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

And 30% of lesbian couples are also non monogamous. 20% of under 35s in total are or have been in polyamorous relationships and only 56% of under 35s describe monogamy as the only relationship structure they would be comfortable with.

This sounds reasonable but the truth is that half of relationships that involve 2 males are openly non-monogamous.

I attribute this to them being male rather than gay. I suspect that if every woman adopted the same attitude to sex that most men had towards it heterosexual men would be the same so not criticising them (gay men) for it.

I wonder: if only half of straight couples were monogamous would you be happy with any of them adopting?

I'm ok with it because I don't see it as any different to any other mother who may find a different partner in the future. I don't think we can form public policy on the expectation that a 'single mother' will run off with some man who's then going to abuse her child, whether that child is adopted or not.

Just like I don't think we can consign 400+ children a year to a childhood of ongoing foster care, which we know has significantly worse outcomes across a number of metrics, on the basis of your inability to understand why two men would want to have a family.

My partner was raised in foster care. On paper they are a success story - went to university, high earner - but they do not speak happily of their time in foster care at all. They remember it as being really unstable, they felt deeply unsettled and 'othered' - like - their foster parents might send them into 'respite care' so the foster parents could go on holiday, final decision was with a social worker but that was always someone new, they were very definitely kept outside of the 'real' family unit because foster parents needed to be comfortable with them being returned to birth parents or moved on and weren't meant to view them as their own. As soon as they turned 18 they were moved out of foster care and into a council flat which they were not ready for at all, and ended up in a massive state. They bounced from partner to partner for years, just to have some kind of emotional anchor.

Of the four siblings, my partner did very well on paper, but has had a lot of problems with their mental health, including several in patient hospital stays, one sibling is in prison and the other two have struggled a lot to find work and retain custody of their own children.

I really struggle to see how that is 'better' than those kids being raised by a stable and loving gay couple.

A single woman who wishes to adopt becomes, by definition, a single mother and there's always a lot of concern from some quarters about stepfathers so I'm wondering why you'd be OK with that.

Sorry I am very suspicious when two men, or even one straight one, or two heterosexual males want to adopt a child.

(I see it perhaps as egocentric when gay men use surrogates but wanting to reproduce is something I understand. Also I can't be too harsh as heterosexual people don't have children for selfless reasons either.)

And to be frank I have zero confidence in professionals to have good judgement.

The difference of course between fostering and adoption is that the two adopters are usually left alone with a child after a point as they are now its parents.

Note: obviously widowed men or those whose wives have left them are not the same as they've not chosen those circumstances.

Is like with like even being compared here? After all, in the UK it's only been twenty years since same sex couples have been allowed to adopt, fostering has been around for much longer.

The website is just one way of marketing. They would have used other techniques too. I don't know what they did but I guess it might have involved advertising in lgbt+ media, attending Pride, speaking at lgbt+ events.....

Anyway, I think we discussed this before? It gives info on their focus on the lgbt+ community. Specifically it says:

A key part of Adoption Now’s recruitment drive has involved appealing to the LGBTQ+ community, including “national and local ‘myth busting’ marketing campaigns” and, in late 2023, a “Diversity Campaign” aimed at “LGBTQIA+” people and other minority groups. Despite this, LGBTQ+ couples made up 19% of approved adopters in 2023-24, down from 24% the previous year. In June 2024, Adoption Now said: “The focus this year needs to be on increasing the number of LGBTQ+ applicants and understanding the barriers to single males seeking to adopt as out of the 9 approvals of single applicants, 8 were female.”

https://x.com/LPerrins/status/2069009712893276572?s=20

Happy for single women to adopt? Yes.

Because the vast majority of adopters are like any parents and put their kids and their safety first.

And because the consequences of a child spending their whole childhood in care are pretty well documented - less educational and employment attainments, greater emotional and mental health challenges, more likely to be in the criminal justice system.

Choosing that outcome for hundreds of children is unconscionable.

Even by your own metrics a child is usually going to come into contact with a lot more ‘unrelated males’ in the foster system than being adopted by two men.

To add: while there are problems with surrogacy, but that's a different topic, the men who can afford it may be able to afford female nannies, too.

I wonder if those who are OK with 2 men adopting a child are also OK with single women adopting.
The single woman may have unrelated males in the household, but there'll definitely be two if 2 men adopt.

Also relationships consisting of 2 males are only likely to be monogamous half the time. More unrelated males around (possibly).

Personal opinion:
Common sense has gone out the window, hasn't it?
Two people from the class of person, namely men, who are much, much more likely to be violent and sexually abusive than the other class, namely women, and are much less likely to be blessed with the nurturing skills that children need in early childhood wish to adopt and nobody bats an eyelid.
Batshit.

Yes, this is a personal opinion.
This thread is in feminism, disagree but of all places on this site, I should be able to say this here.

Yet again accuse me of misandry if you like but not homophobia as I'd feel exactly the same if two heterosexual men, or one straight male, wished to adopt.

What targets? The only targets I’m aware of from
adoption now is an overall target of approving 100 adopters a year.

There aren’t any specific targets for LGBT adopters that I’ve seen.

And the website in 2023 looked very similar to now when you look at archived versions of it.

Do you know what their targets were in 2023 when Preston was matched? Or how did the website looked then?

Limited evidence but still 22 high quality studies analysed from which clear conclusions can be drawn.

I’ve just looked at Adoption Now’s website. Anyone who thinks they are disproportionately targeting LGBT adopters clearly hasn’t looked.

There is very little specific targeting of LGBT adopters. They have ‘adopters stories’ - 20% of those are gay and lesbian couples which is roughly in line with national stats. They have FAQs - which include one question on adopting if LGBT+ - just like they have questions about being an older adopter or a renter or a disabled adopter. They seem to support a network of LGBT adopters called Proud2BParents.

There is zero evidence that Adoption Now is prioritising recruitment of LGBT+ people at the expense of any other group, much less that that is happening on a national level.

Lgbt+ is an easy to reach community - imagine trying to target eg single women instead. I believe it's led to some agencies taking this easy route rather than marketing more widely.

It does acknowledge that the evidence base is limited. The thing about fc of course is that the children usually stay local, so don't lose their cultural and wider family connections. I adopted children from a part of the country with a strong local culture and they have no connection to it - it's one of those losses which isn't reflected in statistics. (We tried to honor this heritage btw but girls were not interested).

Firstly - their applicant base reflects national statistics (or fairly close) which is hardly surprising given that gay and lesbian couples are very obviously going to disproportionately adopt as a means of starting a family.

Your question is a bit like wondering why wheelchair users make up 1% of the population but 90% of ramp usage.

Second we’re talking about a national shortage - so picking a single agency is not indicative of anything.

Third, promoting to one group does not imply that it comes at the expense of other groups.

“Findings indicate that FC is most consistently associated with instability and cumulative disadvantage, including high rates of mental health problems, disrupted education, unmet health needs, and relational difficulties. Adoption generally provides greater permanence and more favourable outcomes, particularly when it occurs early, though adoption at later ages or following institutional care is often linked to enduring emotional, behavioural, and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Children who remain with their families under CWS support show highly variable trajectories, with positive outcomes when interventions are timely and sustained, but persistent difficulties when family adversity continues and systemic support is lacking. Across pathways, placement stability—conceptualised as both an outcome domain and a protective process—consistently emerges, alongside secure relationships, trauma-informed approaches, and coordinated support, as a critical factor safeguarding children’s developmental outcomes.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12894384/

While there isn’t a huge body of research, what there is largely indicates that across most metrics adoptees have better outcomes than those who were in foster care long term. That was in terms of educational attainment, employment, social and mental wellbeing and behaviours.

None of this is a slight on foster carers by the way. But it is by its nature almost always temporary and unstable. Anyone advocating it as a better option than permanence and stability with gay couples cannot possibly claim to care about child welfare.

If you google outcomes for children in foster care versus adoption, there isn't actually that much research. I found an Australian study which found a high level of benefit and an American one which showed no benefit and UK one somewhere in the middle.

As with other discussions like this, it can end up with people being very critical of foster care, which isn't fair. I adopted two children but their older half siblings went into long term foster care where they had a wonderful family life.

Not saying foster care is preferable to adoption, but it's not necessarily the hell hole that people often make out.

How on earth is staying in care the "lesser of two not so good things"? This is an abhorrent case but rare compared to the harm's we know children experience in care combined with the life outcomes of those who remain in care / are care leavers such as being more likely to be imprisoned, have their own children taken away, substance abuse etc and that's not even talking about the rates of abuse of children in foster homes.

You're correct. I would prefer that. Lesser of two not so good things.

We've done this already on the other thread.
Men as a class of people are much more violent and downright dangerous than women.

You cannot deny that, surely?

So 2 men adopt who are now the children's primary carers who are of the class of people i.e. men who are far more likely to be violent and abusive.

(I believe that if one of them is the bio father that makes things less risky.
Yes that makes sense.
So while I have problems with surrogacy, I will concede it's better for a child to be with its bio dad and his male partner.)

On top of that, however, is that there are 2 unrelated males in sole care of a child. An even riskier situation.

It is also the case that only half of gay men are monogamous.
Now I attribute this to them being male rather than gay.
Maybe some lesbians are non-monogamous but is that such a concern when the class of people they're with (women) are not of the class that are much more likely to be violent and abusive? I don't think that it's a concern.

So people will accept that stepfathers are a danger, but not 2 unrelated males who only have a 1/2 chance of being monogamous.
(It's not unreasonable to suggest that more men will be brought into the child's home who are similarly unrelated.)
I am genuinely puzzled by this.

I'm sure that some are amazing, but given the fact that Varley and his husband (partner? I don't think their marital status is relevant, they were cohabiting) managed to convince professionals they were safe, I don't think it's wise to take the chance.

I will reiterate that my view on this is nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with gender.

I don't wish to be rude but we've done all this already on the other thread.
There's no point us to and fro-ing again. Really there's not.

Why are one quarter of its clients LGBT+ when the % in the UK is only 3.3%, and they highlight this group in their annual report as being a top priority? I can only read this as a disproportionate focus.

I am not against LGBT+ adoption, as I have said in other posts. My main issue is with the Gov strategy and strapping "anyone can adopt" and the imo cynical targetting of what they see as a more or less captive market (albeit surrogacy is not competition). I don't think it's enough to drum up interest among a group with limited other options and morevor less lure them in with a marketing campaign featuring happy families on days out - the reality can be very, very dark, and it's just not being talked about.

Other groups don't seem to be targetted in the same way. I believe that part of the problem is also the LGBT+ community asking to be included and being forthright in welcoming these agencies when they choose to target them - which is fine to a point, but has the drive gone too far? Is the LGBT+ community actually just being exploited?

Apologies, I misremembered the stats. It is 410 gay couples.

But the point stands - that is 410 kids who would be in foster care instead if some people have their way.

That twitter thread doesn't prove anything about a disproportionate focus on LGBT+ adopters. It references getting numbers back up after a fall, along with those of other minority groups.

If the claim is that there aren't enough adopters because the proportion goes disproportionately to promoting adoption to gay couples, then that is not at all evidenced by what you're posted.

So we are back where this started: there is a shortage of adopters, so those wanting to increase that shortage by 600+ each year should explain why they think that a lifetime in foster care is preferable to adoption by gay couples.

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=how+many+lesbians+adoptbin+uk#lfId=ChxjMe

And it is also therefore your view that those 600+ kids a year should spend their childhood in foster care rather than be adopted.