Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Spero · 23/06/2009 22:36

Dear Hat

If the choice is

a)moving from foster home to foster home as placements break down or living in a children's home with little or no consistency of care or

b) living with a gay man who loves you, cooks for you, cares about what happened during your day, supports you etc

What do YOU think is better?

Spero · 23/06/2009 22:38

I don't agree that skin colour rules all. Of course efforts are made to find parent(s) who are an ethnic match, for obvious sensible reasons.

But there are so, so many black boys in care that SS will consider anyone who could be a good match.

edam · 23/06/2009 22:39

That's reassuring to hear, Spero (that SS will not bar adoption completely just because there are no ethnically matched adopters).

Spero · 23/06/2009 22:43

When I was inquiring about fostering a few years ago, it was utterly heartbreaking. I was pinned to the wall by three social workers pleading me to consider adopting three black siblings

'they're great! one of them plays the violin!'

Me (nervously) er, but I wouldn't know how to look after their hair for eg

Them 'the fact that you are sensitive enough to pose that question PROVES you are capable of taking them on'

I really don't buy the story that thousands of children languish in care because ss can't make a colour match. I am afraid the unpalatable truth is that your chances of being adopted are much much higher if you are a white girl under 3 years.

Black boy over 7? Nobody wants you.

Spero · 23/06/2009 22:45

So come on all you white homophobes! Instead of letting all these awful gayboys get their hands on these little children, why don't YOU step up and adopt them.

As you were.

edam · 23/06/2009 22:47

You are right, that is heartbreaking.

My mother was very lucky to be adopted - not that she knew it until years later, but so many other illegitimate babies born within 9 months of WW2 were sent to orphanages where they were abused, or sent all the way round the world to be abused by the Christian Brothers and others. Makes me shudder to think of it.

These days, I suspect her parents would have been classed as too old to adopt.

spicemonster · 23/06/2009 22:48

Oh I agree with you about that edam - it makes me very cross. But I do not see a hierarchy of potential adoptive parents that goes: straight couple, straight woman, lesbian woman, lesbian couple, straight man, gay man - whatever, the lower echelon ranking is irrelevant. The point is that I don't believe a straight couple are a better choice for children than a gay one or indeed a single parent is worse than a couple.

As spero says, what children need is love. I don't believe that there is any empirical evidence that children do better/are happier in a home that has a heterosexual relationship at its core than they do in any other. It's not an intrinsic part of happiness and wellbeing.

Here's a video
Gay penguins and their baby

Spero · 23/06/2009 22:52

25% of adoptive placements break down.

can you imagine what it must feel like to be the child in that situation??

I have absolutely NO problem with ss being concerned about the age, health problems of potential adopters.

I wish people would consider the very real impact this constant, ill founded vitriol is having on the social work profession.

Most of the social workers i meet at court are now polish, south african etc. People are not going into this work because the pay is shit and you get vilified whatever you do.

Seriously, if you have problems with the system then PLEASE do something more constructive than spouting ill informed opinions.

That is a general point, not aimed at anyone in particular.

wannaBe · 23/06/2009 22:52

I don't think it should be beyond question. I think if something is beyond the norm, then I think we can question that without being deliberately prejudiced, and I don't think that everyone who has a particular issue is necessarily a homophobe.

But I do think there's a difference between someone like Edam, who has never come across as prejudiced against anyone, voicing an opinion that it just doesn't feel right, and someone like wherever who has branded someone selfish for considering adoption, purely because she is gay.

To me, the former appears to have a genuine opinion, which I would hazard a guess she is open to have changed, whereas the latter appears clearly prejudiced...

Spero · 23/06/2009 22:54

Hmmm WannBE

I think I would rather be dealing with 'clear prejudice' - then I know what I'm up against.

'feeling' that something 'just isn't right' is quite dangerous. I think we all have a moral duty to analyze WHAT exactly isn't 'right' and why we are 'uneasy'.

hester · 23/06/2009 23:00

Well, edam, I think I'd put that the other way round. I agree with you that the current system prioritises - almost fetishises - racial identity. Most people, I think - myself included - think that ethnic matching makes sense but shouldn't get out of kilter with other considerations, including getting a child out of the care system quickly and permanently.

For my money, the current system puts far too emphasis on finding adopters who tick all the right boxes, because it doesn't have the resources (or the political will) to find, nurture and support through the long term people with the right qualities to effectively parent traumatised children. Adopted children often struggle with issues around identity and belonging - obviously being placed with a new family that reflects your ethnic origin will help, but what may be more important is getting parents with real empathy and skills to help you resolve those issues.

Similarly, I don't take lightly the possibility that my children will get bullied because of my sexuality. Actually, it's my greatest fear. On the other hand, I hope that my experience of supporting my birth child through issues of identity, difference and prejudice will be of real benefit to an adopted child. Maybe better than in some ventional families where the assumption may be that an adopted child can just slip into the space a biological child would occupy.

I don't think I - or anybody - has a right to adopt. As a candidate for adoption, I am not perfect, but I am thoughtful and resourceful and loving and prepared to fight to the finish to get all my children what they need. I can only put my faith in the adoption system - however flawed that is - to make the right choice if it decides that a particular child will do better in my care than with any other existing option.

Sorry, this has turned into a boring rant. It's not a subject that is best understood through a discussion about rights and prejudice, IMO - that puts the focus on the adults when it really should be on the child.

spicemonster · 23/06/2009 23:02

To be fair Spero - I think edam is considering why she feels like that and examining her own misgivings.

Spero · 23/06/2009 23:04

well, to be fair to me, I wasn't really having a go at edam, more at Wannabe.

I do actually prefer people who are utterly straightforward bigots. Then you know what you are up against.

how do you debate with a 'feeling'?

hester · 23/06/2009 23:05

Spero, I think I love you
And SGM too...

Actually, there's been some really good posts on this thread, even some of the ones I disagreed with.

StayFrosty · 23/06/2009 23:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

spicemonster · 23/06/2009 23:08

You debate by explaining why that feeling is wrong and without foundation and illogical. And then maybe you can change someone's POV. Not always but I've had some success. Not in necessarily changing their outlook but in making them realise that it's a kneejerk prejudice that they need to deal with.

Where on earth do you go with someone who says 'well that's just plain wrong' and purses their lips?

hester · 23/06/2009 23:12

Thanks, StayFrosty, that's really nice of you.

Spero · 23/06/2009 23:13

Hester, I love you too.

When you see the damage that growing up unloved and unwanted does - I don't have to ask my clients what their childhood was like, I know without reading the papers that they were neglected, abused, ignored and well, quelle surprise, they inflict the same on their own children, because how do they know to do any better??

When you see that damage you will know that to try to rescue a child from that, for that child to know however shit they are feeling, however bad their day there is a home for them to go to with a person who loves them in it... I think that is the greatest thing a person can ever do for another.

So i repeat; if the homophobes don't want gay people adopting, YOU step up and do it.

Ha! didn't think so.

StewieGriffinsMom · 23/06/2009 23:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

whereeverIlaymyhat · 23/06/2009 23:25

it always appears that he only came into our lives because he wasn't good enough for a perfect heterosexual white couple to adopt.

Nobody said the child was anything of the sort, the question is one purely of are they good enough parents to deny the child a hetrosexual household to grow up in which like it or not is indeed the norm.

Spero · 23/06/2009 23:27

Dear Hat

'Indeed the norm'. Really?? have you been reading Mr Justice Coleridge's very interesting points about the total collapse of family life?

In certain parts of the country it is very far from the norm.

Whether this is good or bad, I'm not qualified to say.

So answer my earlier question to you please.

StewieGriffinsMom · 23/06/2009 23:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Spero · 23/06/2009 23:35

Indeed. It is often not a question of denying the child the 'right' to be bought up in a heterosexual household (where of course no child is ever abused or neglected because heterosexual parents just don't have time to do those sorts of things, concentrating as they are on their robust heterosexuality) but rather denying the child the right to have ANYONE who loves them.

And I know which one I think is more important. Hat, you would too, if you were someone with enought insight to see the bigoted wood for the trees.

Earthymama · 24/06/2009 00:01

Spero your earlier post was brilliant and said it all.

Love and knowing you are loved and cared for is the most important considerations for all of us.

(Am going to bed now but will follow this with interest)

I too love Spero!

nooka · 24/06/2009 05:47

Any prospective adoptive parent should be assessed entirely on what they have to offer in terms of love, support and resilience (adopting often damaged children is an incredibly difficult and fantastic thing to do). Choosing parents for children should be about finding the best match possible. I think that is the trickiest thing for any SW in this field. It is a huge responsibility. The care system is not a good place for a child in the long term, as it denies all sense of stability or long term unconditional love (even the child in a great foster home knows that it is temporary, not forever, which must be really quite scary). So there is a balance, and a tricky judgment of 'is this the best family for this child'. Knowing that some adoptions break down makes that pressure even worse - not much IMO (beyond abuse or neglect) could be worse than thinking that at last (given that children are often in care for two years plus before placement) you have a permanent home and it not working out.

Of course there are some adoptive parents who turn out to be crap, and some SW who abuse their position or just aren't very good (just like ordinary parents, and any other professional group). But most of them do a very difficult job very well and should be commended on it. The reason why the care system is struggling so much is because there just aren't enough foster parents, parents willing to adopt and SWs. Indeed if there were many more of each group, then the issue about bad ones would be much less, as when there is choice then selection can come into play, and only the best would be chosen.