AIBU to think adopted children need a mother figure?

[Bertiebiscuit]

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

Also what do the staunch married heterosexual adopters only suggest happens if one of the partnership dies before the children reach adulthood? Should those bereaved, traumatised children be shipped back into foster care until another suitable married adopter is found?

There are too many children needing a family, and too few people willing to adopt, though 🤷‍♀️

If I choose to carry a baby for my sister, how is that "actually breeding human beings in order to sell them"? And whilst we're about it what happened to "my body, my choice"?

I do actually think very young children, which Preston was, need a maternal attachment figure. I do think that is in ingrained biological need within us. It's hard not to think that if you've had a baby. I grew my DD. She was part of me. When she was a newborn, it felt like a physical ache. Like I had to be with her and protect her and love her. We can't ask a newborn how it feels, but I can't imagine that a baby losing this doesn't cause some damage to them. Otherwise, adoption should be very child led. Some children are unable to trust women, some unable to trust men, or etc. Some children will be better off with two men, some children will do better with just one parent, and so on.

Men unfortunately are dangerous as a social class. Obviously not all men sexually abuse children, but it is almost always men. Unfortunately stopping gay men or single men adopting will not stop men abusing children. These predators will always find a way.

That being said, I'm a lesbian, but I totally understand why people would feel nervous about a vulnerable child being adopted to male only household.

The only problem is, all those not wanting ‘the gays’ and single people to adopt are going to get a hell of a shock when they get their council tax bill and the social care precept from their LA has absolutely skyrocketed. There are not enough foster care placements for all the children who need to come into care, mainly because the government treats foster carers with the same contempt as it does adopters. The average annual cost for housing a looked after child is now approximately £350,OOO per annum. Mainly because offshore investment companies, usually backed by the super wealthy in Dubai, are cornering the market in privately providing children’s homes to meet the need for those children who cannot safely live at home. Local authorities are going bust because of their mounting social care bills. There are currently 3,000 children in care in England (and I’m not even including Wales and Scotland here) who are freed for adoption but not enough prospective adopters. So if gay people and / or single people are not allowed to adopt, how do you think this is going to pan out?

Yes, the mother is totally vile and mentally disturbed, in U.S her and the accomplice might have got the gas chamber?

They didn't want people to be swayed by a cute photo when there was a lot of uncertainty due to Preston's background.
Issues in a 'heslthy' 9 month old might only become clear later eg drug exposure in utero, foetal alcohol syndrome, parental mental illness.
Many people would be cautious about adopting where there are so many unknowns.

The birth Mother is a vile whack job though, electric chair probably too good for her and her scum of an accomplice?

I can understand- though I don't agree- people thinking a setup without a father or marriage is less good..

What I can't understand is saying adoption by lesbians,,single women, unmarried straight couples should be banned- do people who think this think being in care or fostered is better than being adopted by 2 women, 1 woman , an unmarried straight couple?

Yeah I'm not saying mum's can't be pieces of shit, just that I do think it's a biological need for a baby to be mothered. It's just nature imo 🤷

the OP has a point insofar as we need think about the extent to which women actually enable men to be decent caregivers. From a risk perspective, I think there is more risk to a child when with a man. The statistics show that most sexual violence is perpetrated by men. That is a risk that has to be managed.

women also post a risk to children - but the fact that most sexual violence is perpetrated by men cannot be ignored. sexuality has nothing to do with it. Children are more at risk around men.

Fair enough, this mum isn"t just a piece of shit though, she is a very dark and evil bastard who brutally killed an innocent old woman, with her pal there to help in case maybe the pensioner mustered her last breath to fight back? They not only killed her they befriended her beforehand, she thought they were friends, that is a stain on humanity IMO.

Given the inconsistencies of staffing and general lack of ‘care’ in the care system. I bet if you asked kids within it if they want to stay in ‘care’ being endlessless moved placements and never having a consistent care giver or to be adopted by a single man who will love and fight for them - I think I know what most will pick.

the uk care system is abysmal - a loving adopter who wants to love, parent and care for a child forever is always preferable to the faceless and impersonal ‘care’ that so many receive in the uk care system as they are shunted around placements and never have permanency or consistency of carers.

yes the care system may work for a few but for the majority it is hell on Earth.

in an ideal world every child would have a mother and father who live and cherish them - but the ideal world doesn’t always exist - and many children have only one parent . having love and true permency has to be better for a child than institutionalised care. What sex the care giver is is far less important than them being committed parents who want to love and fight for their child.

So double the risk with two men? And with women, one woman will probably have the stronger maternal urges, this could lead to jealousy from the other woman and she could harm the baby maybe?

I think that the takeaway from this case should be more support for adoptive families.
This death is truly horrendous but viewing it as a man thing is a red herring. Adoption is not easy. I had a birth child and then adopted so I know how much harder it is.
This tragedy is the tip of a huge iceberg. How many adoptive parents left with out support, on anti-depressants, having mental health issues, marriages crumbling because of the issues involved with dealing with traumatised children?
My adoptive child at 18 months left us both looking like we'd been in a pub brawl because of their physical attacks on us. I cannot forgive that pair - but I can understand how things could have slipped into that nightmare and just saying "no men" isn't the answer.
But disclaimer I haven't read the full court case yet.

Couple of thoughts:

Society had always had to figure out what to do with children whose parents can't or won't care for them. We are all part of Society - we are largely untroubled by these children unless they directly impact us or die and make the papers.

People at my daughters' schools knew they were adopted- did they help me? No, quite the opposite in many cases. I used to think to myself "I bet you would be rubbishing the sws if their birth mother had actually killed them" but that's as far as it goes. Same here - blame the social workers. But how many adopted children do you know and do you help or do you tut at their behaviour and make sure your child has nothing to do with them?

Adopters are currently being used to plug a completely underfunded service. Mostly people with no experience of challenging behaviour.

Imo the big problem is that the gov believes that anyone can adopt. If you have a spare room and no obvious skeletons or worrying medical conditions or extreme views, the chances are you will get through the approval process. It is a very low bar, with minimal training.

And this where I think the issue of it being right for gay adopters comes in, because they are corresponding as a prime group to be targeted. The council for voluntary adoption agencies says that anout a third of their clients ie people being approved to adopt are LGBT+. That is a huge figure! It shows how wide the net has been cast and how it is not so surprising that Preston went to gay adopters.

I think the problem is assuming that anyone can adopt and making the approval process so quick and then not funding post adoption support.

You do all recall the little adopted boy in Cumbria who was killed by his adoptive mother....? They were a hetrosexual couple.

Both my adoptive parents were violent and abusive. My "mother figure" damaged me for life and stood by while he damaged me in even worse ways

Yep, this has been my experience with some straight couples who have considered adoption.

The research actually shows adopted children of gay parents have slightly better outcomes than those raised by straight adopters.

One theory as to why is precisely what you say in your post. For most straight couples, adoption is a second (or third) choice in terms of forming a family. Not all, and for those who come to adoption after grieving infertility there is no slight intended - but it remains a fact that it is rarely the first choice for straight couples. For some (a small number, but the advantage of gay couples is also slight so that could track) straight couples, the ideal is to construct a family that looks as close to a biological family as possible. So far less open to life story work, less open to keeping names, talking about biological family. In extreme situations, leaving it too long to tell the child that they are adopted.

By contrast a gay couple comes to adoption through choice usually (I guess a small number might come if surrogacy was a first choice but didn't work out). There's not a scenario where they can create the illusion of a biological family, so all of the 'ugly scaffolding' of adoption becomes more acceptable to them because it doesn't threaten that illusion.

I’m sorry 💐

What does pp think should happen then if unmarried straight couples, single women, lesbian couples & so on are banned from adopting?

It is a bit much in my view to imply adoption by the above would be worse than being left in care which would be likely for many if above was banned.

Pp was also apparently implying gay and lesbian couples have children for the own benefit not the children's : that seems a sweeping statement.

Do you realise why this baby was up for adoption op? Do you think she'd have been a safe pair of hands?
The irony of this thread clearly started as a result of Baby's Preston's death!

I suspect a number of posters here don't have a clue why he was put up for adoption in the first place!

i used to be very pro single parents/gay adoption but now after this I’m really questioning if it should be paused while this is looked at.

• you think lesbian couples and single women, for instance, should be barred from adoption due to what 2 evil men did?

Your post is incredibly empathetic for a man who has just raped a baby to death. Some (not all) Men present a unique risk to children. This case and many others show this. This risk of this level of sexual violence is simply not present with women in the same numbers. This risk needs to be mitigated. How? By further scrutiny and assessment of men who wish to adopt children.

Let’s be real: none of the posters flocking to this thread to say ‘based on this case, I don’t think same-sex couples should be able to adopt’ were in favour of same-sex adoption before this case, and none of them actually care that much about the wellbeing of children, otherwise they’d be equally concerned about those abused and murdered by one or both of their married heterosexual parents (of which, tragically, it’s not difficult to put together a list).