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?

Pride has become poisoned by the trans and fetish community now - it’s got sod all to do with the LGB community and many think it’s actually harming them. It is men dressed in leather ‘puppy play’ gear, with cocks hanging out and claiming it’s a family friendly event.

YABU. Women can be abusers too. I'd rather they had much more stringent and regular checks of the child(ren), including thorough medical examinations to check for bruising, abrasions, other unexplained marks.

Oh yes - because Myra Hindley and Rose West did excellent work in keeping Ian Brady and Fred's appetites in check.

Married hetero couples have also abused adopted children.

Just ban adoption.

🙄

You are being totally unreasonable here . I’ve heard of plenty of women murdering children and mistreating them . There should be more close monitoring and checks in place. Men are just as well able to be parents as women.

Women aren´t so much into sexual abuse, but other kinds of abuse, yes. Anyone should be thoroughly vetted. We all know a few unsuitables get through the cracks, but it should be a rarity.

I agree. A child is far better off with a mother figure.

OP, sadly a huge number of abused children are abused by female carers or their partners. The presence of a woman is not in itself a safeguarding priority. Proper assessment is what matters.

You are being spectacularly unreasonable.

Some of the best foster/ adoptive parents that I know is a male couple. They don't only support their own dc, but other couples (of both sexes) who foster as well.

Their main priority is the welfare and wellbeing of the children and for someone with no knowledge to try to diminish these amazing relationships purely because of their sex is frankly disgusting.

I have skin in this game as my gay brother and his husband have adopted their son who has been with them since he was two years old and is now in secondary school.

I have also been through the first stages of adoption process myself (due to DHs infertility) - up to the assessment stage when we were declined due to my chronic migraine. It was emotionally rough all round.

The process of adopting is a nightmare for all involved. It is not quick or easy, but I can see how glib, sweet talking people will get through it more easily than people who are fully open and honest about their own shortcomings.

For all the naysayers - let's say male gay adoption was indeed banned, what do you want to do about all the children who have one or two adoptive dads at the moment? Or children where single fathers have primary custody in general?

Being a gay man does not mean you are a danger to children.

It is a ridiculous thing to imply and pure homophobia.

As a child and teenager I was mentally and physically abused and neglected by my parents. They were a married, straight, middle class male/female couple. My mother just stood there when my father hit me in the face, knocking me to the ground simply because he was having a bad day and she never said anything about his inappropriate behaviour towards me. So much for women instinctively protecting kids...

Anyone who works in social services will also tell you the parents that abuse come from all sorts of backgrounds.

The bruises in Preston's case were noted repeatedly. Nurses, doctors and social workers all saw them and even reported them.

But they all decided that the best thing to do was ... nothing.

Yes I am…but…91% of abuse carried by men ≠ 91% of men are abusers

I’m more worried about the political landscape and impact on vulnerable children.

One of the LA’s local to me has a leader promising to save ‘billions’ in council spending, another has an inexperienced, newly elected councillor designated as the member responsible for Children’s Services. The councillor role is to ensure senior LA staff ( Director/Assistant Directors CYPS in this case) are held to account, challenged and impact positively. Another council has withdrawn the Overview and Scrutiny Committee responsible for Children in Care ( to save money).
All are Reform led/majority councils.

Without this regular, rigorous and serious overview by elected councillor members, children are even more vulnerable to devious and ineffective adults.

OP do you have children? Does their father abuse them? Do you tell him he’s a sexual predator or a paedophile?

I hear that you are raging against the injustice of child abuse, OP. And I can hear myself saying what you’ve said a few years ago, but on reflection I don’t think this is the answer. I have friends who were brought up by their dad because their mum was abusive and know a gay couple who adopted a child and are really solid, loving parents, giving their child a safe and secure upbringing that I don’t think they’d otherwise necessarily have. I think the answer lies somewhere in improving public services funding (Social service, NHS, etc) and training and working conditions so staff aren’t so overstretched and things like this arent so frequently missed. But I feel your rage. Child abuse is truly one of the biggest evils of this world.

Is it astounding or are you just annoyed some posters are not supporting you ?

Eh, honestly, I get where you are coming from. And I'm a lesbian. Men commit like 90% of sexual violence against children. It's not all men, but it's almost always men. The problem is, preventing gay men/single men from adopting would not do a single thing to alter sexual abuse statistics. These men will always find a way to abuse. There has to be a better way of addressing men's behaviour. Social services is also obviously in dire straits, and it is difficult to safeguard children in a broken system.

That being said, I have a two year old, and personally wouldn't send my pre-verbal child to a nursery with male workers. I don't care if that makes me sound unhinged 🤷

And those that decided to do nothing. Were they male or female?

It’s always been a tactic of paedophiles to latch on to the gay equality movements to try to get their preferences accepted.

And foolish types like Patricia Hewitt are happy to help.

This was an absolutely vile murder. That poor little sweetheart was tortured. I couldn’t even follow the trial.
I rarely stand up for men but in this situation you can’t have an outright ban.
At least adoptive children have some sort of monitoring unlike surrogacy.
In this case the social workers were useless and sadly in many situations before this happened.

Regardless of her crimes, the mother (Sarah Davey) seemed to have better instincts than the adoption panel and social workers. She wasn’t against adoption but she didn’t want these two men to adopt her baby.

The Telegraph reports:

Sarah was also against the adoption and launched a legal claim but was powerless to prevent the order going ahead.

Men clearly pose a higher risk to children, but there are so many cases of abuse where there was a female in the home and it didn’t help prevent it so that won’t really solve anything. Someone really determined to have access to children for nefarious reasons would be willing to sustain a relationship to gain that.

What we need is serious research into understanding the psychological/behavioural profile of people more likely to inflict abuse and screen people using scientific methods.

Psychometric/psychological testing, genetics, brain scans etc could reveal indicators of empathy, emotional processing, aggression, impulse control and sexual arousal traits.

As others have said it is not a right to be able to adopt a child and they will have already experienced a lot of hardship and be vulnerable, so although some suitable people would be prevented from adopting the priority has to be safety of the child.

There’s a lot more that could be done to counter predators who are adept at presenting as a decent humans beings.

When you think of the number of people involved in Preston Davey’s case, the time and cost to investigate, prosecute and incarcerate- that should all be funnelled into prevention rather than after a tragedy has occurred.

Is it now solely women’s responsibility to weed out abusive men?

A lot of posters seem to think I think all men abuse their children.

I can't tell if they're being disingenuous or are just stupid.

Of course the vast majority of men are fine to be with children.

But proportionality is essential when it comes to safeguarding.

You're not being unhinged by not sending a pre-verbal child to a nursery with male workers.. you're simply listening to your natural instincts and not being dictated to by cool kid propaganda.