AIBU to question adoption checks after this safeguarding failure?

[User05677229]

I can’t stop thinking about little Preston Davey. That poor baby boy, taken into care as a newborn, seemed happy and healthy in foster care, only to be adopted by a gay male couple and then subjected to months of the most horrific sexual and physical abuse before being murdered. How did this happen? How did red flags get missed?

I’m a mum of two, and like many of you, I’ve always supported loving homes for children who need them. But cases like this shake me to the core. I’m not saying no gay men should ever adopt - that’s not realistic or fair. But we have to be honest: the data and repeated safeguarding failures suggest that male same-sex couples (particularly for very young children) need extra rigorous scrutiny, not less.

Social workers and adoption panels seem terrified of being called homophobic. So they bend over backwards to approve placements that might raise eyebrows in heterosexual couples. Fast-tracked approvals, ignoring instincts about motivation, lack of a female parent for a tiny baby - all while birth mothers are scrutinised to the nth degree. This isn’t kindness to adults; it’s gambling with children’s safety.

Baby Preston had injuries consistent with sexual abuse, multiple hospital visits, concerns raised… and still nothing stopped it. Eight missed opportunities, apparently. That’s not just individual evil - that’s a system that’s lost its nerve.

Can we please have an honest conversation?

Better psychological and background checks specifically for single men and male couples adopting infants.

Mandatory longer observation periods.

No more rushing through to meet diversity targets.

Social workers must be protected from accusations of bias when they flag legitimate concerns about any applicant, including gay men.

Children deserve the best possible chance, not to be experiments in adult validation. Every child in the care system has already been let down once. We owe them robust, evidence-based safeguarding - not ideology.

RIP little Preston. This should never have happened.

What do others think? Am I being unfair?

I’d like to know what evidence you have of fast tracked adoption processes for gay men, for panels and social workers not challenging gay men and for gay couples having any kind of priority in the adoption process.

Any and every prospective adopter or fosterer should have their hard drives, online history, etc subject to rigorous checks.

What more checks would you have done prior to approving theory application? Specifically.

So you don’t actually have any evidence that concerns which might make a heterosexual couple be deemed as unsuitable are overlooked for homosexual couples?

Should all children in care be appropriately safeguarded - yes of course.

Can you make accurate, fair assumptions on the actions of social workers based on the anecdotal view of a grieving family member - no.

It’s horrific what’s happened but you haven’t actually provided any evidence to back up your claims. A higher proportion of same-sex couples adopting is likely due to it being their main route into parenthood. That doesn’t mean they’re prioritised or fast-tracked. It would also mean any stats are skewed when compared to opposite-sex couples unless you looked at averages. And quoting the maternal grandmother is again not solid evidence or fact she just said they “may have been hesitant to act”.

You can also refer to sadly far too many cases of child abuse with opposite-sex couples, baby P, Victoria Climbie, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Star Hobson the list goes on and on.

There are many issues in the system (I work in a role related to safeguarding myself but with post-16s) I think your directing your issues at the wrong focus area here. More checks yes, should they be focused on only same-sex couples? Not in my opinion.

I don't see how more same sex couple adopting is worthy of comment.

Same sex couples can't conceive in the same way that opposite sex couples can. It's pretty obvious that a higher proportion of same sex couples will look to adopt.

That doesn't mean that they are intrinsically more likely to be abusive.

Here's what the evidence shows on your specific questions.

Even what you've put up after this shows no evidence at all! It either straight out says you're wrong, or just repeats some opinions.

I’ve no data either way. But a priori you should be expect a family with two men in it to be riskier for sex abuse than a family with one in it.

Might still be an acceptable risk level overall, but let’s start with the right baseline assumptions.

Statistically single parent households or unstable households regardless of gender are more likely to experience abuse than those with two parents even if both genders are male.

The checks for adoptive parents seem very hard. Yet most of us just get to have a child with no checks, questions or anything at all-and the only difference between me and a friend who adopted is I'm lucky enough to have no fertility problems. No one asked about my bank account!
Being fertile doesn't automatically make someone a good parent-yet there's no checks if you conceive (whether hetero or gay, obviously gay men can't conceive with their partner, while if us women are in a same sex relationship, there are ways to get pregnant so we don't have to adopt) naturally.
Why make life even harder for anyone who is struggling with infertility, while most of us have no checks or investigations at all?

What happened to baby Preston while abhorrent, is exceedingly rare

They didn't torture that baby because they are gay, they did it because they a evil perverts

We have an enormous shortage of adopters currently and as gay men can only become parents through adoption, surrogacy or doing a deal with a lesbian couple - then there will be more of them adopting. If we make it harder for gay men to adopt - children will be languishing in care forever with no hope of a new family (there are around 3000 children in the UK waiting to be adopted and only 1000-1500 adopters)

Abusers are masters of manipulation and lying - this is why many don't get caught for a very long time. - if they were easy to spot, children would never be abused

Poor Preston had 3 visits to hospital I think, one was elbow fracture which is a common injury, one was breathing problems and one was sickness and a temp - putting them together doesn't give anyone an idea of abuse. He had minor bruises but then the abuse obviously escalated - he was only there 4 months

As a foster care, who has been through many adoptions - the process is very difficult for the adopters and can take years. We worry for every child that moves on but honestly, I worry more for the ones who are returned to family over the adopted children

It's important to understand that the adopter here was exceedingly clever and manipulative, he was not only a teacher but a safeguarding lead at the school. He would have known exactly what to say and the warning signs of abuse or concerns that social workers would have been looking for. It is extremely difficult to conduct checks that pick up potential red flags or concerns in those circumstances. The best chance is you get a very experienced social worker who is professionally curious and can see small hints or nuances. That is very difficult.

I have said on another thread that whilst men abuse far more than women, gay men do not abuse more than heterosexual men, and women are not a protective factor for abuse (sometimes because they are complicit or supportive of the abuse, sometimes because they do not know or suspect their partner could do such a thing). We know for example that stepfathers (in heterosexual relationships) are the number one murder risk to babies and young children. So there's no logic in suggesting increased scrutiny for gay adopters - that would apply equally to any man.

YABU because you know nothing about the adoption assessment process

Do you think straight men don't abuse their adopted kids?

An AI answer that just parrots your own opinions back to you isn't in any way 'evidence'. God help us if this is how the general public understand AI.

The adoption process is already very thorough and there doesn't seem to have been anything pre-adoption that could have been a red flag.

Even the police who investigated after the murder didn't find any evidence that could have predicted it.

The pre-adoption process doesn't seem to have been at fault.

What needs to be looked at is whether there were missed opportunities post adoption, eg when Preston arm was broken.

What difference would that have made here?

I’m going to ignore the AI stuff in your post because it’s practically unreadable and not based in fact.

We can’t have an honest conversation about this adoption assessment as we don’t know the facts. That’s what the enquiry needs to cover and identify not us on Mumsnet.

If there were gaps in the assessment or failings in their approval then that will become clear.

What we all have to understand and sadly accept is sometimes children will die in horrible circumstances and there won’t always be missed opportunities to prevent that. We don’t yet know if this is really the case here.

Put your effort into being concerned about surrogacy. At least there are checks with adoption, anyone with the money can commission a baby by surrogacy with absolutely no checks at all.

The foster mother and hospital staff raised concerns.

Why make life even harder for anyone who is struggling with infertility, while most of us have no checks or investigations at all

Adoption should not be about providing infertile people with children. It is about providing a family for a child who doesn't have one