Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

270 replies

EldonAve · 28/01/2009 07:56

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?

OP posts:
theresonlyme · 29/01/2009 14:06

I have read an article on it, actually. No need to be so rude.

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 14:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

theresonlyme · 29/01/2009 14:13

I wasn't being snide.

You seemed very certain that the SS had done everything above board and had put the children's best interests first.

I have experience of SS and prefer to look at both sides.

robinia · 29/01/2009 14:18

To MillaMae - re. the house: when I first bought with dp it depended how you bought it - as joint tenants or as tenants in common - one of them the house wil go to partner if one of you dies, the other the house will go to next of kin or according to will if you have one (I think it's tenants in common you want to be if you want house to go to your partner but not sure.)

Re. "as nature intended" well nature intended that a man and a woman would have babies and (presumably) bring them up together. However, even in ancient history that has not always been possible what with caveman and cavewoman being scarily prone to death and disease so I guess all sorts of other arrangements have been made for "orphaned" childre since time immemorial. Gay adoptions are just another possible "family" unit and will often be "in the best interests of the child".

Not sure that the best interests of the child are truly being served here though if one of the children has a fear of men. But don't the children get some say (don't know how old the children in this case are) - if they weren't happy they wouldn't be placed surely?

wannaBe · 29/01/2009 14:40

"I am so upset by this I have emailed the social services department in Edinburgh." Sorry but wtf?

This is one of the problems with reporting on ss - I could potentially be a drug addict who is incapable of looking after my children, and ss might take them away. And then I could write to the daily hatemail and tell them that ss had taken away my babies because I looked at them funny and had given them to a family of wolves to raise as their own. And because ss are not allowed to comment that is the story that would run and I would become the victim and ss the baddies who stole away my children.

We have no way of knowing what really happened in this story.

And tbh writing to the ss concerned, unles you are personally involved in this case is a bit bonkers imo.

stuffitllama · 29/01/2009 14:45

"We have no way of knowing what really happened" .. true. The secrecy of the children's court needs to be addressed.

theresonlyme · 29/01/2009 14:48

That is fine, wannabe.

I did what I felt was right.

sorrento · 29/01/2009 14:49

I would be horrified if they waste their time replying to you though.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 29/01/2009 14:58

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

Yes, absolutely. A no not warped just tolerant

And what Wannabe said.

Know a few older GP's who car for their GP's (through old job)- far more to this for certain.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 29/01/2009 15:02

In truth dizzy if you put Christian Adopters you massively reduce the chances of your kids finding a family. I too am Christian but I'd rank kids being in a loving family far more highly than faith of adoptive parents.

tatt · 29/01/2009 15:04

lots of things being said on this thread that are NOT in the article. The grandparents say they have fought for two years but can't afford further legal costs. Now we don't know if that's true or not but the comments about how they should get a lawyer are not in line with what has been printed.

MilaMae I have some experience of what happens when both parents die and there is no will. It would be up to the courts whether your parents could have your children. They would have reports from social services. Unless your parents are willing to bankrupt themselves fighting then it is best to make a will.

Blu · 29/01/2009 15:06

(MilaMae - unless you are married your house would only go to the surviving partner if you are on the mortgage as 'joint tennants', not if you are 'tennants in common')

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

theresonlyme · 29/01/2009 16:23

That is your opinion.

Clearly I am making a judgement on what I have read, as only any of us can do.

Some things have not changed in 30 years and I felt they needed to hear from someone who had a similar decision made about them which was utterly wrong.

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

wannaBe · 29/01/2009 16:28

"The secrecy of the children's court needs to be addressed." I agree, but not in the daily mail/telegraph/, and certainly not to the degree that people should be able to pick and choose who does, and who doesn't get to adopt their children.

IMO once you decide to give a child up for adoption, you lose the right to decide who that child goes to. Clearly by giving up a child you have decided that you either cannot or don't want to raise that child, in which case you forfit the right to a say in the matter. According to the artacle the children in question here were put up for adoption by the grandparents, it was only once they were informed that the children were being adopted by a gay couple that they took issue.

"I did what I felt was right." Right for who exactly? for those children? Children who you don't even know? For those grandparents? Grandparents who were perfectly happy to give two small children up for adoption, but who changed their mind when it turned out that the children were being adopted by people against whom they clearly were prejudiced? Or for yourself? so that you can say "I am so outraged that I've written to them to tell them just what I think of them." . Is it any wonder that SS have too big a workload when busy bodies take it upon themselves to write to ss about cases which do not even concern them.

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:30

I would just like to know if you people are aware that nowhere else in the world would children be taken away from grandparents and placed with strangers.

I am permanently at the forceful adoptions in the UK.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 29/01/2009 16:33

H,,. you people'- lovely turn of phrase!

from what i can gather, Cote, the gransparents put the kids up fopr adoption originally!

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 29/01/2009 16:33

(hmmmm) not H,,

wannaBe · 29/01/2009 16:34

cote, these children were not removed from the grandparents - the grandparents gave them up for adoption.

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:34

No, actually, from what I read, grandparents had to finally agree to adoption after a lengthy court battle because they couldn't bear the legal costs anymore.

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:36

"The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court.

However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.

The grandparents reluctantly agreed to adoption, provided the children were found a "loving mother and father"."

Article here

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:38

And my question was: Do you realize how aberrant it is for the state to remove children from grandparents and place them with strangers?

If this happened anywhere else, governments would fall.