Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

[EldonAve]

Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

"social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children."

Is 46 really too old?

You might not have a problem but these children aren't yours are they ? If the grandparents have an issue with it then that should be taken into account, if it all goes wrong, the grandparents who no doubt will be alive and well when these children become 18 will have to pick up the pieces.

how horrible for the dc to be taken away from their grandparents because of their grandparents' health (which are not ALL that drastic after all, some help could be offered, couldn't it if need be?).

And they are being FORCEd to agree to having their grandchildren adopted, have no say in who adopts them and are not to have any contact to them. Heartless decision all round. I don't think they can get away with this surely

the upper age for women is 46 for some la.it is infinitely better a child stays within a family rather than be adopted.there must be very good reasons why this hasn't happened, some families have generations of abuse.

I disagree that the children should have been removed based on age, but if any child is being adopted, does the biological family have the right to say who is worthy to adopt?

maybe if the child has been relinquished, which is very rare.some families have requests that they go to adopters of the same religious persuasion, that just means you narrow the pool of people further when it comes to placing older children.

also when the children were removed the grandmother would have been 44, so below the max adoption age. not sure if max age applires with family though as i knoe older grandparents who care for their grandchildren.

The bio family should have some say, if the children were black and to be adopted by a white family (well it simply wouldn't happen would it) the family would be able to complain I'm sure.

according to the newspapers the grandparents have been fighting for 2 years to prevent the adoption. They reluctantly agreed to it because they ran out of money to fight AND they were told they wouldn't see their grandchildren again if they didn't.

I'm sure if there is more to it the press will soon have that information. I don't like the suggestion that 46 is too young for a woman to be raising children, even if they are young children.

""It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother-figure.
"

I can understand, to some extent, this may be upsetting for the grandparents in this situation. Their own mother has npt been a god role model for them - a drug addict, albeit the article says recovering, and incapable of caring for them. They have spent a lot of their young lives not having a mother figure around.

Now we don't know exactly what situation this adoptive couple have - there may well be female adults around who will be this mother figure for them. If so, then fine.

But I do understand why someone may feel these two children would benefit froma good female, mother like role model.

I am assuming the grandparent will still get to play a role in these children's lives after the adoption - or are they being taken away entirely?

I've done loads of cases where GPs were older than that...I can't accept it was the reason.
I suspect the GPs agreed to the adoption, may even have been advocating it, but balked when they found out the details.
SS will always ask family to look after children if possible as it's much cheaper and easier howver sometimes the GPs aren't able to protect the children from their parents iyswim. It would be a hard thing to tell your own daughter to stay away from her kids.

I've done loads of cases where GPs were older than that...I can't accept it was the reason.
I suspect the GPs agreed to the adoption, may even have been advocating it, but balked when they found out the details.
SS will always ask family to look after children if possible as it's much cheaper and easier howver sometimes the GPs aren't able to protect the children from their parents iyswim. It would be a hard thing to tell your own daughter to stay away from her kids.

If the grandparents behave themselves and come around to SS's view that it is fine for their grandchildren to be placed with 2 gay men, despite the girl being wary of men (in SS's own report), then they will be allowed contact.
It's the whole do as you are told attitude from SS I think is wrong, don't question us or else.

Yes but adoptions are so very precarious. Loads break down and the kids have to go back into care. Heartbreaking to lose another family.
So SS cannot allow anyone access to the kids who may be seeking to undermine it.

This is really poor reporting.

If you read it it says that the grandparents had agreed adoption for the children but then objected based on the chosen family ie a gay couple not a hetero couple.

So the children weren't 'removed' at all (the grandparents had already offered them for adoption).

Sidge that's right.
And it doesn't seem like the GPs are saying they want them just that they want to dictate where they go.

But Litchick surely they should have some say where the kids go, is that really no part of the process ?

why does it matter one iota that the adopting couple are gay? I mean, why?

It obviously matters to the grandparents.

I think you really can't start letting family dictate about adopters. There simply aren't enough.

Maybe they were talked into the adoption on the basis some lovely couple would have them who could offer a mother figure in the childrens life and they agreed on that basis only to discover actually there wouldn't be a mother figure at all.
Maybe they would have been totally fine with a lesiban couple adopting.

So is consultation part of the adoption process Litchick or not ?

SS do try to find adopters within the same cutural/religious background but it's just not always possible.
And you can't let predjudice come into it or where do you draw the line?
I do think once children are within the care system because family members have either refused or are not deemed fit to look after the children them their wishes should be very low on the list of priorities.

Unfortunately this report comes at a time for me when I've just written my Will stating i'd want our children to go my sister in the USA should we both die and a social worker friend of ours said it would be very unlikey she'd be allowed to have them despite being 3 years younger than me, to which I answered then my mother would have them and send them to boarding school, which again I was told wouldn't be allowed to happen.
I'm genuinely scared to travel in the same car as DH at the moment, it all seems utter madness.

Sorrento - I don't know your personal circumstances but SS always try to keep children within the family both when someone des or when they are removed from their parents.
Keeping kids in the care system is enormously expensive, having tthem live with family is usually free.
As they say in the States - you do the Math.

why do you think ss would have any involvement in the case of your death?

ss have involvement where there are concerns for the wellbeing of the child/ren..........and, it should go without saying, where these concerns are reported to ss in the first place.