AIBU to think adopted children need a mother figure?

[Bertiebiscuit]

Men should not be allowed to adopt children. All children need a mother.

Surely those children deserve so, so much more than that. Like loving, secure, legal parents. A constantly drunk mother is absolutely a form of abuse that runs so much deeper than "just emotional distance".
Also - many, many children have an open adoption, where they have some contact with their birth families. That is actively encouraged in almost all cases. In my family's case, the abuse was too great a safeguarding issue to be able to facilitate that. We had to change our son's name (which is almost unheard of now - keeping a child's birth name is a very important part of their identity) because of severe safeguarding concerns.

What do you mean by "big drama"?

My child has two mothers. And 2 fantastic, very involved grandfathers, and lots of uncles.
So your statement is just thinly-veiled homophobia.

What about the OP? Was that also homophobic?

Children in the care system are not just "given up" by their birth families. This isn't the 1960s!!

Yes, of course it was!

What do I mean by Big Drama? Kidnapping, violence, shouting, emotional blackmail etc. etc. Low drama is - Your Mum has a drink problem and you can"t live with her just now, but we can meet her sometimes for a walk in the park etc.

You have absolutely NO idea about how adoption, fostering and the care system works. And downplaying an alcoholic mother is incredibly insulting. That paragraph is absolutely bonkers!!!

I think the underlying issue here is the incest taboo and a tendency to be protective of their own dna.

Unpalatable as it is, there are sexual abusers who seem to have no interest in stepping across that particular line. And men for whom fatherly emotions provide enough of a break to keep a lid on violent tendencies.

Where there are children who are not biologically related, those breaks offer no protection.

I don’t mean to be rude but do you understand the realities of the modern-day care system? We are no longer living in 1965 where naice teenage Shirley down the street got caught out having a bit of rumpy-pumpy, became pregnant on her first occasion, got sent away to a distant relative to ‘convalesce’ after an ‘illness’ - and then came back from the nunnery or home without her baby. That the neighbours did not know about. Contemporary adoption is proscribed by the family courts as the last resort. These are children who have been exposed to heroin, methadone, crack cocaine, cannabis, all the drugs, plus vodka, and most likely domestic abuse, as well as poor nutrition, chaos, dysfunction and extreme poverty while in utero. Contrast this with the typical MN experience of pre-pregnancy vitamins, eating well, yoga, NCT groups, nurture, care and minimal stress. There is an infinitesimally tiny number of babies relinquished these days, because contraception and abortion. All babies, regardless of their in utero experiences, will suffer from having been severed from the mother who grew them for nine months. Babies are not blank slates, they are the sum total of their epigenetics and their genetics. All babies will feel the loss of their birth mothers.

An alcoholic mother is low drama for children?

No, that is why they are under the care of social services, but they can meet her occasionally and know who their mother is without major drama, obviously a social worker or other adult is going to be present.

And when she turns up drunk?

"Oh, sorry love. But at least she's not gay"

Or single.

Yes this is true.

However, all children also need a father.

Every child should have a mother and father and - as children are not a feature of homosexual relationships - homosexual couples should not adopt children.

Not sure if you are being serious or comical, but if she turns up drunk she turns up drunk, that is still their mother and they can see her for what she is, maybe in the future she will turn up sober.

Or single, gay and drunk.

A social worker would never allow a child to be around an intoxicated parent.

Do you realise how damaging it would be for a vulnerable kid who has had their family torn apart by addiction to be put in that situation?

Don’t be ridiculous. No supervising contact worker would permit vulnerable children to be exposed to drunk parents for family sessions. You don’t think that this could be traumatising for children who have had their family decimated by alcohol and who have been terrified by violent and drunken rows that have resulted in 999 call-outs? Like they’re going to shake it off because it’s all a bit of a laugh?

My daughters have older siblings who went into long term foster care with wonderful foster carers. It is utterly disrespectful to foster carers to make out that they offer some kind of "sterile" service. Would you say that to Preston's foster carers?

You do know I'm an adopter? I have plenty of experience of the care system.

as children are not a feature of homosexual relationships - homosexual couples should not adopt children.

• that doesn't make sense : you're saying since a gay relationship can't biologically produce children, they shouldn't adopt?

If you ban lesbian couples adopting- and presumably single women adopting you'd ban too as there's no father?- that takes away a lot of potential adopters and foster carers. Do you then think it's better for a child to be in care (which statistically has poor outcomes) than adopted or fostered by a lesbian couple, single woman, etc?

For that matter, would you have banned these 2 Texan sisters from adopting because there's no father figure?

https://www.kveller.com/these-sisters-adopted-6-children-on-national-adoption-day/

I do think men alone is different due to higher SA risk though not sure if I'd totally ban.

I respect the fact you have a different opinion.

Procreation is not a feature of gay relationships, indicating they are not "meant" to have children and are not equipped to provide what a child needs.

(just as I, a man, am not equipped to be a replacement for a mother).

Im not familiar with the stats for state care, or other types of carers, but I dont agree with the stance that "anything is better than care".

What about the child being raised in the wilderness by a pack of wolves, is that better than care?

Im being facetious there, obviously, but Im sure some kids who have been in care must thrive.

I think the state must prioritise the good of child in every case, before ideological actions - as the placing of a child with these 2 men surely was.

The Gov loves adoption because it takes children out of local authority budgets. Foster carers are paid and the local authority has to manage the placement, which comes at a cost, and care leavers are entitled to certain support. Adoption transfers all responsibility to the adopters and most don't qualify for financial support.

There is also a long standing history of adoption in this country. This is relatively unusual btw - most countries don't dobit and the children do go into institutional care or are left in their birth families.

Some children benefit from adoption but a lot of people think the system is broken and that children shouldn't be adopted. This is a debate for another time.

But anyway, foster care can be warm and loving, that's the point I wanted to make.

To be honest, I think you are very out of touch with how bad things are nowadays. Your children are now very grown up now, aren’t they? You were probably in the halcyon days of SureStart centres etc, plus lots of funding. And not so many battles for help in schools. Also, I was surprised that you did not understand the role of an IRO, until it was pointed out to you by a number of posters that a primary part of their job is actually to meet the children for whom they have oversight. You may live in a very rich borough where adopters have access to lots of services but this is not the reality for the rest of us. Also, I have no beefs with any foster carers as I know they are as screwed over as adopters by local authorities and the government but I did take exception to your comments about the lovely, caring children’s homes, like they’re some sort of luxury hotel. Children are now being placed in unregulated accommodation, like Airbnbs and b&bs, because there is such a shortage of suitable placements. Please, and I know I will be accused of being patronising, but I would recommend that you join PATCH to find out the realities of local authorities’ approaches to adopters and adoption now.

Yep - you have NO idea what you are talking about. Your opinions are so ridiculous they are offensive.

You’ve spelled “homophobic” wrong!
i’ve (several) lovely same sex friends with kids. They’re (all) amazing parents. My own mom (am from a very straight family, no divorces, etc etc) … not so much.