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?

Going to have to be the dissenter here, but I do not agree that there should not be a distinction between gay and hetero couples in adoption.

If it were your children, would you be happy for them to go to a gay couple?? Come on be honest now?

The best interests of the children would be for them to go to a home with a mother and a father unless there are none available and SS should work on this premise - not try to score points for their PCness. The fact that there were hetero couples available makes this more ridiculous.

IMHO gay couples have chosen to live that way as a lifestyle choice. That should not be inflicted on children with no say in the matter.

Prepares to be flamed as anti- gay (am not BTW consenting adults can do what they want but when children are involved it's another matter).

Is your heterosexuality also a lifestyle choice?

And inflicting it on children? Inflicting what? A loving home? Being taken to school? Being cared for? Being disciplined and guided?

You certainly are homophobic. I don't agree with the children being removed from the grandparents, though I suspect there's more to the story than we're hearing.
As far as I'm concerned that the couple is gay is a non issue, they are as capable of loving and looking after children as any heterosexual couple.

I think there's more to this than is being printed. Social Services can't discuss in the media so it's going to be a bit ones sided. I know my mum was invovled in the adoption of a little girl who had severe health problems, had been given up by mother and had been fostered by an older couple (early 50's I think). She was delighted when the couple wanted to adopt. The had good support from their own older children but when it came to the review, the paediatrician refused it on the grounds of their age. My mum was really disgusted because it was okay to allow these people to continue fostering, but not to adopt. The carers continued to foster the little girl and she never left them as far as I know. There was other cases she was involved in that got media attention that were totally ones sided and wrong in how they were reported. Neither her or her department were allowed to set the record straight.

I also feel bad for the two men who have adopted these kids. They're being discussed in the papers and have no ability to discuss back.

Thunderduck - my heterosexuality is as nature intended. If you think I'm homophobic, I really could'nt care less. The gay couple is an issue - kids could get teased, if they have lived with a hetro couple until now - they will be surely confused? I am sure they have had a hard enough life already without adding that as well.

If you think that two young male and female children are better off with a gay couple, rather than a male and female couple than you must surely be a little warped as are the social workers .

They are not being 'removed' from the gps, they have been living with foster parents fo two years.

Poor little things.

Being moved from pillar to post with no single stable secure family will not have helped. I wish these things could be sorted out much kore quickl and decisively.

There's pretty good evidence that homosexuality is indeed entirely 'as nature intended' - if by that you mean seen routinely in nature. I suspect though that you don't mean that at all.

Oh, and I'm perfectly happy for my children to go to a gay couple. Honestly. In fact, if something happened to DH and me, it is is one of the possibilites.

I think being moved around would be confusing regardless of the sexuality of the couple looking after you.

And did I say they'd be better off with a homosexual couple? I think being raised by a loving couple who happen to be gay is as equally as valid as being raised by a heterosexual couple.

I'm not all warped,but I think your views certainly are.

I note that people who often refer to a homosexual lifestyle often have no idea what they are waffling on about.

I'd love to know what this lifestyle they are talking about involves, eating breakfast? Opening one's mail? Going to work? Doing housework? All very sinister sounding.

S

I agree a child can be raised by responsible, loving gay parents..but honestly if I was to die would I be wrong to prefer my child to be adopted by a loving heterosexual couple rather than a loving gay couple?

If I were to die I would prefer my children to be adopted by a loving couple who would love my children unconditionally. Their sexuality wouldn't come in to it.

DizzyMizzy - I am a little at some of your comments.

For me, I would have a problem with my child having to live with any couple other that who I state in my will, regardless of sex race colour sexuality

I accept that these are different circumstances (kids living in foster care, with relatives still alive etc) but adoption should be open to everybody.

What would you suggest happen to children of those parents who separate and one parent starts a relationship with somebody of the same sex. It does happen and the kids live perfectly normal life. You dont see anybody in uproar about that.

Children should be bought up in a loving environment - whether that is between a man and a woman, or two women or two men, does it really matter?

We have parental responsibility for our grandchild. At no time Have I been asked about my health by SS. At no point have I discussed him being adopted out either.....
It was blardy hard getting used to having a baby in the house again - especially as it was so dramatic and quick. There were times I questioned my decision (lasted about 30 seconds) at the beginning - now he is the light of our lives.
I work in a school and we have children with same sex parents. Of course the kids would tease them but who the hell would tell all about it? Who's business is it? FWIW, these parents are among the most interested and supportive of their child's progress and happiness.
Dizzy, put your Daily Mail down and try to remember that we have moved on from such pathetic bigotry. Very sad to think in such a way, very sad indeed.

It does matter in this case because by SS's own admission the little girl is wary of men.
But as undervalued is doing what these grandparent claim they can't there is either more too it or this is an absolute disgrace.

It's a ridiculous story. I don't believe for one second that the grandparents' age is the pertinent issue. Dp and I are the same age as this grandmother and we are currently being assessed to adopt a child aged 0-2. Some posts have doubted the significance of their health problems but we just don't know how serious they are, do we? Angina and diabetes can be very serious health problems.

As for the sexuality of the adopters, I very much doubt over-zealous social workers are ripping children away from the arms of loving grandparents to fulfil a crazed gay rights agenda .

The two interesting issues here, for me, are:

1. Whether birth families should be given any say in who gets to adopt the child. I suspect most of us would agree that it depends: it makes sense to consult a loving birth family, so that they feel confident and resolved about their child's new life. On the other hand, if the birth family has been cruel and abusive, should they really have a right of veto? They have, after all, forfeited any kind of parental rights. I feel quite strongly about this because I am a lesbian mother, and I am quite sure that most birth families would reject me out of hand (even though they would never get to meet me, find about me, see me with my daughter). It must, surely, be up to the social services to make this decision, not the birth family. Though ideally, and particularly where the child will continue to have contact with the birth family, they would work with the birth family to help them come to terms with the situation. (I do have friends who fostered a little boy, against the wishes of his vehemently homophobic mother, and who absolutely committed themselves to working with her and winning her round. It worked: they are all now great friends and the little boy has done really well.)

1. Then there is Blu's point about the length of time this child has been in the care system. It is shocking how long children spend in limbo, denied permanent family at a stage in life when they desperately need to bond and trust and be stable. Even where children are given up for adoption at birth, they are rarely placed with a permanent family until their second year of life. That is partly because the system gives the birth family every possible chance to get into a position to be able to take the child back. Have we got the balance right? I don't know.

As for those on this thread who have said that people like me shouldn't adopt, all I can say is this: you are of course entitled to your view, but please be mindful of what you say to your children, so that they don't torment mine in the playground. The commonest argument against 'allowing' gay parenting is that the children will be teased: well, that's up to you.

Great post Hester. I think there must be a lot more to this story that's not being presented here. And good job too really, as those children need to be able to start a new life without the press hanging over them.

As for the bishop: "There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved."

What on earth is he talking about? Homosexuals have shorter life expectancy now!!!??

No I think they quite like Bishops talking out of their arses it removes all creditability from them. As a RC I would even disagree with his points the way he's trying to present them.
As for Hesters point, I would be fuming if my child was mean to a child in glasses, black or gay parents, doesn't mean I can stop what is said in the playground, goodness knows my daughter has had some horrible things said to her and there's nothing I could do.
Why set up children who've already had a rocky start for more shit in their lives if there's an alternative ?
I'd have much less of a problem with 2 women though than 2 men.

I am so upset by this I have emailed the social services department in Edinburgh.

''Prepares to be flamed as anti- gay (am not BTW consenting adults can do what they want but when children are involved it's another matter).''

What on earth does that mean?

Appalling journalism re the story.

if the child is wary of men then it is surprising that she is being placed with 2 of them and no mother.

For my own children no family would be good enough, I'm going to have to stay alive . However in my order of preference a single male friend comes ahead of some of my family. It is about who can give the love and care they need and making the best of bad choices.

Social services departments differ. I know of some who take decisions with care and I've heard of some I wouldn't want to go anywhere near. I wouldn't automatically assume there is more to this than age and health issues and adoption targets.

Make a will specifying guardians - or SS WILL be involved even if your relatives want to take the children on.

I know both a lesbian couple and a gay couple who have adopted, and also a SW who works in adoption in a London borough. The concencus of allof them is that though many many gay couples get approved in principle fo adoption, it is usually blocked at the panel hearing, and in the borough I have heard about, by the lay member and faith representative on the panel. Hmmmmm.

AND the two homosexual couples I know who have adopted children both have older children with serious and considerable issues and special needs asa result of alcohol and / or drug use before birth and behaviour issues because of ealy parenting and, doubtless, ages in the care and fostering system before getting a permanent home. But guess what? The two straight couples I know who have adopted both have NT children, adopted at a much earlier age. So much for SWs seizing children in a zealous bid to fulfill the selfish PC agenda of gay couples wanting other people's children, hm??? It seems to me that adoption panels use gay couples as a last resort when no other suitable happy home can be found with a heterosexual couple - to the enduring insult of both the gay couples and the poor children.

As for 'something to be teased about' - I remember my Mum's friends saying that about mixed race children when I was a child.....how awful that terror of what people with closed nasty minds think and say should prevent a child from having a strong, close, happy home!

But there is little point in discussing this stiry, really. We will never know the true facts - SS will not and cnnot make public their reasons, and surely if there was a big injustice, the family would have a legal rep talking on their behalf and fighting through the courts, not the tabloids? If someone was adopting my (hypothetical) gc I would move heaven and earth to get a lawyer to fight for them. All discussion on this can only be supposition, or based on misreported or simply MISSING information.

But hey - it twangs everyone's strings.

What do you mean by apprehended?