Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

A gay couple adopted our grandchildren.. and kids think we're dead

190 replies

Notsotired · 21/06/2009 20:09

link

The heartbroken grandparents of two children adopted by a gay couple have been told they will never see them again.

Despite looking after their five-year-old grandson and four-year-old granddaughter for three years, social workers decided they were "too old" and unsuitable to continue.

And, tragically, the children now think that their grandparents are dead.

"Social workers made up their minds that we were too old," says the grandad, who is 59. His wife is just 46 and both look much younger.

"It just breaks my heart and eats away at me every day. My own grandchildren have been wrenched away and now they think that me and their granny are dead."

The children went to live with their grandparents because their mother, a heroin addict, couldn't look after them. The boy's father is dead and the girl's father has not had any contact with her.

But social workers later insisted the children would be better off with the two gay men. "My wife and I were happy bringing the children up ourselves," says the grandfather.

"We are their family. Now we've been told we'll never see them again. How can that possibly be right? They are our flesh and blood."

The children have now been given new identities and totally removed from their former life, family and friends.

The only contact their grandparents have had with the children in the last eight months is a two-paragraph letter from their new parents giving a few scraps of news about the pair.

The case provoked a storm of criticism in February when the adoption was first revealed.

The grandparents and children cannot be identified for legal reasons so we are calling the boy Adam and his sister Katie. We are calling their grandparents Brian and Margaret.

Thanks to a well-wisher, the grandparents know where the children are living, only a few miles away in an affluent area near Edinburgh.

Whenever they are in the area the grandparents find themselves staring out of their car windows in the forlorn hope of catching a glimpse of the children.

"Even if we saw them we would never approach them or do anything that would upset them," says Brian with tears welling up in his eyes. "But we can't help hoping we might see them in the distance."

Advertisement - article continues below »

When it became clear that the children's mum was incapable of looking after them, social workers were happy for Brian and Margaret to be granted "interim parental rights".

But problems began when the mum, addled by drink and drugs, began making threats against her parents, saying she wanted her children back.

In September 2006, Brian and Margaret reluctantly suggested to social workers that Adam and Katie should stay briefly with foster parents until their daughter stopped menacing them.

Then Brian and Margaret say they found themselves under immense scrutiny from social workers who later changed their minds about their suitability to care for the children. Brian and Margaret hired solicitors to get the children back.

Four times a court ruled in their favour, but eventually, they say, they were left unable to cope with the lawyers' bills and emotional stress.

Brian claims they were then "bullied and manipulated" into eventually agreeing to the children being adopted last year - on the basis that they would still have some contact with the children.

Then, last October, they were shocked to discover that two men were adopting Adam and Katie. And in the row that has followed all access has been cut off. Margaret says: "We honestly are not bigots. It's just the practicalities which bother me. Which dad do they call dad? "How can anyone explain to a five-and a four-year-old what on earth has happened here? It's all so sad."

The gay couple have been together for eight years. They live in a smart home and lead a well-off lifestyle. They are both in their thirties and one has given up work to look after the children, taking them to school and nursery.

Before the children moved in, they got planning permission improvements to their home to accommodate the children Knowing that Adam and Katie live so close makes the agony even worse for Brian and Margaret. "It's Adam's birthday next month," says Margaret.

"I want to give him a present like any normal granny. I just want to see the kids - even if it's only twice a year, that would be better than nothing." Brian says social workers told him that the children think he and Margaret are dead because they haven't seen them since October.

"It's not surprising that they think we're dead when they haven't seen us for so long. We've been just erased from everything.

"I can't stand the thought that these kids will think we have abandoned them."

Originally Brian and Margaret say they were told they would be still be allowed contact with the children. "We would never have consented to adoption otherwise," says Brian. "But now we've been told we will never see them."

The couple are in talks with solicitors in the hope of winning some limited access, but accept the adoption cannot now be overturned.

A sympathetic businessman is paying their legal bills, but it will be a long drawn-out process. Meanwhile, a short drive away, Brian and Margaret fear Adam and Katie are starting a new life believing that Gran and Grandad are dead.

OP posts:
Notsotired · 21/06/2009 22:00

I don't think that replicating abusive parents is a good idea. The children would be no better off. The children had a mother and father figure while they were growing up and a birth mother (though not a good role model to the children). The "picture" of a mother and father should have been kept.

If the Granddad was cruel and abusive, then the children wouldn't have gone to him to start with.

Thanks to social workers. The Grand parents feel they failed their daughter by not being able to keep the children and they feel like they failed the children because they couldn't argue well enough in court or strong enough in court.

I bet the social workers involved are chuffed to bits and go home each night bragging to their family (if they have one) about the children earmarked for adoption and at getting this adoption through a) to punish the grand parents for arguing back with "the authority" and b) because they can start (and continue) the social engineering experiment with people's children, knowing that the parents can't jump to the children's protection/rescue in the future.

Family should take priority over any perspective adopter.

OP posts:
katz · 21/06/2009 22:09

notasotired - the main thing the grandparents failed to do was provide a place of safety for their grandchildren by their own admissions there daughter was abusing drugs and drink and threatening to take the children away and they have continued to refuse to let her have access despite this.

Can you picture the outrage if a story broke where by a mother takes her 2 children from her parents home and killes/harms them and that social services did nothing to protect/remove the children from the situation

StewieGriffinsMom · 21/06/2009 22:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Notsotired · 21/06/2009 22:19

I have nothing against gay people adopting children in principal. On a moral front, there are questions. However, the adoption should be agreed. I would be resistant to agree to an adoption (gay or not) if I didn't know who my children were going to.

Gay women have children from sperm donors and there isn't any outcry about that. I don't see a problem with that either.

I do have a problem with the children being cur from their family permanently. In this case, the children could have stayed in foster care for a while and seen the Grandparents weekly or even daily and possibly/probably moved to the Grandparents in time.

OP posts:
bigstripeytiger · 21/06/2009 22:24

Even if you thought that it would be the best thing for the children to be in foster care and then visiting the grandparents, that obviously wasnt what either social work or the grandparents thought was best - social work wouldnt have proceeded with the adoption if they didnt think that was the best thing for the children, and the grandparents were happy for the children to be adopted, so it sounds like they didnt ask for the foster care/grandparent care that you suggest.

StewieGriffinsMom · 21/06/2009 22:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

katz · 21/06/2009 22:27

Notsotired - that IS what happen but the grandparent consistantly (and this is their own admission) refuse to stop their daughter from living in their home therefore it would never be somewhere the children could live. Therefore social services took step to give them a permenant home life which they didn't object too until they found out the adopters were a male gay couple. They had originally been granted visitation rights to the children but their objects to the couples sexuality was seen as being detrimental to the sucess of the adoption and they lost those rights.

Notsotired · 21/06/2009 22:34

Isn't there something in the laws or rules of adoption that says you can change your mind if you agreed and then don't agree anymore?

If the Grandparents were agreeing and changed their mind (gay issue or not) then the adoption should have been reconsidered.

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 21/06/2009 22:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

StewieGriffinsMom · 21/06/2009 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Madmentalbint · 21/06/2009 23:36

"If I remember back to the first articles, there were 6 or 6 heterosexual couples who wanted to adopt these children, so why were the gay men chosen?"

Probably because they were the most suitable prospective parents.

I'm not sure I'd agree that fostering and weekly contact with GP's is always preferable to a permanent stable loving home.

Reallytired · 22/06/2009 14:29

It seems sad that the GP can't see the children occassionally, with supervised contact. Prehaps social services are worried that the mother would learn where the children live from the granparents.

A lot of people are opposed to homosexual adoption or homosexually in general. However all of us have straits that make just less than ideal human beings. I don't think that the granparents should be shut out of the gran children's lives just because they are mildy homophobic.

bigstripeytiger · 22/06/2009 14:33

If access to your grandchildren hinged on it, I think that most people would probably try and keep any homophobia to themselves?

StewieGriffinsMom · 22/06/2009 15:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

edam · 22/06/2009 16:42

I feel very sorry for grandparents and children. Can you imagine how hard it is for the grandparents to be told they have to cut their daughter off? However ill/addicted/useless as a parent she is, she is still their daughter.

I don't know why people keep accusing the mother of abuse - none of the stories I've read detail what the allegations against the mother were, beyond being a drug addict. She may well not be capable of being a decent mother but that doesn't necessarily make her a child abuser.

But essentially this is about the children. Who have had the only long-term secure relationship in their very troubled lives snapped at the behest of SS.

The authorities go to a great deal of trouble to ensure crappy, even violent, fathers have contact with their children... why not decent grandparents whose only failings seem to have been objection to the adoption and refusal to make a complete and final separation from their own daughter?

All this, oh, if families are at all critical of any aspect of adoption we'll break contact, risks damaging children. Some SWs - not all but a significant number - give the impression that if families dare to give less than 100% uncritical support to their every whim, those families will suffer for it - and never mind if that inevitably means the children suffer.

As for homophobia, of course it is something to be discouraged, but it is a greater evil to cut loving grandparents from a child's life because you disagree with their views.

Objections to this particular adoption don't necessarily mean the grandparents are hate-filled bigots who despise gay men and women - just that they have, as anyone would, views about the right upbringing for their grandchildren.

There are plenty of people who object to gay adoptions on principle. I'm not one of them, fundamentally disagree with them, but don't think that means we should strip loving relatives out of childrens' lives.

whereeverIlaymyhat · 22/06/2009 18:36

If access to your grandchildren hinged on it, I think that most people would probably try and keep any homophobia to themselves?

But this is the trouble with SS the grandparents might have made some utterly harmless comment, like who will mother them and that would be the big black mark against them.
They are a generation that wouldn't have come across adoption by a same sex couple remember.

StewieGriffinsMom · 22/06/2009 18:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

whereeverIlaymyhat · 22/06/2009 18:51

No my point is merely what might seem homophobic to social services might seem like a perfectly reasonable question or enquiry to anyone else, it's not hard to get labelled and in their bad books.

madlentileater · 22/06/2009 18:51

you can see that denying your grandchildren permanent parents solely on grounds of those parents sexuality amounts to more than 'mild homophobia'
To me that is NOT putting children's interests first- their best interests are served by being brought up in a loving, stable, permanent family.
What is mild homophobia, anyway, is that like mild racism?

StewieGriffinsMom · 22/06/2009 18:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

edam · 22/06/2009 18:56

Who is conflating? I'm merely arguing that the children have a right to contact with their grandparents, the one stable relationship that has lasted throughout their lives.

"It was felt their homophobia would interfere with the rights of the children to bond with their adoptive family." That's supposition. Who says they are homophobic and what proof is there that they would seek to undermine the adoption? Or is this all leaping to conclusions?

Lots of people (not me personally) are opposed to gay adoption. We don't stop them all seeing their relatives.

At at any rate, the children's needs are supposed to come first. Surely they have a right to a continuing relationship with the people who have cared for them and been the only constant in their lives?

whereeverIlaymyhat · 22/06/2009 18:58

No all you have is the grandparents labeled homophobic you do not know what has happened to lead SS to that conclusion.

edam · 22/06/2009 18:58

No-one has been papped, that's a huge exaggeration - would never happen anyway as editors are well aware of their legal responsibilities re photos of minors ESPECIALLY in cases to do with the family courts.

Grandparents said there were several prospective adopters, it wasn't a case of this particular couple or staying in care for ever.

StewieGriffinsMom · 22/06/2009 19:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

whereeverIlaymyhat · 22/06/2009 19:12

Well I can't say I disagree with the grandparents, they were stupid enough to be honest.