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?

I don't care if I'm called a misandrist or a homophobe - safeguarding is too important
Safeguarding is important, but you're talking about selective safeguarding.

Safeguarding is the act of reducing any form of immediate and significant harm.

Women do also cause immediate and significant harm.

The fact the statistics are lower for women doesn't matter much to the abused child.

The whole point of safeguarding is to remove it completely as much as possible, not to decide that it should only be a focus for the marginally more at risk.

What about gay women?

Why not ? Your soundbite comment doesn't really have context.

I imaging because every gay man, except her imaginary son, is a pedo?

Myra Hindley and Rose West are female.

Why not?
Context?

I don’t think they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt but I think the checks and balances need to be reviewed. I really don’t believe that two gay men who admitted the express intention of adopting a baby purely for their own disgusting and depraved satisfaction have lived exemplary lives up to this point. That nothing has shown up on checks isn’t necessarily an indication that there is nothing amiss - it’s just as likely they’ve been given free passes along the way.

The current trend of being afraid to safeguard for fear of causing offence or being considered a bigot needs to be stopped. This baby was brought into hospital three times with significant injuries but no-one thought to involve social services ? Yeah right.

Well these two certainly were weren’t they. And gave us all a lesson in how to avoid detection before it was too late for this poor little baby.

Social services were involved and visiting the whole time.

Oh yes it does. Otherwise this wouldn’t have happened would it ?

Why doesn’t that surprise me ?

What about the women who have a string of boyfriends coming in and out of the house ? Is that any safer do you think ? Given the numbers of children who have been abused by ‘uncles’ while the mother turns a blind eye because a dick is more important than their own child.

The OP seems oblivious to the fact that sexual abuse, while undoubtedly very serious, is by far the least prevalent type of abuse.
I know it's not a direct comparison, but for child protection cases, neglect and emotional abuse make up around 75-80%. I can tell you that many, many of those households have a woman in them. A woman being present is no barrier to abuse.

The action of one single couple or family don’t speak for everyone though, do they?
We’ve had countless more cases like this from hetro couples and we don’t blame every single couple.

Really!!!!
Victoria Climbè
Baby P
Arthur Labinjo Hughes
Sara Sharif
Star Hobson
In fact 1,3&5 were abused by the women caring for them! And the other 2 had women carers who allowed the abuse to continue and did nothing to protect the children.
But yeah let’s focus on the gay adopters!

Because 98% of sex crimes are committed by men. And the single most dangerous factor for abuse happening in a home is the addition of a step parent.

Women generally do not sexually abuse children. Men do. Putting children in a home with two adoptive/step/foster carers that are both male seems statistically dangerous if a child is 40x more likely to be abused with just one unrelated male being in their lives.

Most child abuse isn't sexual though.

And just look at the threads on this board. Day after day you have women dealing with incompetent fathers with short tempers, who lose interest in their children, who turn violent once a baby arrives and the pressure presents itself. Women are far superior parents and a child should have a mother in all cases where that is possible.

There is a reason for most children residing with the mother in divorces.

Tell that to that poor baby....

Children have been murdered by lesbian couples - look at Star Hobson. So I dont see why they should not be excluded.

Most murdered children are from homes with a man and a woman in them come to think about it. I guess heterosexuals aren't safe either.

You haven’t really addressed your point that gay couple pose any higher risk.

And people who share custody? My daughter spends every other weekend with her father- do we ban that too?

Because they are 2 men. And men are 98% of sex criminals. And more likely to inflict violence on children. What part of that is difficult to understand? That if you have a male and female parent the father is much more likely to be an abuser, most people fleeing domestic violence are women escaping from men.
Men are statistically more likely to be sex offenders, murders, violent, alcoholics.

Roughly 94% of all prisoners are male vs 6% female.

So placing a baby with 2 non biologically parental males (regardless of their sexuality) with no maternal figure to protect them if needed seems extremely dangerous.

Men cannot gestate a baby without a woman. Women can concieve then gestate, feed and raise a baby on her own with no contact after conception. Women are capable of raising babies even with no input from the father.

Men aren't able to do that. Its just the truth.

It goes against human nature completely and it is cruel to purposely deprive a baby of a mother.

Is there actually any evidence that children are more at risk of abuse in male only households compared to male-female households?