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

[Notsotired]

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.

But the editors have already printed enough to potentially identify the children.
And in previous cases have printede stuff detrimental to children's interests, so I think concern re press is valid.
But also valid is that gps clearly aren't wholeheartedly in favour of the adoption. How is that going to help the family bond, esp in the early stages where all are vulnerable. These children are likely to need a huge amount of support and may well be left with problems, and I'm very glad they have been found parents. Good luck to them all.
Hopefully when all has calmed down gps might be helped to accept the situation and contact can resume.

Yes the children should have the right to see their grandparents. Unfortunately the grandparents took that right away from them by not protecting the children sufficiently from their mother and opposing their adoption when they found out the children were to be adopted by a gay couple.

20% of adoptions already break down. If social services feel that by allowing the GPs contact with the the children at this stage is likely to make that a strong likelihood (and from what I have read of this case, I can only assume the GPs are very likely to voice their reservations about their new parents to the children), then they should not be allowed to see the children. I'm sure they have been allowed letterbox contact.

I'm sorry but we absolutely cannot allow homophobia to rule adoption decisions - either gay parents are fit parents or they aren't.

I bet you any money the mystery backer is Brian Souter.
As regards the case itself, I don't see how anyone can know whether the right decision has been made or not on the basis of the limited and partial information available.

Very probably, LGP.

Spice, of course homophobia cannot rule adoption policy - and it doesn't, has been made against the law IIRC, much to the chagrin of the Catholic church.

However, in an individual case, surely you have to deal with the child's family background, the context and the child's needs? I'd be surprised if a council allowed a Muslim child to be adopted by a Christian couple, for instance. And councils discriminate on grounds of race, refusing to place Black or mixed race children with white families.

So, surely maintaining existing and very important relationships with the grandparents is important to the welfare of these children?

Many christians or muslims think that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals understandably might find this viewpoint offensive, but its perfectly legal to have the opinon that homosexuality is wrong. Prehaps this religous belief could be considered homophobia.

What is unacceptable is to hound or bully people about their homosexuality. Intimination or incitement to hatred is wrong. In such circumstances the police quite rightly get involved. The police don't care that a bunch of fundermental muslims think that homosexuals are destined for hell.

I think that the children's emotional welfare has been sacrificed on the altar of polictical correctness. They need their family even if they are imperfect.

If my children were in the position of being adopted I would like to think that they lived with a mum and a dad, not because I am homophobic, but because I think both sexes have a different sort of love, understanding and parenting styles, it's all well and good having a feminine presence in the extended family but children need a mum and dad.

Reallytired: "What is unacceptable is to hound or bully people about their homosexuality. Intimination or incitement to hatred is wrong."

And for all we know, that's what the authorities are afraid the GPs may do. Incite the children to hate their adoptive parents.

I don't believe that adoption by gay people is any worse or better than adoption by straight people. Neither do the authorities. You may disagree and so may the grandparents in this case but it's the law.

I'm sorry that the children cannot see their GPs but, like I said, as far as I can see, the GPs have no one to blame for that but themselves and their bigotry.

sonicxtra, I wrote a long response to you but then decided I was just too tired. Well done you for not being homophobic. How kind of you to take the trouble to tell me what my children need.

Still staggered by the number of people on this thread who have developed such exquisitely honed opinions on the basis of so little real information. But I'm feeling ratty now, so will bow out.

Adoptive parents are a good subsitute for a birth family. It certainly isn't the same as a birth family.

Adults who have been adopted often struggle to understand why they were adopted. It is not unheard of for adoptees to want to trace their birth family even if they had fanastic adoptive parents.

A person's birth family is part of their identity. Whatever the granparents are like, they are the children's roots and history.

I hope this adoption works. These children have been through a lot and must be very emotionally scarred. This is not the only time in their short lives they have had emotional attachments broken by seperation.

I have no issues at all with gay people adoping children. At the end of the day, there are lots of children out there who need to be loved, and whether they are adopted by two men, two women, a woman and a man, a woman and a budgie, so long as they're looked after, it doesn't matter.
However has always struck a chord with me on this story is that the "published" reason is because the grandparents are too old to look after the children.
My mum is 50, my dad is older, and if something were happen to me I would want my parents (or siblings) to look after my child, and the bit that upsets me is the idea that somebody could say no because they're too old etc.
And yes, I know, logically, there are other reasons why the children haven't been placed with the grandparents but on face value, that's the bit that unsettles me.

Elf that worried me too, my sister is to have my children if we die and she lives in the USA, so my children know where their passports are and my mum knows she is to get the girls out of this country before she even buries me.
I would suggest that you think of somebody the same age as yourself and take out a large insurance policy, I have a million to cover four children to ensure my sister can do the job I want.
Frankly if somebody gave my kids to 2 gay men I'd haunt the social worker forever.

My DD1's godfather is gay. Frankly I think he and his partner would do a fantastic job of bringing our children up - although they would probably be horrified at being asked to.

elf: it's possible the GPs did agree to the adoption, but only argued once they knew the sexuality of the adopters (it does say that's why contact was discontinued). social services will probably not comment (rightly, as there are children involved and let's face it, we're all being nosy parkers, homophobic or otherwise), and so we'll never know the full story.

and as for

"Frankly if somebody gave my kids to 2 gay men I'd haunt the social worker forever." - I'm tempted to say let's hope they get put in a children's home instead then. But that would be childish. Lets hope they learn some toerance either way.

for me, even if the children had been adopted by a man and woman, the first article I read stated the adoption was because the GP were too old, that is what strikes a chord with me. And I have seen several articles since which expands further (i.e. them still allowing the mother to see the children / agreeing to the adoption etc) but obv the first reason I read has stayed with me, and shocked me tbh that social services had so much authority.
It was a bit of an eye opener for me as that thread lead to more discussions re guardianship etc, and I thought it was all nice a simple - you stated who you wanted to look after your children, I hadn't realised that SS could take the child away.
I do think its v sad that the GP cant keep some contact with the children - I think it would kill my parents to not be able to see my child

I am sure the GPs would have been allowed contact if they had not made it so clear that they would try to turn the children against their new parents, which can hardly be in the children's interest. In the same way, as the grandparents would probably have been accepted as guardians if they had not made it clear that they were not going to prioritise the children's safety above the needs of their daughter.

If you died and left your parents named as guardians in your will, surely that would be a very different situation from this mum who wasn't dead but was considered a danger to her children, seems reasonable that she doesn't get to decide about their future, doesn't mean you wouldn't.

There must be more to this than the story in the OP!
"They are a generation that wouldn't have come across adoption by a same sex couple remember"
The grandmother is 46!! There are quite a few first time mums on MN in their early 40s I would imagine - she's not a doddering old lady!
I do find it sad that they aren't able to visit their grandchildren, but I do think there's more to this than is being reported.

Where have the grandparents have said they would 'try to turn the children against their new parents'?

"Frankly if somebody gave my kids to 2 gay men I'd haunt the social worker forever."

Why? What is it that you object to? Do you not think men are capable of being loving parents? Or is it the fact they are gay that upsets you? Do you feel the same about gay women?

It's both actually although a gay woman I'd take less issue with, I'd not be happy if a single (straight or gay) man had them either (and I'd include my own brothers in that) especially if other relatives were available. I was brought up by my father alone and it wasn't a comparable experience, didn't hurt me but was not the same.
If a mother and father are available then that is what the children are entitled to, a normal family life. These poor mites have had enough of a rocky start already, if SS want to play god with social experimentation it should not be allowed with other peoples children especially when gay couples can these days have their own biological children.

I have to confess - and this is possibly wrong of me - that at heart I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of two gay men adopting, quite apart from this case. I mean, whatever the rights and wrongs of this case.

Gay women, fine. But two gay men just doesn't feel right. Not right for a child/children deliberately to be made to grow up without a mother (as opposed to something that happens without intent when a mother dies).

Couple of friends of mine are gay fathers but in both cases that's because they have acted as donors to lesbian couples. That doesn't jar at all - it's the two men adopting a child that worries me at some level. (My friend are very involved in their children's lives, as much as any devoted father who doesn't live with the mother can be.)

This may well be unfair or prejudiced of me, but I do think there is possibly a real reason to be concerned about children being deliberately deprived of a mother. Especially when these children have already suffered a very severe loss in their lives.

I don't really see that a mother should be a bigger loss than a father. Especially when you have two of them. Two men seems a better option than one woman to me.

It's not a case of being a greater loss, mother or father both were available to these children and yet they are being deprived of one.
There are two gay men who've with the help of donors had 4 children and it's been a success story so far but nobody knows in the long term what the effects will be on those children. Adoption adds additional pressures and complications which should not be under estimated.

I'd say a single mother is a darn sight better than two fathers, actually.

Childcare has always been primarily the woman's responsibility across Western Europe and as far as I know the world. It's unusual for a man to be the primary carer (although does happen obviously in rare instances). Two men being the primary carer is practically unheard of and no-one can possibly have a clue what the impact might be, given there is no history here.