Men should not be able to adopt

[clarinsgirl]

Obviously related to recent tragic events but something I’ve been thinking about for a while. In England and Wales 99% of all those convicted of child sexual offences are men (ONS). 91% of all defendants in child abuse cases are men (ONS). So start point for adoption is men alone cannot adopt.

Of course I realise it’s not that simple but really interested to hear what others think.

Yes it's true that men commit most of these crimes. But thousands, maybe millions of women in the history of the human race, have looked the other way, for all sorts of reasons, while fathers and stepfathers have abused their children. This isn't about gay men, it's about men. Not all men, of course, and sometimes women, but it's usually men. I'm not sure what the answer is but I don't think this is reason to stop men adopting on their own.

Agreed, it’s not about gay men, it’s about men. Some women abuse, some fail to safeguard but the statistics are so overwhelming regarding male perpetrators that I think it merits consideration.

I guess part of my point is, are you then saying no hetero couples should be allowed to adopt?

No, I’m saying only where a woman is involved should adoption be considered. I take your point completely though, the men in heterosexual relationships pose a risk too. My thought process is that you would reduce risk if men alone could not adopt, but of course that doesn’t remove the male risk.

I don't agree. I believe adoption as it's practiced needs to be completely reformed. Infertile/gay/single and heterosexual couples should be made to go through invasive and thorough therapy and only once completed and signed of by a consultant psychiatrist should prospective parents be allowed to adopt. With the caveat that social services are involved in the child's life until they reach adulthood. I aso believe all adoptee's should be entitled to life long, free therapy.

This is what needs to happen, I'm sure some of you will disagree. You want to care for a child that's not biologically yours, then I believe you should be ready and accepting of this. Never again should be the motto.

There was not loads of talk about women not being able to adopt when Leiland-James Corkill was killed by his female adopter.

Also more children would stay in foster care for longer if there were less approved adopters. I know gay adopters that are just as loving and stable as the Hetro household my children are growing up in. You can’t tarnish every gay couple with the brush of these monsters.

At the end of the day the child needs to be the focus. All children that are adopted have trauma. New rules, better safeguarding and more emphasis on the child.

I'll be flamed on this board but I don't care. I believe we need to stop holding those who have adopted as being infallible and incapable of abuse. It's simply not true.

Abuse takes many forms. In the trending post you have people talking about their friends/relatives who have adopted children and they know the child's past, very personal story. Many adopted parents freely share information on their adopted children's life story, believing their user names make them anonymous. People who freely discuss their adopted children's past lives and traumas in my opinion are not being trauma informed parents. Those who demonise biological family and particularly those who are supposed cp social workers should give their heads a wobble (yes jellycat cat I mean you).

Reform reform reform and not the Farage type!

I am with ForDearSwan men are quite able to care for children my lovely father brought me up on his own from when I was 5 ( mother cleared off) He then remarried an evil woman when I was 13 she was cruel!
I know 2 gentlemen who have 2 adopted children they are fantastic parents!
Women can also abuse children

But this isn’t an isolated example- that’s my point. This isn’t about gay men, it’s about men.

I like this. There absolutely has to be reform of adoption. I think there also needs to be reform of social services and information sharing between agencies so that concerns are spotted early and acted upon.

As a male adopter this just makes me fucking miserable.

@ForDearSwan

Why should that level of therapy not be extended to everyone wishing to have a child?
At least one child a week dies at the hands of an adult. The majority are not adopters.
What suggestions do you have for addressing the issue of birth families killing and maiming their children ?
Who has claimed adopters are infallible and incapable of abuse - do you have evidence for this?
Social services involvement until adulthood is fostering, not adoption
As both an adopter and a foster carer, I agree that there is much that could be improved.

If we applied your reasoning consistently and fairly, we’d end up with policies that most people would find absurd.

We wouldn’t allow men to be doctors, teachers, psychologists, youth workers, sports coaches, social workers, and I could go on, simply because the overwhelming majority of offenders in certain categories are male.

“I don’t want this world renowned doctor alone with my child for treatment or care because he’s a man, and 91% defendants in child abuse cases are male.”

It sounds ridiculous.

I agree more could and should be done during the assessment process, but we should always assess individuals on their character and suitability alone, not on the actions of others who happen to share their sex.

I’ve been a Mumsnet lurker for many years and have never felt compelled to post until now, but what I’ve seen in a lot of threads recently is not only disappointing but also concerning.

This place increasingly seems to provide cover for people to make sweeping generalisations and express prejudice while dressing it up as “opinion”, “concern” or “just stating facts”.

Yes, statistics can inform discussion, but they do not justify discrimination. If they did we’d all be judged by the worst members of whatever group we belong to.

Before rushing to judge entire groups of people, perhaps reflect on what you’re actually saying and whether you’d be comfortable having the same standard applied to yourself.

Why would you as an adopted parent not welcome your adopted child having regular check ups till adulthood? I fail to see why this would be an issue. It's not fostering in the slightest It's ensuring that adoptees have better protection. Abuse in adoption isn't just rape and murder.

Therapy should be mandatory for all adoptee's. Notwithstanding because most adoptee's have trauma as jelly's awful demonising of bio parents as drunks/abusive/druggies portrays. Which isn't actually always true, but hell let's take the worst scenarios and run with them as normality.

The discussion is about adopted children. Not bio children. Let's stick to the subject. Bio children do not have the extra layer of trauma that is adoption.

What evidence would you like Ted?

It's adoption that and it's practiced that needs reform.

Agreed!!

It does feel like a ridiculous comment.

Yes men are the abusers - but I think the problems here lie with numerous services not paying attention to the signs. The police being called multiple times - they were being seen by professionals who all missed the signs.

Frankly I just don't think we have enough social workers and their case loads are too high for them to be as vigilant as is required...

Who has claimed adopters are infallible and incapable of abuse - do you have evidence for this?

The findings of the investigation into the murder of baby Shayla (Elsie Scully Hicks) at the hands of her adoptive father, found that the social workers had a 'positive bias' which coloured how they viewed her life, and overlooked the injuries.

I suggest you read this article-

Indeed, it should be no surprise to anyone working in the system that one theme of the review was that, with the benefit of hindsight, professionals were excessively positive about Elsie’s adoptive placement.
The implication is that social workers and health professionals were unwilling to consider that adoptive parents might harm their child.
That is inevitable in a system that, despite the complex realities, views adoption as the optimum outcome for children in care.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/23/social-workers-adoption-system-failings

And

the significance of some of this information was missed; either because it was unknown (the second fracture) or because it was not seen in its proper context – serious bruising and delays in taking S to the GP for example. The reason for this is given as that the adoptive parents would inevitably be seen through a positive lens, as adoption is inevitably seen as a positive thing for a child. Thus as the Review concedes there was a ‘lack of professional curiosity’ regarding S’s experiences.

https://childprotectionresource.online/if-a-parent-has-parental-responsibility-and-no-one-cares-what-remedies-do-they-have/

This.

Exactly the reason I posted this. I’m not actually suggesting we implement this policy, rather wanting to talk about what on earth we do as a society to combat male violence and abuse. Of course I agree that we should all be judged as individuals but it’s impossible to ignore such a delta between male and female offending.

Understood. Male violence and abuse affects society as whole including other men. Whilst 99% of sexual assault on children is committed by men, men will always be judged differently to women. As an adopter what do you think we need to change to safeguard children?

Your analogy is not quite coherent. Being an adoptive parent is not a profession. It’s not subject to frameworks, guidelines and ongoing supervision. This is about entrusting the care of a child to someone completely. I take your point of course- when extrapolated my point becomes absurd but I’m not suggesting extrapolation- just greater diligence when placing vulnerable children.

More needs to happen to safeguard children in general in my opinion. Parents of birth children are statistically more likely to harm their children than adoptive parents and there are not enough checks on children across the board.

There are so many failings in this case but 1 in 5 adopters in the UK are from the LGBT community. Gay men are adopting children traumatised by their birth parents through abuse and neglect of both mother and father and in the vast majority of cases doing a superb job in parenting children that would otherwise be lost in a system of temporary foster placements. They are committing their lives (certainly their mental, physical, financial etc health) to traumatised children and we should be grateful they do.

Preston's prospective adopters are pure animals and it is natural we all feel appalled at the case (I personally can't stop thinking about that poor boy). But men have access to all vulnerable groups and as a pp said, where would it end if we were to restrict their access to children and vulnerable people? I imagine a serious review to assessment and monitoring practices will come from this but restricting men from adopting is not the answer.

I wasn't adopted; I was fostered (in my teen years) in several foster homes. They were all (to a degree) abusive. The very worst, nastiest, and so very cruellest were my foster mothers. They were spiteful pieces of work. I would have given my left arm to have a gay couple or a lone man...as long as they were kind and treated me as a parent should do

That’s a fair point, and I completely agree that adoption carries a different level of responsibility. My analogy was of course intended to exaggerate the principle, not detract from the importance of an adopter’s role.

I also agree with you that the statistics are disturbing and I think I’m safe in saying that the whole system is in need of a complete reform on all fronts. Something should and must be done to protect these children.

But what I can’t agree with is that the male sex, in itself, should be treated as a risk factor just because of shared biological characteristics with existing offenders. It's simply an unfair assumption to make, and stopping them from adopting is not the answer to the issue.

Ostracising a group of individuals with suspicion and an automatic presumption of guilt, not because of anything they have done but because of who they are, is a deeply uncomfortable way of thinking. It is also one that is applied far too easily in this world.

Potential adopters already go through a relatively invasive process - infinitely (literally) more than birth parents go through. It could always be more thorough, but would cost more - would the state be willing to pay more?

I also agree adoptees should be entitled life long free therapy. Even accessing help for children is hard. You go via the Adoption Support Fund. Last year this fund wasn't renewed until after it had finished. This meant the vulnerable children had therapy halted until funding became available. (We were lucky, DD is over 18 and only on monthly sessions now, so we could pay for a couple until it was sorted. Had she been under 18 that wouldn't have been possible due to rules on commissioning, and had she been on weekly sessions she would have been left completely in the lurch.) But again, who is going to fund that?

SWs tend to have very big case loads as it is. Checking in with children post legal adoption will add to that. How are you going to fund it? Is that really more important than better checking on families with known 'at risk' situations?

So all your suggestions aren't necessarily bad, but I think a bit idealistic, and I am left wondering how they would be paid for and why they would be priority over and above many other more pressing child protection concerns.