AIBU - Men should not be allowed to adopt or foster children unless they're with a woman. Safeguarding first.

[RedQuail4]

I know this will get the "bigot" and "not all men" brigade out in force, but can we please talk about actual child protection instead of feelings and equality checkboxes?

Children in care are already some of the most vulnerable kids in the country. They've often been abused, neglected, or come from chaotic backgrounds. The state has a duty to place them in the safest possible environment, not to use them as a social experiment for adult rights or to prove how progressive we are.

Look at the data on who harms children. The vast majority of serious physical and sexual abuse is committed by males. Single male households show higher risks in the statistics for child abuse, domestic violence exposure, and poorer outcomes in some studies. Women aren't perfect (far from it), but the biological and statistical reality is that men pose a higher risk, especially without a female partner in the home. A woman in the household often acts as a natural safeguard - someone who is more likely to notice, intervene, or report concerning behaviour.

We've seen too many tragic cases where single men (or gay men with access to children without proper oversight) have gone on to abuse fostered or adopted kids. Social services and adoption agencies are under huge pressure to find placements, so corners get cut and "inclusive" policies mean they bend over backwards to approve single men. The child's safety should trump everything.

Why are we gambling with kids who already lost the lottery once?

Adoption and fostering aren't a right for adults. They're not about giving men a purpose or validating lifestyles. They're about finding the most suitable, lowest-risk home for damaged children. A stable married couple (or at least a man with a woman in the home) should be the gold standard. Single women? Fine, the evidence supports they generally manage better. Single men? A male couple? No. The risk profile is different.

If a man wants to parent, he can find a wife first. Harsh? Maybe. But we're talking about other people's traumatised children, not virtue-signalling or men's feelings. Safeguarding isn't prejudice - it's pattern recognition.

This isn't about hating men. It's about not ignoring sex-based patterns in crime and abuse data when placing vulnerable kids. Same reason we don't put male staff in every girls' changing room. Thoughts? Am I being unreasonable?

Exactly.

Women routinely torturing and sexually abusing children. And not those feckless promiscuous drunks or addict women.

Women married to God and specifically put in the places where they tortured and sexually abused children because they were those good, holy and righteous women protecting them from the evils of the world aka men.

Exactly!

I wish people would focus on the actual problem: the adults who abuse children, and not extrapolate a generality from this that is untrue and unjust.

Exactly, what could have been safer statistically than a group of single women caring for children no chance at all they would have come to any harm. /S

If you don’t put people through rigorous safeguarding checks over time and really look at their hard drives then it will happen again

This links in to my wondering - and I don't pretend to know - whether "rightthink" influenced the selection of this particular pair in any way

Nobody's suggesting that all men, far less gay men, are abusers, but where a very vulnerable child's involved I'd have thought it crucial to place them only with those likely to present the very lowest risk ... and yes I don't believe hard drive searches should be excluded here

It’s pointless if they don’t already have something on their record/hard drive etc though

Absolutely, yes, but it's just another check which may be worthwhile in the circumstances

Even the reaction to such a request could be an indicator, and 3hile it's not the sort of thing I'd normally advocate for, for me the protection of such children raises this to a different level

Which I think opens up a huge field of questions.

I think the assumption of many including the OP is that based on statistics, men are simply more inclined to abuse. Whether that's testosterone or whatever, that it's simply something in men.

But the approved schools, Magdalene laundries, children's homes and cults worldwide show us that even in an over-arching patriarchy, if you give women power,some will also abuse children including sexually.

Which suggests it's less about men being more inclined to abuse, just more frequently being in positions of power to do so.

In which case, women cannot be concluded to be the safer sex.

Hey so let me give you a quick list of names you might have heard.

Rose west
Mary bell
Therese kouau
Vanessa george
Myra Hindley
Tracy connolly
Diane downs

I await your moral panic of "safeguarding first!!!" to follow its logical conclusion that women should also be banned from adoption...

There have been plenty of cases of women abusing children and even more cases of women not protecting children from a male predator. Your suggestion is just homophobic OP. There seems to be a lot of it about now.

Agreed. But on the other hand experts have said Myra Hindley wouldn't have committed her vile crimes if she hadn't met Ian Brady. Not sure about Rose West. But there are very few female serial killers who act alone.

So should only single women be allowed to adopt?

Which comes down to the question I just asked about power.

Give some women the power to abuse and they will, enthusiastically.

That doesn't mean women are the safer sex, it just means there are more women than we would like to think who are inclined to abuse and torture but are just looking for a man to enable them and give them that power.

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have done so without a man, just that they would have abused in less violent ways without one.

These threads always focus on the violence and sexual abuse but we know women who abuse tend to use less violent ways which can be just as damaging for the victim.

As all the threads on MN about abusive Mother's attest to.

The focus of this thread appears to be that two gay men should not be allowed to adopt because of a recent tragic case. I disagree.

The sexuality of adoptive parents is not the issue. The issue is whether adoption assessments, safeguarding arrangements, oversight and support are robust enough to protect vulnerable children. Tragic failures can occur in any family structure, and it is wrong to draw conclusions about an entire group of adopters from a single case.

What concerns me far more is whether those responsible for overseeing children's services actually understand their statutory responsibilities. Having watched the first meeting of a newly elected Reform council (the meetings are public, held virtually and available to view), I was genuinely horrified by the apparent lack of understanding shown about the legal duties local authorities owe to vulnerable children and children in care.

The Reform councillor responsible for Children and Young People spoke about removing regular Corporate Parenting meetings and replacing them with meetings where vulnerable families and parents could share their experiences directly with councillors. This was not a minor misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. It demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of both his role and the council's statutory responsibilities.

Councillors are not caseworkers. They should not be involved in individual cases, nor should they have access to confidential information about vulnerable children and families. Their role is to provide strategic leadership, scrutiny, challenge and accountability. Corporate Parenting arrangements exist precisely because children in care require rigorous oversight from elected members acting in their role as corporate parents.

Frankly, I found it alarming that a councillor entrusted with such a critical portfolio appeared to have so little understanding of the purpose of Corporate Parenting, the importance of confidentiality, or the council's legal duties towards some of the most vulnerable children in society.

This is not good enough. Children's Services is one of the most important responsibilities a local authority holds. Decisions made by elected members can have profound consequences for vulnerable children. Competence, knowledge and accountability are not optional. They are essential.

Knowledgeable councillors matter far more to children's safety and wellbeing than culture-war arguments about the sexuality of adoptive parents. The real issue is whether those charged with oversight understand the responsibilities they have been elected to discharge.

No they havent said that. They said that she woukd have latched onto anyone who validated her desire to sexually abuse and kill. He just happened to have popped up. Same with Rose West.

Apparently the mother is now complaining

I think the question we should be asking is why no one put 2 + 2 together to make 4, and did some joined up thinking as to why the poor child had unexplained injuries time and time again, and that the social workers or medics didn't follow through on any concerns.

When a child has unexplained injuries, you should as a professional, be able to raise concerns without worrying about offending one of the 9 protected characteristics.

I think there is a 3rd party involved in the murder of this child and its name is Woke Bullshit.

Another dead person because people are too scared to do their job and not be labelled a homophobe/ trans hater/ racist.

I’m suspicious of pairs of men who try to adopt.

Biological fathers also abuse their children. Probably in greater numbers than gay couples.

Didn’t Rose West murder one of her victims on her own?

Given that Preston’s own mother was clearly incredibly violent and sadistic, torturing an elderly lady for days before murdering her and dumping her body, I’m a little shocked at this stance.

Also, a woman in the house is very often NOT a stop to a truly abusive man. There are so many instances where men have abused their kids and the mum was living there.

So the only ones left that are safe enough are single women and lesbian couples. But then we get people like Star Hobson’s killer.

I'm suspicious of people who are overly cheerful in the morning. Should my suspicions also be grounds for deciding how big a shortage of families for vulnerable children we should have.

I repeat the question I've asked on multiple threads.

If you think gay couples and single men should not be allowed to adopt. Fine. That means hundreds of children a year without adoptive homes. Some questions:

1. What's your plan for their care?
2. What research have you done about your preferred alternative?
3. What are the implications for child welfare and wellbeing for the hundreds of children that will be subject to your plan B?

Yes she did. She killed her stepdaughter when Fred was in prison. She was also described by their daughter as more violent and sadistic than Fred a lot of the time.

Some people want an excuse to out their homophobia. Did the same posters say no biological mother should be allowed to raise her own child after news about Louise Porton, Lauren Saint George, Nicole Blain, Constance Marten?

Yes, it's generally accepted that Rose was the driving force. It started with Fred encouraging her to be into swinging, he was a bit of a voyeur, but Rose had a very definite sexual interest and sadistic sexual interest in younger women. It's believed Rose's sadism was part of a personality disorder linked to her own abuse, not that that in any way excuses it, but just to show that it came from her, it wasn't a result of Fred's influence (though of course the two of them being together meant it developed into something else entirely)

I have a feeling the OP won't come back after this post!