Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:40

Where family is abusing the child, sure.

Where one has diabetes, the other is "too old", no. It doesn't happen.

Feel free to correct me if you can show examples.

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

wannaBe · 29/01/2009 16:42

surely that would depend though on why the children were removed.

Because by your argument you are saying that every child who is taken from their parents elsewhere in the world, is placed with the grandparents, and that simply is not true.

There will have been a reason why these children were not allowed to stay with the grandparents. But of course as it's in the daily mail (and I note that none of the reputable papers have reported this) it's all about the nasty ss removing these children just for the hell of it.

Leeza2 · 29/01/2009 16:43

I read this differently. It seems that the GPs have run out of money to battle through the courts. Their only option is the media. The gay couple angle makes the story more newsworthy. Sad but true.

What should they care about more - losing their grandchildren or being branded as bigots by some people? I would that risk if I thought I might get my grandchildren back.

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:43

You people = UK citizens & residents

I didn't use it as a derogatory term.

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 29/01/2009 16:44

OOh the daily mail on the telly teletext news coverage has this too

As 'drug addict mother objected to gay adoption'

no bias there then

PeachyBAHonsPRSCertOnRequest · 29/01/2009 16:44

OOh the daily mail on the telly teletext news coverage has this too

As 'drug addict mother objected to gay adoption'

no bias there then

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:49

Stewie - You are attacking a straw man argument of your own making.

Obviously drug addiction, abuse, etc are not the concern here. SS has removed these children because they are deemed "too old" (under 50) and one has diabetes, iirc.

What I am trying to say is that it would be unthinkable for babies & children to be placed with strangers if there are other adults in the extended family willing to take care of them. Adults who are not drug addicts and are not about to beat the kid to death.

If you look into adoptions in France, for example, you will see that there are VERY few French babies & children to be adopted for this very reason, and the vast majority of couples have to explore options abroad.

wannaBe · 29/01/2009 16:50

well there's an artacle in the dm from the drug addict mother telling of her annoyance over the adoption...

I find it very difficult to believe that for all these two years the grandparents never thought to contact the media over the unfairness of not being allowed to have custody of their grandchildren, and it only dawning on them to do so once the mention of a gay adoption came into play. .

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 16:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

CoteDAzur · 29/01/2009 16:52

wannaBe - That might be because it is only now that the secrecy laws are lifted from family courts.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 29/01/2009 16:56

Anyone smell checkbook journalism?

Clues:

  1. Couple (grandparents) don't have money to fight it legally
  1. Someone would have had to discuss details about the situation and almost certainly not social service....
wannaBe · 29/01/2009 16:56

and what if the adopted couple hadn't been gay?

The artacle doesn't surround the fact that children were removed from the grandparents and that they were adopted despite the grandparents battling to be allowed to keep them. The artacle is about the fact that the grandparents agreed to an adoption, whether that be because they had run out of money or for a different reason, and then changed their mind when they found out the adoptive couple were gay.

It is not about ss taking children away from aledgedly loving family, it is about prejudice towards gay adoption, pure and simple. If the adoptive couple hadn't been gay nothing would have been said.

sorrento · 29/01/2009 16:58

Well the Telegraph have run the story too, no doubt they'll be slagged off too.www.telegraph.co.uk/family/4365171/Social-services-remove-young-children-from-grandparent s-and-arrange-adoption-by-gay-couple.html

The facts seem to be "The grandparents reluctantly agreed to adoption, provided the children were found a "loving mother and father".
And that has not happened. Whether the grandparents should have kept them or not is neither here no there, the grandparents agreed to one thing and SS did not keep to their side of the bargain and this has been allowed.

Original poster
EldonAve · 29/01/2009 16:59

more in the torygraph today
The grandparents already have children at home
"Four of the couple's children still live at home, two at school and two in full-time work"

OP posts:
wannaBe · 29/01/2009 17:06

but would the grandparents even have rights though?

This isn't about a parent signing away their parental rights, this is about grandparents wanting to have custody of the children and being deamed unsuitable.

It's not actually about grandparents "agreeing" to the adoption is it? it's more about them not contesting it, because there is a difference...

Blu · 29/01/2009 17:07

Theresonlyme - I'm very sad to hear that you had such a devastating experience. Sadly, I am sure that many many other children are still living unhappily with foster parents. Indeed, in my work I have met vulnerable young people treated very badly by foster 'carers' who are simply exploiting the system. And I daresay that worse thing happen.

BUT these things are not in the press. This case is high profile, it may be that the grandparents and children are subject to a terrible and cruel mistake. But we can't judge because we cannot know the SS reasons for their decision. And sadly, whilst the 'gay parent' angle ensures that this gets into the pres, it's sensationalism and dodgy homophobia loses some sympathy and credibility for the story in the tellings . I just don't see how we can base any serious view on what is reported in the press.

If there is an injustice / wrong decision, I hope there may be an appeal.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 29/01/2009 17:09

Did the grandparents have parental responsibility in the first place? Or just a residence order?

theresonlyme · 29/01/2009 17:13

I haven't answered the question of what I wrote in the email as it was personal to me.

Clearly some of you think I have no business contacting SS about a concern I have for a decision I have made, but there is no need to call me bonkers or a bigot.

Am I bonkers and a bigot because I have concerns about a child who lives near me and I have contacted local SS to ask for advice?

We should all care about vunerable children and what I am doing will not cause any harm but in the latter case I am talking about, doing nothing might.

sorrento · 29/01/2009 17:13

Thing that sits uncomfortably with me is the being told behave yourselves and you can see the children twice a year, it's either contact unconditionally or not, you can't tell people what to do or how to think.
Also if they have 2 school age children at home already then they really can't be that bad can they otherwise those children wouldn't be with them.
The legal costs thing I find odd though surely if they had run out of money the next step is legal aid or do they not cover cases like this ?
All in all though it just seems SS are throwing their weight around and I do not find that hard to believe at all knowing one who I do call the child snatcher behind her back, she's a nasty bitch who admits she used to hit her son with a wooden spoon when he was younger (he's 30 odd now) and yet sits in judgement everyday and makes nasty comments about breast feeding beyond 12 months about travellers children, I refuse to believe she is fair when writing reports and making judgements.
She also seemed to enjoy telling me my USA based sister wouldn't be approved if DH and I died, like it was power trip for her.

wannaBe · 29/01/2009 17:19

"Also if they have 2 school age children at home already then they really can't be that bad can they otherwise those children wouldn't be with them." Depends though. I have a child of my own and yet I would not be allowed to adopt because I have a disability. But that doesn't mean that ss consider me to be an unfit mother to my own child, just that I wouldn't be a suitable adoptive one.

Anyone can have their own child. Not that many can adopt one.

ICANDOTHAT · 29/01/2009 17:19

What a heap of C R A P - mind you, nothing surprises me. I know parents of this age with young children .... what next? all 46 year old, diabetic mothers having their kids taken into care?! God help us &

StewieGriffinsMom · 29/01/2009 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn