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.

I'mn ot a great fan of adoption. It's too radical and deceptive and ignores genetic links and their importance. If the grandparents had the children and supervised and loved them I do not see why a mother with a heroin addiction could not see the children with the grandparents' present if those grandparents could protect the children whilst the mother was there.

The 2 adoptions I have witnessed first hand have both been a disaster, one child ended up in prison for most of his adult life and the other is a single mum and a prostitute.
I don't profess to have all the answers but would suggest that ordinary people aren't best placed to look after children who've suffered traumatic starts to their lives so would never be so arrogant as to assume I could.
These kids do not need any additional problems to deal with like 2 dads when the rest of the world has one if they are lucky.
I would suggest it's the children's homes and foster care that needs the biggest shake up and funding thrown at it.
I also know foster cares that do it purely for the money which is not great so perhaps that needs to be addressed too.

Oh well in that case let's just let all children who can't be cared for by their families languish in care whereverIlaymyhat

Honestly, that is a remarkably stupid statement to make

Trust me, if SS could have placed these kids with the GPs they would have - it is free, it would have taken almost no time and another case would have flown off some SW's desk.
As it is this case will have taken months and cost thousands.
The GPs here were unable to care. They tried but ultimately agreed to place in foster care because they couldn't cope.
They now say they could have but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I haven't had time to read all of the post but from what I have heard about this case the grandparents were totally unsuitable for placing the children with. There was a long history of the children not being well cared for when with the grandparents (coming back with infestations of nits, unclean etc) and by the sounds of it all of their children follow the same sort of lifestyle as the childrens mother.

This only came into the news when they discovered that the perpective parents were a gay couple when they then decided to cash in and sell their story and almost put the childrens placement at risk! However by doing that they blew any chance of a relationship with the kids when the adoption went through - how likely are the adoptive parents to grant contact after splashing this story over the papers.

thanks Wannbe. Spero, that's exactly what I'm trying to do - work out why my feelings about specifically adoption by gay men (not gay women) are so negative and whether that is prejudice or honestly, as I think it is, to do with the lack of a mother. Or both, possibly.

Actually I think I'd feel equally uncomfortable about adoption by a single hetero man, if that helps at all. And not a single hetero woman.

In a way, I honestly believe that if at all possible, children, especially very young children, need a mother more than a father. They DO need fathers of course, but fathers are (huge generalisation coming up) usually less involved in the day-to-day direct care of children.

Mind you, I also worked very hard to persuade my father to take my youngest, half-sister to live with him - post-divorce when my stepmother became obviously mentally ill and unstable. So I'm not saying men should never be primary carers. My sister was a hell of a lot better off living with Dad.

Xenia - if those grandparents could protect the children whilst the mother was there.

Thast quite a big "if" to lay on a child.

I probably know more adopted children than you and I promise you that the damage I have seen first hand caused by SS trying to keep children with their birth family eclipses the damage caused by not growing up with birth family.

The vast majority of adoptions are not at all "deceptive" and believe me when I say that 95% of adoptive parents are more in tune with the need to connect their children with their genetic heritage than the vast majority of birth parents are.

I presume no-one has the adoptive paretns or the childrens perspective?

but spero you can have reservations about something without that making you a bigot.

I think there is a real danger here of us becoming a society where no-one is allowed to question/express a concern without being branded racist/sexist/homophobic, and that nothing will be considered wrong for fear of the discrimination argument.

Now, there are some blatently homophobic posts on here, from people saying they would haunt a social worker if they put their child with two men/that they choose the gay people they would like to mix with etc etc.

However there are also people who legitimately question whether placing children with two men is really the right thing, given there will be no mother figure in their lives. Equally I'm sure there are people who would question whether it is right to place a child with a single parent, or a white child with a black family or vice versa and would question whether the cultural differences are good for the child on top of the fact that he/she has already had a rough start in life. Or with a disabled parent where one might question whether the disability would add to issues for the child. I can't see that that's wrong. Because only by questioning these things can we begin to explore the differences between people, and open our minds to every eventuality. Also, if we just blindly accept without question, there is a real risk that shouldwe lose sight of the child and their needs in all of this. Because while the romantic notion of "all you need is love" is all very well, the reality is that for some children, a gay couple would not be appropriate, for some children a single parent might not be the right parent, equally for some it would be better for them to be placed within their own race. It's not wrong to want children to have as close to a normal family life as is possible under the circumstances.

I do think the fact that 25% (approx half that for school age children) of adoptions break down is something that needs to be addressed. Because that is a shocking number, and it can't all just be down to the circumstances, there must be some margin for error on the part of those who make the placement. It would be interesting to see whether this figure has changed since less conventional adoptions have been approved, i.e. by single parents/homosexuals etc.

sorry I meant approx twice that for school age children so 50%.

Horrifying that so many adoptions break down - such a cruel blow for children who have already suffered huge losses. How on earth does a child recover from that?

Is there any research about why adoptions break down?

As for the 'if you have concerns about adoption try it for yourself', I wish I was in a position to help. Especially because my mother was adopted and it saved her from the very unhappy fate of so many other illegitimate babies at the time.

Edam - the majority of school age adoptions break down, sadly mostly due to the issues the children arive with and perhaps paretns not equipped to deal with teh reality of those problems on their life.

I genuinely beleive that when gay parents are chosen it is becasue they are the best alternative to the birth paretns available.

I say "available" becasue its quite possible that people weren't queueing around the block to take on a sibling group of a drug addicted mother (and thats without adding the potential that the children may well have additonal needs). I assume that a stable couple where one is prepared to give up work in order to settle the children properly and bond with them was prefered to a couple (or single) who couldn't do this.

Perhaps being brought up by a gay couple is not "ideal" and an added issue for the children to deal with, but all concept of an "ideal" life for these children flew out of the window when they were born to a drug addicted mother who was unable to keep them safe.

Wannabe, I am very glad that people are carefully examining their positions, I think this is the real value of a site like this. I do hope I am not lumping together bigots with people like Edam who are genuinely committed to analysing their responses - this can only be a good thing.

But I do come back to my central point. I don't deny that the best place for a child is often (but not always) with two parents who are fit and healthy. Its great if those two parents are a man and a woman because the world is made up of both sexes and a child needs to know how to relate to both. If a child is of a particular race, it makes sense to try and match the child up with at least one parent who is the same, so that child has someone to relate to.

BUT the point is this. If that family is NOT available - do you leave a child in care or allow that child at least a chance to be loved by one significant adult, be it he/she, gay/straight, black/white.

Of course not.

Kewcumber, spot on about the 'if'.

Xenia, your on line persona is of a highly successful business person. I assume therefore you don't apply the same bizarre thought process to your business as you do here.

How would you suggest the grandparents protect their grandchildren from a drug addict mother, who may be acting very strangely or even violently? Er, by not letting her near the children until she turns up clean. And these grandparents weren't prepared to do that.

I should add that whilst I too feel for grandparents torn between supporting their daughter with her problems and keeping the children safe, my mother wouldn't hesitate to put the needs of my (defenceless) DS first.

And if I had any lucid moments, I would knock her block off if she didn't. I would horrifed that she might expose DS to danger for any reason (even me).

Well said Kewcumber.

I don't want to make ill informed generalisations, that would be a bit hypocritical in the circs BUT I do think we are entitled to ask questions about the grandparents' own parenting abilities given that their daughter has screwed up her own life to such a degree.

Some people do just go off the rails, despite loving and caring homes and that might be the case here. But equally, it might not. Either way you can't just assume that grandparents = warm fuzzy lovely caring people.

No, we can't assume grandparents are fantastic people but it's a bit below the belt to suggest their daughter's problems are because they are crap parents. Plenty of good people sadly have children who end up as addicts - as some MNers can testify.

Who knows what the family dynamics are...

Spero - what you suggest re. if an 'ideal' nuclear family isn't available then a more unconventional family might be the best alternative to languishing in care makes sense to an extent, but couldn't it be seen as 'gay adoptive parents are only fit for the most troubled children when we can't find a straight couple or single mother'?

I've heard people saying they suspect that is what happens on the ground - that prospective adopters who are gay get left with the most needy children, the older ones or children with severe special needs whether those are behavioural or emotional or disabilities... (NOT that these children aren't just as important/wonderful as other children but that they may be considered less, I dunno, attractive to potential adopters?)

Am contradicting myself a bit here wrt to my reservations about single men/gay male couples but I suspect some gay adopters may be a little concerned about this line of thinking.

On the adoptions breaking down thing - presumably there needs to be MUCH more support for adoptive parents to cope with/help very troubled children? What on earth happens to children who have been adopted when an adoption breaks down?

Edam there is now a requirement for all councils to offer post adoption support but the quality of it is patchy to say the least

Edam sadly the reality is often who they can persuade to parent these children. Inevitably those of us that don't tick the ideal boxes people have mentioned are aware that we are often "required" to be open to children with more needs whether our personal circumstances are the best for that child or not. For example - I was told very clearly that I needed to be open to an older child who had been sexually abused and therefore they might prefer to place with a single females adopter. The fact that a working singel woman with no experience of paretning wouldn;t be necessarily be the best parent was (to a degree) beside the point. I was still a better option than long term foster care and due to my lack of perfectness (!) might have been more easily bounced into something I couldn't cope with.

Great - so someone who doesn't have the experience or skills to take on a very damaged child is bounced into it? No wonder so many adoptions break down...

I can only speak for what was said to me - but I think in some cases that may be true. iT is also true that the sound of some of these problems are a great deal easier than the actuality of them. Attachment disorder sounds like it should be able to be cured by some TLC and a cuddle but the reailty can be great deal more disruptive.

Indeed - there was a very heart-breaking thread once about someone whose SIL had taken on a step-child with attachment disorder.

oh I remember it well