t think consensual non-monogamy is particularly relevant to anyone’s ability to parent.

Whether they’re straight or gay.

I suspect that monogamy is far down the criteria for adopting these days. When I adopted 25 years ago it was considered extremely important - admit to an affair and that would be a massive issue to be worked through at the very least.

But that's all changed. I doubt there are many lifestyles that would raise eyebrows these days.

Part of this is down to the "anyone can adopt" strapline, which is also Gov policy.

But also, i think we have to acknowledge the influence of Pride, Stonewall etc in putting forward the view that sexual preferences are irrelevant when it comes to child rearing.

A few years ago there was a thread on the adoption board which was removed in the end - it was a research project from a UK University which claimed to have been approved. It featured a case study of a three-person set of adults who live together as lovers who decide to adopt some children. Some of us contacted the supervisors at the uni and it was removed (in the case study the three of them go to an orphanage and ask some kids if they would like to be adopted - it was full of things that don't happen). Anyway, it shows I think how the expectation is now that anything goes. Anything to get children into families.