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?

It's not an analogy, it's a question-maybe your reply is dumb as it doesn't recognise the difference.

See the thing is that while I'm generally not for gay male couples using a surrogate, I will concede that as at least of them is the father the child is at less risk of abuse.

Putting a child with two men neither of which are related to it, hmm...

It's all about odds, isn't it?

Safeguarding procedures are obviously not fit for purpose.

Why would you concede that?

There is absolutely no oversight of surrogacy. Unfortunately there have also been recent cases of such men procuring children to sexually abuse. The abuse isn't as simple as genetic material preventing it.

This study refers to surrogate parents but actually means adoptive, foster, step or actual parent's intimate partner. The findings showed a stark increase in the risk of murder of children by these male surrogate parents compared with their male biological parents:

www.researchgate.net/publication/353804591_Comparing_Fatal_Child_Abuse_Involving_Biological_and_Surrogate_Parents

Well, stop giving babies to strangers then.

What a ridiculous response. It's a straight question that for some reason you refuse to answer. I wonder why.

😂as if you think that's a gotcha. I wouldn't give a baby to strangers. HTH.

Oh bless you, a question can be analogous. Unless you conciously brought up a totally unrelated question into a topic, it's reasonable to assume you question is an analogy to support your unreasonable suggestion that all adoptions should be by lesbian couples no?

Like the Harts who drove their six adopted kids off a cliff after starving, beating and drugging them?

If you mean that the chikd was in care because ultimately the mother was too neglectful to care for it, I agree.

So yet another poster I can ask the question of, and who will no doubt fail to give an answer.

You don't way gay couples adopting. OK.

There is currently a major shortage of adopters - and that is with gay couples adopting hundreds of children each year.

What is your plan to protect the interests and welfare of those children?

They've told you several times, leave them in foster care. What else would they suggest?

@aliceyyyy2654 it’s not homophobic to refer to the fact that men are a danger to children and women in a way that women are not.

@RedQuail4 i agree to an extent but once again it’s women having to cancel out the deplorable actions of men

Men are statically more dangerous to women, we all agree. Can you send me the stats that gay men are stastically as dangerous to women and children and heterosexual men are? If we're gonna judge purely by stats then that would be a necessary data angle to look at.

Actually Women are the overwhelming abusers of cildren 80% tp 90%

100% agree with you, OP

Homophobia is not the answer here.

@Musney whats your source for this? Genuinely interested!

Actually, I don't want male gay couples adopting.
Lesbian couples? No problem at all.
To answer your question, I suppose that they'll have to remain in care.

I’m sceptical of these figures, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were more cases of female abusers overall. Because women are far more often the primary carers of children.

Right. And where are the foster carers coming from for this extra few hundred kids needing care each year?

Plus, presumably you also don't think gay couples should be allowed to foster, so your pool of fosterers is shrinking by hundreds and your pool of children needing foster care is increasing by hundreds in a system where there is already a severe shortage of foster carers.

And of course that's before you consider what the outcomes look like for those hundreds of children who will never know a permanent home and family.

Are you aware of the statistics surrounding foster care/care homes for children in this country?
Children and adults who were in care have a higher chance of being criminals, drug addicts, teen parents, unemployed or even dying at a young age than children and adults who were adopted by couples of any gender.

It does make it hard to believe concern for children's welfare is your main concern when you so flippantly accept them staying in care..

Most foster carers who care for babies and toddlers are older retired couples, so they wouldn't be able to stay with them. Where do they go instead?