Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Mother's anger after social workers place her children with gay couple for adoption

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 January 2009
A RECOVERING drug addict who says her two children are to be adopted by a gay couple told last night how she had wanted them to have a "mum and dad".
The woman was unable to look after her five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister.

The children, from Edinburgh, had been cared for by their grandparents, who say they have now been placed in foster care and are to be adopted by a gay couple
.

The mother, who cannot be named, said:

"I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad."

The grandparents, a farm worker aged 59 and his wife, 46, had looked after the youngsters almost from birth.

They claimed yesterday that Edinburgh city council told them they would never be able to see the five-year-old boy and his sister, aged four, unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption.

The controversy surfaced after the grandparents dropped a two-year court battle with the authority because of rising costs. They claim the council systematically dismantled their status as carers by putting the children in foster care for the duration of the legal proceedings.

The grandparents claim the visits they were allowed became less frequent, and that they have now been unable to see the children for four months.

They say they do not know where the children are, and fear the youngsters will be unhappy in their new home – especially the girl.

The couple said concerns about their age and health had led social workers to consider them unsuitable to look after the children.

The grandfather suffers from angina, while the grandmother has diabetes and high blood pressure.

Social workers dealing with the case have admitted that heterosexual couples who were approved as adoptive parents had also been keen to take on the children.

The grandfather said yesterday: "It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure.

"We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests. The ideal for any child is to have a loving father and loving mother."

His wife added: "It's so important for children to fit in, and I feel our grandchildren will be marked out from the start when they draw pictures of their two dads."

The couple also claimed that when they protested, they were told: "You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again."

When they made their opposition clear, however, the couple were told that social workers would "certainly" look at allowing them access to the children "when you are able to come back with an open mind".

Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland, said: "This is a devastating decision which will have a serious impact on the welfare of the children involved.

"There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable.

"With this in mind, the social work department has deliberately ignored evidence which undermines their decision and opted for politically correct posturing rather than providing stability and protection."

Marilyne MacLaren, the council's convener for education, children and families, insisted the two gay men would be excellent parents.

She said: "I have been assured the professional view is that the adoptive couple will provide a safe, secure and loving environment for these children.

"These are always very complex cases, but I think it is important to say the grandparents have been fully involved in discussions about this case over a period of time."

She said that approving people to adopt and matching them with children was a very rigorous process. At both stages, a panel of experts was involved and typically included social workers, healthcare professionals, a childcare solicitor and representatives of children's charities.

A thorough assessment and extensive checks were also carried out on all prospective adoptive parents.

"Our priority is finding the best possible supportive home and family for the children," Ms MacLaren said.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 January 2009 12:42 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Roman Catholic church
 
1

,

28/01/2009 23:17:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

MGJ,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 00:31:40
So the grandparents are not allowed to undermine a foster placement; good. It is in the children's best interests to know where they are going to be, and it is no more unnatural than being brought up by grandparents.

Peter Kearney seems unaware of the current divorce statistics for straight couples
3

Fifi la Bonbon,

29/01/2009 00:37:15
"...concerns about their age and health had led to social workers considering them unsuitable to look after the children. The grandfather suffers from angina, while the grandmother has diabetes and high blood pressure."


So effing what? Angina, diabetes and HBP? Unpleasant, of course, and maybe the social workers should put in a bit of help, but if the grandparents want to look after the weans why not?

This hasn't got anything to do with the adopters being gay men and it has everything to do with social workers being prejudiced about disability. Half of Scottish parents have angina, diabetes or HBP, but that doesn't stop them being as good or bad as any others. And Cllr McLaren sounds just a bit too eager for my liking, and too keen to take "the professional view."
4

Tracker,

29/01/2009 00:41:20
If "same-sex" is all right for the Catholic Church's clergy why is it "inherently unstable" for couples?

Yet again the dangerous prejudice of the Catholic Church is obvious. Without knowing anything about the adoptive parents the Church has judged them unsuitable. This is wrong.



5

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 29/01/2009 00:50:56
This is perverse, and fuelled by political correctness from a thoroughly discredited "profession" which cares more about minority rights and gender politics than it does about children.
6

,

29/01/2009 01:12:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

29/01/2009 01:24:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 02:45:24


My Heart goes out for these defenceless wee Children!

These Children are NOT! Commodities, they are Human-Beings, with feelings, who have, sense of smell, touch and Love!

These Children, albeit not with their Mother, will Know through Nature, they are with the Family-Pack, while in their Grandparents domain!

Take (All) This, away from them, and believe-you-me, these Children, will have deep-routed, psychological problems for the rest of their Lives!

Shame on the "Social Workers" that cannot see, What Charles Linskaill Knows!

9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 02:55:15


NOW! Was that not a comment of excellence, @#8?

Because, Believe Me!, It 'IS' all too Sadly True!





10

,

29/01/2009 03:16:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Mr A Roy,

29/01/2009 03:36:37
Marilyne MacLaren, you should be fired !
12

Mrs Numpty,

The Universe 29/01/2009 05:47:01
This has made me feel sick, I looked after my grandaughter well into my fifties, I to have angina. I am not homophobic but it is not right to bring children up in a same sex relationship. If one wants children do se one not understand you have to have one male & one femail.
13

Simon,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 06:48:38
A politically correct decision which has more to do with Homosexual equality than what is right for the children.
To argue that the Grandparents aren't able to provide for their children because of minor disabilities is unbelievable.
Along with other posters, I question whether its better/moral for a child to be raised in a mixed sex relationship rather than a same sex relationship.
14

cabrach loon,

inverness 29/01/2009 07:49:57
well said 8 and 13. A politically correct UK is an immoral hypocritical dump, the sooner the UK is ruled foir the majority and not the small minded minority of holy willie typs the better. Let us have morality and decency back, remove mindless violence and bad language from films and ads and clean up the country for the people. Clean out the likes of jonathan ross etc. Let logic come back.
15

,

29/01/2009 07:57:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

paulr,

edinburgh 29/01/2009 08:27:01
"She said that approving people to adopt and matching them with children was a very rigorous process. At both stages, a panel of experts was involved and typically included social workers, healthcare professionals, a childcare solicitor and representatives of children's charities"

AND on numerous occasions in the past we have seen what a wonderfull job these so called experts do, paedophiles who are not a danger to children, abusers who are actually carers.
Blackmailing the grandparents with threats of never seeing the children again, very professional and typical.
17

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 08:41:33
What a depressing set of opinions based almost entirely on prejudice rather than rational argument.

Peter Kearney is simply a liar - the only "evidence" that the Catholic Church ever bring forward to support this allegation is US right-wing-funded fake research. Peer-reviewed, good quality research completely fails to support his homophobic point of view. The fact is that children growing up with same sex parents do not suffer any of the ill-effects which homophobes allege.

If children need a father and a mother, why do we allow a quarter of children to grow up in single-parent families? Why, if a man is widowed, do we not take his children from him? Is it because we know, in fact, that a single parent is perfectly able to give a child what they need? In which case, two parents of the same sex will be doubly able to do so.

If children will suffer bullying as a result of their family background, do we really think the answer is the ban the family background? Or should we be trying to remove the prejudice in society which causes this bullying? Mixed race children often suffer abuse because of their backgrounds. Should we ban mixed-race couples from having children, or adopting?

I feel so sorry for those of you expressing such hurtful and wrong-headed opinions here. What has the world done to you to make you so intent on denying perfectly decent, kind and generous people the right to give a child a loving home? Why do you hate gay people so much that you are prepared to be complicit in lies about them?

You're wrong. In a hundred years society will look on prejudice against gay people as it looks on racism now. Your great-grandchildren will not understand you. Your prejudice is destined for the dustbin of history.
18

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 29/01/2009 08:47:32
Dunc

Yup, you are probably right. However, you can't stop people expressing an opinion, nor can they stop you.

BTW? Re: single parent families. It is well established that kids are brought up better balanced with 2 parents and in the main, male and female in order to get persepctive on the world.

While single parents can bring up good kids, they have slightly more issues than "regular" kids going into puberty and early adulthood. Especially in forming relationships with the opposite sex.

However, you will never read about it, or be told it lest the femenists and homosexuals are offended.
19

sam the god,

29/01/2009 08:57:29
what role model are these homosexuals going to give ie that 2 males sleeping together is normal as the girl gets older what first hand advice can they give the girl. have the social workers even asked the children what they want
20

,

29/01/2009 09:08:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

it has always been allan,

29/01/2009 09:08:59
I suppose a lesbian couple could do a fair job fostering a female child but for two boy homosexuals to foster mixed children is completely crazy.

Who takes the responsibility?

To tell grandparents that they will not see their granchildren unless they comply is an idea borrowed from the NAZI'S. But anything is possible under NEW LABOUR.
22

Philmugla,

29/01/2009 09:20:27
Duncan in Edinburgh.

http://www.michnews.com/cgibin/artman/exec/view.cgi/445/20058

Worth a read to confirm that everyone does not accept as normal all the gay nonsense that we are confronted with daily. We need credible organisations (of course nothing that contradicts the gay doctrine is acceptable and is always rejected) to rebutt the propaganda and put a stop to this very pernicious and dangerous pandering to this vocal minority!
23

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 29/01/2009 09:31:33
"I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad."

Then maybe you should have looked after them instead of abdicating your responsibilities and getting yourself whacked out on drugs.
24

ddmc,

29/01/2009 09:45:52
#23 thats right Rev, but then the grandparents stepped in & took care of them, then the 'professionals' decided they knew best & placed them in foster care whilst a legal battle developed, the 'professionals' then decided a same sex couple was the best option for adoption.

My biggest question is who asked the kids what they wanted !

As for Marilyn Manson I'd be very careful taking the advice of the social work 'professionals' as looking at past history they havent exactly covered themselves in glory
25

albanman,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 09:52:11
I see that the ill-informed anti-gay brigade are out again; no surprise. I've always found that a truly straight person is totally comfortable and accepting around people who are gay.

There is no demonstrable reason for a gay couple not to adopt a child, provided that they are faithful, loving and attentive as any parent should be. As for Peter Kearney's comment: what "overwhelming body of evidence" does he produce to say gay relationships are "inherently unstable"? Certainly not one conducted by a neutral party.

However, having said all this, if the grandparents are physically able and also willing to keep the children, then they should be allowed to do so. They seem to be a loving couple.

I say this a gay man who has been in a faithful relationship for 15 years (not exactly unstable Mr Kearney) so I certainly don't believe we are inferior to heterosexual couples in any way. Oh, by the way, I'm not only gay but a practising Catholic with a great deal of love for the Church.

So, I'm a gay practising Catholic who believes it is fine for gay couples to adopt, but who also believes that in this case the children should be with the grandparents provided they are physically able and also willing. I wonder how many people I've annoyed by these comments. It's going to be a lovely day :)
26

Brodric,

29/01/2009 09:52:56
No 3 Fifi la Bonbon has hit the nail on the head.

Many parents have health problems and still do a good job bringing up their kids. These grandparents have already been caring for the kids. Let them continue with help.

I have no truck with a gay couple fostering or adopting children, so long as they have the range of friends and family to also reflect the mainly heterosexual background of western culture - to give the children a balanced view of life. A requirement is made when non-white children are placed in foster care or adoptive situations that the new 'parents' can provide that input regarding the racial background of the children.

But, when family exist, especially grandparents or siblings, and they are prepared to bring up the children, then it can only be the best situation for the children.

And as Charles says, children are not commodities.
27

Brodric,

29/01/2009 09:57:21
Well said Albanman, no 26.

It is marvellous that you can see above the bigotries of the church and still remain with love for the sentiments behind the imperfect facade.

You are lucky too that you have found your mate. It isn't always easy.
28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 10:01:58
#18 Dave, there is no conspiracy of silence to avoid offending gay people or feminists. The media is full of articles lying about these issues in the most offensive way. Sometimes I think a period of silence about the issues would be very welcome.

It is far from "well established" that two parents of opposite sexes produce more balanced children. Most of the unbalanced children I know come from two-parent, mixed sex families. The friends I have who had difficult childhoods all came from mixed-sex couples, many of which split up. And the few children I know of same-sex couples are well-balanced and have two loving parents.

Obviously that's just anecdotal evidence, but can you tell me of a single unbalanced child you know from a same-sex family background?

If you can't, why do you consider the prejudice against same sex parenting to be so "well established"?

As ever, I appreciate the honesty Dave. Hope all is well with you and yours.
29

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 10:03:58

These children will be subjected to name calling and ridicule by their peers because the adoptive parents are homosexual.

Everyone is aware of that. No one denies it.

That difficulty would be avoided if the adoptive parents were heterosexual.

I refuse to believe there no suitable heterosexual couples willing to adopt the children.

The interests of these children have been compromised to accommodate the interests of the homosexual adopters.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen.

The children's interests are paramount. They should not be compromised in any circumstances whatever competing interests might be involved.



30

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 10:10:36
#30 Stan, black children will be subjected to name calling and ridicule by their peers because their parents are black.

That difficulty would be avoided if their parents were white.

Do you seriously think that the answer to discrimination in society is to bend to it?
31

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 10:10:58
#17 Duncan in Edinburgh

'If children will suffer bullying as a result of their family background, do we really think the answer is the ban the family background?'


The answer is not to voluntarily put the children in a situation where they will suffer bullying or ridicule.

Otherwise you are compromising the children's interests.

If that upsets homosexuals or anyone else that's just tough.

The children's interests come first.
32

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 10:15:59
#32 So you would ban black people from procreating then? And you would ban mixed-sex couples from procreating too. While you're at it, there's no question that children will face ridicule from their peers for being brought up by their grandparents. Better ban that too.
33

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 10:27:25
#33 Correction: "mixed-sex" should be "mixed-race".
34

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 10:30:27
#33 Duncan in Edinburgh

Do you accept that these children will be subjected to jibes and ridicule from their peers because the adoptive parents are homosexual?

Yes or no?
35

Starkravingsane,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 10:32:32
The really awful thing about this story is the incredibly nasty tactics employed by the state against these grandparents. Now, granted, their daughter went off, had kids to two different, fairly unstable men, led a dissolute lifestyle herself and mucked up her family's life. So maybe there's an argument that they weren't that great parents themselves. BUT to blackmail people into giving up their own grandchildren, and using these foul threats against them is quite disgusting. Spare a thought for the gay couple. They may well be taking on two very damaged children, older children - the so-called 'hard to place' group, who will require an enormous amount of care, love and attention. And they're taking both, not picking and choosing. Whatever the rights and wrongs or your own thoughts about whether they should even have been considered, they're doing a good thing. Hopefully the wee girl will learn that men can be trusted, that they're not all stoners or addicts or women beaters or abusers. The boy could learn that men don't have to be hard-hitting bullys who use their fists on girls. Good could come out of this. Lets hope it does.
36

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 10:35:49
#35 Yes, I suspect they will be. It's a sad truth that homophobia is alive and well in our society.

Do you accept that mixed race children are subjected to jibes and ridicule (and worse) because their parents are of different races?

Yes or no?
37

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 10:39:54
#38 While I agree that *if what the grandparents say is true* the social work department has behaved badly, I would suggest that it is unlikely that we are hearing the whole story here, and the social workers themselves will never have right of reply. So I would be slow to judge them. Most are very hard-working, diligent and have the well-being of children paramount in everything they do.
38

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 29/01/2009 10:48:11
Dunc

We could argue semantics all day, it would be pointless. I know more troubled children from broken homes than do from "un broken" homes and know only one child who was raised by 2 women (2 spinster sisters). She turned out alright apart from a knack of picking shocking suitors, but hey ho.

As you say, it's anecdotal but you will agree, I'm sure, that homosexual men can make just as much of an @rse of raising kids as regular couples. The thing that comes to my mind though, is instinct.

Maternal and paternal instinct. It's real and valid and I have no idea how to apply to homosexuality.

As you know, I am open minded enough to want to learn from your perspective, but I will ask questions.

Yup, thigns good with me and mine. The wee-est one is growing up so quickly (mind you, with the hungry other lot, she has too!). Hope things cool with you and yours too.
39

Brodric,

29/01/2009 11:02:11
31 Duncan - sorry don't follow your reasoning about black children being bullied because their parents are black - but not if they are white.

32 Stan has a point about not putting children in a situation where they will suffer ridicule - especially when the children are already vulnerable.

The fact of the matter is that, despite the pc - brigade, people can be cruel to one another. Children can be cruel to one another. And there is nothing that can be done to completely eradicate name calling and labelling or pigeonholing people.

I have gay friends and family - I know them for the good people they are - but I wouldn't want to put their fundamental rights at the head of the pc-brigade's ideas and flaunt the rights of another group - in this case the right of children to be with their natural family.
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 11:05:59
#41 The troubled kids I know from families which have separated are, in my opinion, more troubled by the effects of the separation - the anger and lies and psychological warfare between the parents - than they ever are by the fact of being brought up in a single parent household. In fact, the single parents I know who are single parents by choice, and do not have a second parent knocking around causing problems, have extremely well-adjusted kids.

So I think we have to strongly distinguish between kids from lone parent families, and kids from dysfunctional families.

Of course any couple has the capacity to make an @rse of raising kids, you're quite right.

I don't think there's any difference in maternal/paternal instinct whether one is gay or straight. I don't think there is any interplay between sexuality and parenting. Certainly none that I've heard of.
41

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 11:09:01
#42 My point was simply that if unfair discrimination exists in society then the only answer is to challenge it; the answer is never to bend to it.

Take the mixed race case. Certainly when I was growing up, kids who had parents of different races were bullied for it at school. Would you ever suggest that the answer to that problem would be to stop mixed-race couples having children?

Because that is exactly the argument being made about gay people. Society is prejudiced, therefore we will bend to that prejudice. It is a shocking, dreadful suggestion, but apparently widely thought to be reasonable.
42

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:13:37
#39 Duncan in Edinburgh

'Do you accept that mixed race children are subjected to jibes and ridicule (and worse) because their parents are of different races?'

I have limited experience in the matter. My grandson has a pal who is mixed race. I remember when he was about 3 and a half he told me that his pal's mummy had brown hands. He didn't mention that his pal's hands weren't pink so in answer to your question not necessarily, no. Even if it were the case, it doesn't justify extending the iniquity by putting more children in a position where they are going to be subjected to ridicule. There is no need for these children to be placed with a homosexual couple so why do it?

However you look at it, the interests of these children have been compromised, and that's not acceptable.

43

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

29/01/2009 11:13:55
This is sad....and what a message the uproar re gay adoption is sending out to those it is supposed to help?...children?...what of the children who already are beginning to realise that they have feelings for the same sex?...adolescents and young teenagers who know that they are gay or are struggling to come to terms with their sexuality?...they will already be aware of the homophobia that still exists in our society and may well be on the receiving end of it in the playground or at home...

Perhaps there are other reasons the social work dept do not want the grandparents to bring up the children...ie perhaps they do not want the natural parents to have access to them?..."Recovering drug addict" does not neccessarily mean off drugs altogether...but on a methodone programme and making all the right noises about it...

By telling gays they cannot adopt we are telling gay children that they are unnacceptable...abnormal...unsuitable and not equal in our society.

This is unacceptable..the issue is about care and love and being able to bring a child up in a safe environment, and that is all that matters.
44

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:16:22

Homosexual rights 1 Children's rights 0

That's about the size of it, isn't it?
45

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:17:57

Does anyone know how many children have been placed for adoption since the legislation was introduced and how many have been placed with homosexual couples?
46

Canada,

Canada 29/01/2009 11:17:58
Can you please tell me why my comment #6 was removed?
47

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 11:20:14
#48 No it isn't, and your determination to keep saying that to try to make it so does you no credit at all.

The social work department *has* acted in the best interests of the children. Your position stems from prejudice, not children's rights.

Your answer in #46 fails to address the point. You propose that to avoid the *effects* of prejudice we should suppress the rights of those suffering it.

Please think about that seriously. Would you stop mixed sex couples having children in order to stop those children being ridiculed? Would you stop ginger people having children in order to stop those children being ridiculed?
48

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 29/01/2009 11:22:44
Dunc@43

That was kinda my point re: maternal/paternal instinct. A gay male couple in a relationship, presumeably both have paternal instincts? But in a relationship such as that, wouldn't a maternal isntinct also be beneficial to the child (i.e. a matter of balance)? Same vis a vis gay females?

Of course, you are right to disntinguish between dysfunctional families and lone parental families. And of course, gay couples have just as, if not more so (if the media are to be believed) that capacity to split up and walk away (thus opening up a whole new world of access rights, who pays what and custody - i.e. the courts of this land operate on "Mother is Best" which is why most mothers gain custody here).
49

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:22:49
#47 Horrible Cankers

Most homosexuals of whatever age are aware that following their own sexual interests will prevent them from having children.

Surely homosexuals who want to adopt children are in some way failing to accept their own sexuality?

What's so liberating about homosexuals wanting to conform to heterosexual modes of behaviour?
50

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:25:35
#51 Did the social work department in the Pontefract case act in the best interests of the children?

Or were they unduly influenced by wishing to avoid accusations of homophobia?
51

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:28:06
#51 Duncan in Edinburgh

You wish to use these children as foot soldiers in your campaign against what you regard as anti homosexual prejudice, don't you?
52

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 29/01/2009 11:31:28
Stan @53

I said that about homosexuals wanting to marry in the eyes of the law.

I mean, FFS why get married when it has caused so much misery for so many hetro couples!!!!! ;-)
53

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 11:33:54
#54 If people are unduly influenced by wishing to avoid accusations of homophobia then they are failing in their job just as they would be if they took sexuality into account when making a decision.

It's odd, though, that the only failing *you* seem to see are those which are in favour of gay people. There have been hundreds of cases where the law, the local authorities and the adoption agencies have discriminated unfairly against gay people and given custody to an altogether less suitable person simply because they were straight. Did you cause a fuss about those cases too?

I say again, much as you might think it, your argument has nothing to do with upholding children's rights, and everything to do with prejudice against gay people.

As for #53, I assume then that heterosexual couples in which, for example, the woman has had ovarian cancer and cannot naturally conceive, should be berated for using IVF or implanted eggs in order to have children - they should accept that if they can't have children naturally they should have children at all.
54

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 11:35:46
#55 You've stopped debating the point and are now resorting to just repeating your opinion without justification. I've already answered this notion - it isn't true, and you have lost that argument. Merely repeating it makes you appear dogmatic and unreasonable.
55

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 11:37:49
#47 HC
Hi - long time no see! How's you?

As I said yesterday about this, how is it a good thing for the children to be prevented from having access to their grandparents? From what I've read, they haven't actually done anything wrong. The mother has a bit a of a cheek, though - she could always choose to look after her children over pumping rubbish into herself!
56

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 11:42:54
#58 Duncan

You have already concede that these children will be subjected to ridicule by their peers because the adoptive parents are homosexual.

You seem to think that's an acceptable price to pay in some grater cause.

That's all that matters.
57

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

29/01/2009 11:43:03
53...You would have to ask homosexual people those questions but my opinion is that the issue of "Conforming" is inaccurate...I think gays and lesbians are not attempting to emulate straight behaviour but are following their instincts..ie to have children and a family unit...I know gay people with kids and "Conforming" is the last thing they would do..

I absolutely disagree with the statement re them "Failing to accept their own sexuality"...that would mean that they must accept themselves as people who have no right to have children. Gay men and women have had sexual relations with the opposite sex to have children...there are gay men and women BRINGING up children between them..

Here is a question for those denouncing the same sex scenario...what of the gay and lesbian who have a child, remain in the same household and then raise the child?

Heterosexuals want children for different reasons...family unit...to create a loving environment that they lacked in their own upbringing...the need to dispense love and to nurture...etc...why should it be any different for gays?...these needs do not disappear because you are attracted to the same sex...

They can have children...and they do...via sexual intercourse...spérm donation...or adoption..
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 11:49:29
#60 You are not listening, Stan.

I abhor the ridicule, and worse, that any child has to endure as a result of their parents' sexuality, race, religion, disability or other feature.

It is not an acceptable price to pay for anything.

I want it stopped.

You, apparently, don't. You want to avoid it by bending to the prejudice that causes these problems.

You would presumably take children away from a couple should one of them end up in a wheelchair as a result of a car accident - to protect their children from taunts and bullying about their parent's disability.

Don't you see the false nature of your argument?

I want an end to unfair discrimination in society, not a society which forces people to behave according to its prejudices.
59

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

29/01/2009 11:51:42
59...Hi JG...I'm fine...psyching myself up to wrestle with the garden..long neglected and overdue...hope you are doing well?...what you up to these days?

Anyway we will never get the full story...I do not understand why the children are not with the grandparents but as I stated there may be other valid reasons. I always take articles on this newspaper with a pinch of salt...having spoken to a journo once the resulting story had more twists, innaccuracies and "Out of contexts" in it, that it was more a work of fiction than fact...And as for the mother or father well I dont know their story, and why they reached the gutter....for all we know it could have been a result of their upbringing...not saying it is though!!...so I'll reserve judgement...
60

S'me,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 11:53:13
I think we have the image here of a lovely old grey haired couple, how do we know the're not two buckfast swilling wino's who'd leave them outside the pub eating crisps... too few facts. I'm sure they have been placed with two people who only want the best for the kids, its a lot of effort and sacrifice to do what they're doing and they will be well vetted as is the norm. Silly non story without the facts we'll rightly never hear.
61

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 12:02:40
Err same story run two days in a row ? Are the Scotsman on a campaign here ?

First up - Social workers do not have the right to arbitarily remove children. It is in fact very difficult to do and requires a court order.

Secondly these children have been in care for two years, so they are not being taken away from their grandparents in order to be adopted by gays.

Thirdly Social Workers will place children with the family unit which has been assessed as being most suitable for their needs, having regard to all relevant factors.

This is a made-up story which when you actually analyse it is about an attack on the right of homosexuals to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
62

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 12:06:12
62 Duncan - good posts. I would recommend from long experience that you do not attempt to do battle with Stan. He does completely circular arguments and does not engage in the actual substance of what it is you are saying. He just says the same thing over and over and over again until you become dizzy. Waste of time.
63

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 29/01/2009 12:10:07
Duncan #17: I haven't got time at the moment to read all the comments here, but I got down to your first on (#17). Spot on.

You said: "In a hundred years society will look on prejudice against gay people as it looks on racism now. Your great-grandchildren will not understand you. Your prejudice is destined for the dustbin of history."

I sincerely hope it won't take as long as a century, but, given some of the disgraceful, ill-informed, bigoted comments here, it may well.
64

TheSmith,

29/01/2009 12:25:00
Eh, surely the mother would be better arguing 'I want them with me???'
65

Starkravingsane,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 12:36:28
Some things and lifestyles are more important to the 'me' generation than their children.
66

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 13:43:57
It is preposterous to suggest that the grandparents of these two children are incapable of caring for them because social worker/s deem them to be medically unfit to properly do so. What right do they have to determine anybody's suitability on medical grounds?
My wife and I are pensioners with medical conditions of equal - or arguably greater - severity, but we have experienced absolutely no problems in caring for our Grandson during the 14 years he has been with us.
These children deserve to be cared for by close family members who will give them the love and affection they entitled to. It would be reasonable to expect any body charged with the welfare of the children to recognise this.
Time enough to consider placing them in the care of either straight or homosexual couples - or singles - should the Grandparents prove to be unworthy of caring for them.
67

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 13:54:08
70 Are you unable to read english ? As several posters above including me have pointed out Social Workers are not able to take children into care, or put them up for adoption, without court orders permitting them to do that. It is actually very difficult to take a child away from it's family, the burden of proof is very high, as recent tragic cases where children were not taken into care illustrate.

Both the mother and the grandparents have been found by the Courts to be unfit guardians for these children, this has not been done on the whim of a Social Worker.

68

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 13:54:08
#70 I completely agree. What is missing from some of the reporting here is that the judgement not to place the children in the care of their grandparents was not made on the basis of their medical conditions alone, but on a wide range of factors which judge what is in the best interests of the children.

The grandparents themselves accepted, some two years ago, that the children should not live with them, and should be put up for adoption.

It was only the choice of a gay couple as adoptive parents which has prompted the grandparents to mount this campaign of disinformation - a campaign for which they are receiving the support of a Tory councillor who has been a prominent anti-gay campaigner in the recent past.
69

bill-alba,

fife 29/01/2009 14:03:22
In an ideal world children would be placed with a mum and dad...why the mother should be listened to in the placement of her children is beyond me...she is a drug addict who was and probably still is incapable of looking after her own children. the gay couple will be loving parents who will do everything they can for the child... p.s. I am gay and not anti hetro nor am I a catholic but if you can't look after your bairns give them to people who want to and can.
70

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 29/01/2009 14:05:57
The fact that the prospective couple are gay is totally irrelevant. The real wrong-doing is the social services lying to the grand-parents about them being unfir to raise the children and that they would never see them again.

Everything should be done to reverse this injustice and the relevant social workers disciplined or sacked.
71

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 14:09:00

Do children who are adopted have a right to privacy about their adoptive status?

How would that work if the adoptive parents are a homosexual couple?
72

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 29/01/2009 14:09:05
73 bill

Two pints of issue with your post.

First, being a drug addict does not necessarily mean that the mother is incapable of knowing what is best for her children. Second, being gay does not necessarily mean that "the gay couple will be loving parents who will do everything they can for the child".
73

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 29/01/2009 14:09:38
76 correction: "points of issue"
74

nolimits,

Canada 29/01/2009 14:11:30
#38: I agree wholeheartedly with you. As a practicing Grand dad of many years, I find it hard to believe the State would resort to blackmail in this instance. I am not affiliated with ANY organised religion, have had a number of children, natural, adopted, and foster. Fortunately, in our community ( Aboriginal) the family unit is considered the best place to raise a child. We fought hard to overcome the dead hand of social workers, lawyers, politicians and the like, who deemed that we were not fit to raise our kids. We have both straight and two-spirited couples raising children in our communities, and are stronger for it. Not knowing the whole story here, I am reluctant to carry on. Just remember folks : It take a "whole" community to raise a child.
Have a good one.
75

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 14:14:44

Everyone agrees that these children will be subject to ridicule and jeers by their peers because the adoptive parents are a homosexual couple.

Regrettable that may be, but it is the reality these children will have to face.

What I would like to know is this: are the social workers dealing with the adoption application able to take such hostility from others, and its effect on the children, into consideration or would that in itself be regarded as homophobic and therefore illegal?
76

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 14:31:05
74 do you want the Judge who gave the court order sacked too ?
77

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 14:33:51
76 Social workers ALWAYS try and keep families together. Normally they are pilloried and people want them sacked because they don't take kids away. Now you want them sacked because they do. It's a bit of a lose/lose situation for them isn't it. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
78

Bemused and above it all,

29/01/2009 14:44:04
Okay, so for those of you who think the kids should be withthe grandparents answer me this question. If we look at the outcome of at least one of their children (i.e. the drug addled mother), then does that show a good parenting ability?
Then compare to 2 professionals who have been through vetting etc, will have been in a long term stable relationship (generally it will be twice the length of unmarried heterosexual couples) but who happen to be Homosexual men. Which would be the better option in terms of concitency, attention, oppotunity, education etc.
And as for the earlier post stating it would be ok for 2 lesbians, why?
79

Brodric,

29/01/2009 15:02:19
Social workers and the legal system are not infallible - and there are many good people who can testify to that.

What really troubles me is that the system we know as social science is not an exact one and when we talk about the complex needs of human beings, we are talking about areas that cannot be measured. Not the material physical aspects like where you stay or how much money you have to help your development, but things like the emotional and spiritual aspects, the need to know where you came from, things that govern the emotional development. Young people find it hard to understand the complex greyness of real life, and they tend to see things in from an idealistic black and white point of view. And the law appears on the surface to be black and white. How confusing! What will these children think in the future?

So here we have two children living in an imperfect world. They have been living in care whilst their destiny is arranged because their situation with their grandparents was not perfect enough. Too young to voice an opinion. Too young to even understand what is happening to them. That is, in itself, a bad move. Putting young children into care when it might have been better to leave them with their grandparents whilst a decision was made.

And it isn't the first time I have heard of such threats from social workers regarding control over when, where and how access to children might happen. And it is believable that this is what was said to the grandparents, who don't have the money to fight against the might of the finances available to local governments.

Well, how dare they! This situation is a scab on society and I don't make any bones in saying that I dislike the powers that the social work department can hang over a person if they want.

There may be other reasons we don't know about for the judge's decision, but that it has been stated in the report that the health of the grandparents (who are not old) was taken into cons
80

Brodric,

29/01/2009 15:03:16
continued.

There may be other reasons we don't know about for the judge's decision, but that it has been stated in the report that the health of the grandparents (who are not old) was taken into consideration, is surely worrying. And discriminatory against people who have poor health. But poor health doesn't mean that there would be poor nurture.

Should our children grow up in a society without any challenges, any imperfections? I don't think so.

That this debate has also become polarised allowing society's prejudices against gay people to spew out is as bad as demonising people with ill health.

What will it be next? Will you be considered unfit if you are overweight, smoke, drink more than the recommended units, disabled or are badly scarred, or if you just don't speak with the right accent?
81

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 15:08:32
83 with the greatest of respect Brodric that is p1sh. I don't post on this lightly, although not a social worker I have been involved in their field. No JUDGE will take a child away from their grandparents because the situation is ''not perfect'' enough. Do you have any idea what it costs the state to take children into care ? Do you think it is done on a whim ?

As is usual in these cases the confidential reasons for taking these children into care cannot be revealed, leaving the daughter and the grandparents to make whatever statements they want, the Council cannot fight back.
82

Brodric,

29/01/2009 15:08:40
No 82 Bemused etc.

Either you don't have children or you have been lucky in the way yours have turned out.

You cannot necessarily blame the parents for their child becoming a drug addict. Children are not robots or clones. And good parenting does not always mean that your children will turn out just like you.

Further, your use of the "two professionals" phrase gives you away. You are class-ist. Professional people are not immune from the pressures of society either. Amongst the ranks of the professional "class", there are murderers, bigots, fraudsters, rapists, paedophiles and so on.

So get off your anti-working class hobby horse and get a life.
83

Mike96,

Devon 29/01/2009 15:10:53
“Grandparents love denied and now affecting over a million in the UK”

Given that this tragic story as reported yesterday and today is the latest in a long line of brutal dogma and assault on family life the like of which effects the lives of over a million grandparents throughout the UK we for our part at the charity National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) urge all victims of family law to stand up and be counted. Irrespective of what TV show hosts like Jeremy Kyle says to the contrary, grandparents have no legal presumption whatsoever and as such there are well over a million grandparents out there living out the remainder of their lives broken-hearted. As such we stand by our offer as can be found on our home page at www.nscfc.com to support peaceful and lawful protest, suffice to say were all the victims who suffer as a result of family law at its worst to take to the streets irrespective of fear that to do so will offend the closed family court system then its for sure the government would be forced to embrace the Human Rights Act & UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in full and that means a Right to Family life for all good and wholesome family members. This is not a time to sit back and hope that campaign organizations such as Families need Fathers and the Grandparents Association who have been going for decades will bring peace to your heart, truth is they have failed to deliver irrespective of membership fees and or government grants! so it’s down to you, me indeed all who truly value family life. We must all as one presence and voice come together and say enough is enough. No more will we let the State destroy what our forebears fought and died for namely freedom and family life, this brutal totalitarian dogma and assault on family life must stop and it must stop now.”

National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered charity which believes that continuing contact with a child’s parents or extended family
84

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 15:21:39
No.71.
The short answer to your question is "No". I would suggest that you may have an inability to so, however.
I did not suggest that Social workers have the power to put children into care or up for adoption, but I do maintain that it is often as a result of their desire to have either of these actions expedited that court proceedings result - and not always in the best interests of the child or children
85

Miss H,

29/01/2009 15:23:10
This is a completely one sided story as the social workers will be unable to reveal any information about the family due to confidentiality.

I think in those circumstances people should be careful about commenting when they don't know the facts.

Social workers always place children families, whether parents or kinship carers where it is possible. If they are not doing it here and the kids are being adopted there will be a reason for it.
86

Budgie,

Renfrew. 29/01/2009 15:29:00
It is not necessarily the fault of the parents that the mother has a drug/s dependency. Far too many children who have had the best start in life have succumbed to this scourge.
87

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 15:31:08
Post 90 is in response to post 82.
88

Miss H,

29/01/2009 15:35:13
88 Come on - taking children into care is always a last resort.

They will always use kinship carers where that's an option because to be blunt it is cheaper than placing children in care.
89

Budgie,

Renfrew. 29/01/2009 15:35:38
No. 83/84
Absolutely correct.
90

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 15:36:32
90 You are completely right, it is the best and most frequently used solution in these tragic cases, to place the children with the grandparents. And it usually works.
91

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 15:38:23
88 Evidence please.
92

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 15:45:12
No.92.
Oh! Is It? Your answer will probably be "yes", In many instances it probably is, but to state that is an action of last resort is debatable.
I agree with your other contention.
93

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 29/01/2009 15:47:34
The mother, who cannot be named, said:

"I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad."

So all the times she was out of it with a needle stuck in her arm, doing whatever it took to get the next fix, she was sufficiently cognisant of her children's welfare to ensure that any imminent adoption was not to two adult male homosexuals. Aye, right.

It is interesting that the children's (different) fathers have not featured as potential adoptive parents, and that even the grandparents, have after consderation by the courts, been deemed unsuitable.

I am surprised that there has been official confirmation that the adoptive parents have been identified as "gay men". I would have thought that taste, as well as privacy would have been a guiding principle in this case.

However, what seems to be the underlying inference among many of the respondents hereon is that the two males, who may well be in a registered civil partnership, thereby indicating some degree of commitment, stability and recognition of a duty of care and mutual society, will try and 'turn' the children.

Merely because these two guys choose to express their physical affection for each other by means of sodomy,* does not mean that they are some sort of evangelists.

It ill behoves the bullies of the RC Church and its apologists to try and spin this story, tragic though it is, into some sort of legalistic paedophile exchange group. I didn't see much affection when the priests were routinely defiling innocent children as part of their supposed "Christian" ministry.


* It wouldn't be for me - apparently it hurts like buggery!!!



94

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 16:02:33
No.95.
The evidence is not too difficult to find.
My work took me to places where I came across dejected and unhappy children who would have done anything to be with their relatives.
I am retired now, but I have no reason to believe that matters will have changed.
95

Starkravingsane,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 16:02:38
#97
It is in a different article that one child's father was schizophrenic and took his own life two months before the child was born and the other's dad has kiddies by other girls and isn't interested. No chance of good parenting there.
96

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 16:04:41
98 So you don't actually have any evidence then. Fair enough, you posted your opinion.
97

,

29/01/2009 16:06:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
98

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

29/01/2009 16:14:54
101..Get a hold of yourself and calm down...homosexuals have been denied the rights that heterosexuals take for granted for eons...marriage...next of kin...parental rights..etc...

"Nature?"...I dont think you have really researched that subject fully...homosexuality exists in "Nature"...ie it is normal...regardless of the species...humans are no different...basic instincts..whether they are homosexual or heterosexual...the only difference is the animal kingdom does not have to worry about the moralists and the holy book bashers.....lucky old them eh?
99

,

29/01/2009 16:29:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
100

Brodric,

29/01/2009 16:39:15
102 Horrible etc - what animals are homosexual?!
101

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 16:48:58
Hey I hate to burst bubbles here but homosexuals have fathered and mothered children for years. The parental instinct is not confined to sexuality.

102

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 16:59:59
#103 Vacuous argument. The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is what denies the right of same sex couples to marry. You cannot use that same definition to justify itself - that's circular logic.

And of course the suggestion that marriage is not possible for same sex couples is rubbished by the existence of same sex marriage in various states of the US, and various countries of Europe.

As I've said before, your prejudices will be inexplicable to your great grandchildren. They will not understand you. Homophobic views such as yours will be viewed in the same light as 19th century racism is viewed today.
103

Kitti Kat,

Newtown Square 29/01/2009 17:00:43
If the grandparents were taking care of the children and giving them the love and nurturing , why take them away and place with strangers? Those poor kids must be very confused. I have no problem with a gay couple adopting but it should be children who have no family or kids that have been abused, neglected, etc.I have a family member whose parents raised her children while she worked and they did a wonderful job. Both kids are now in college and adore their grandparents. So, if there's no real reason, why not let the grandparents care for the kids?
104

,

29/01/2009 17:02:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 17:09:57
No.101.
I have expressed what I have witnessed, which IS fact and NOT opinion.
106

,

29/01/2009 17:10:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
107

,

29/01/2009 17:12:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
108

Budgie,

Renfrew. 29/01/2009 17:13:45
No. 100.
My posting, No.109 is a response to yours.
109

Budgie,

Renfrew. 29/01/2009 17:16:38
No.101
I apologise for attributing my post No.109. as a response to your comment. It should have been to post No.100.
110

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:20:26
109 post the evidence any time you feel like it, no rush.

107 If the grandparents were capable the court wouldn't have taken them away.

108 Maybe there's not a suitable ma and da hanging about with the skills to cope with two damaged children, but there are a da and da hanging about. Gays don't get any priority under the system - maybe they are just capable ?

110 Are ye daft Veritas ? Anyone can have sex. With anyone. Gays have weans all the time.
111

Starkravingsane,

Edinburgh 29/01/2009 17:22:12
#107
For the past two years the children have been with a foster family. The grandparents weren't looking after them.
Would we be having this debate if a heterosexual couple had been the chosen adoptive parents?
112

Miss H,

29/01/2009 17:22:44
110 Oh dear you need some lessons in biology! Homos have the same equipment as everyone else. They can create babies the same as everyone else.
113

Miss H,

29/01/2009 17:27:26
98 The situation with kinship carers is changing - not as fast as many would like but it is changing thanks to the (and I hesitate to say it) historic concordat....
114

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 17:31:48
#63 HC
I'm OK, thanks. Signed up for more courses and spending far too long sitting at the computer. My brain hurts!

#92 MIss H
I wish I had your confidence in the SWD!

Whatever happens here should be the best option for the children. There's nothing to say that while the children were in foster care that they weren't having access to their family (yes, maybe even their mum!). If the grandparents WERE threatened by the SWD that they wouldn't get to see the children again, it's not showing much compassion. I'd still like to know if there could be more help offered to let the family stay together.
115

,

29/01/2009 17:35:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
116

Budgie,

29/01/2009 17:37:50
No 110.
Posts Nos. 114 and 116 are being facetious. Most people would have no difficulties in understanding your comment, which underscores the fact that a male cannot have a child by indulging in sexual penetration with another male.
117

,

29/01/2009 17:38:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
118

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:39:32
118 Your not thinking this through. These weans are going to get a new start in life, and Lord knows they need it. So they're grandparent are going to be allow free access to say to their grandkids that thir new parents are bad and sinful ? These are kids who have been entirely failed by their biological family - the court orders prove that.

Give them a chance.
119

,

29/01/2009 17:41:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
120

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:43:03
121 Jeezo Veritas you must be quite naive. Just because blokes like doing it with each other and females likewise doesn't mean that they can't swap and do it straight if they want to.
121

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 17:44:44
#122 Observer

You views are callous to the point of being chilling.
122

,

29/01/2009 17:45:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
123

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:45:20
123 Catch a grip we've all got the same sexual equipment, of course gays can have straight sex and procreate, just the same as straights can have gay sex, and bi-sexuals can do whatever they feel like, and frequently do.
124

,

29/01/2009 17:46:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
125

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:47:45
125 No - your views are the chilling ones because you are full of hate. I'm a mother do you think I don't care about kids you silly man ? But I am not full of hate and bigotry and you are.
126

,

29/01/2009 17:48:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
127

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:48:54
129 Well start with Alexander the Great and go on from there.
128

,

29/01/2009 17:50:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
129

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:50:37
130 That is an unworthy comment.
130

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 17:50:42
#122 Observer
Hang on! I've never thrown one single rock at the potential new adoptive parents. And (while being a drug addict isn't exactly a shining example to set youngsters) so far no-one has said that these grand-parents are bad - only that they don't have great health. And I can guarantee one thing - if these kids are adopted out, they will set out to ask why as soon as they're old enough.
131

,

29/01/2009 17:50:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
132

,

29/01/2009 17:52:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
133

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 17:53:45
132 No - anyone reading this will be able to see that I am first of all defending the social workers who cannot defend themselves, secondly challenging the case against this adoption because it is based on lies, and thirdly defending the interests of the children you and many people on this thread would leave with inadequate carers, rather than see them given a happy upbringing by a couple who just happen to be gay.
134

,

29/01/2009 17:54:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
135

,

29/01/2009 17:55:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
136

Observer,,

29/01/2009 17:56:07
134 I can assure you with every fibre of my being that the courts do not take children away for no reason. Every policy that social workers work to demands that children are left with their families - think about it. How many times have social workers been pilloried for leaving children at home.
137

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 18:01:25
#137 Observer

You place too much faith in the courts, in social work departments and on the state apparatus generally.

My view is that if these children had to be placed for adoption they would be better placed with a heterosexual couple.

That isn't homophobic.

It's giving the rights of prospective adopters their appropriate degree of importance ie nil.

The only rights that matter are those of the children. Nothing else is relevant.

The children would be better with a heterosexual couple. That's all there is too it.

138

,

29/01/2009 18:02:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 18:08:10
141/142 You two are just anti-gay bigots.
140

Miss H,

29/01/2009 18:10:27
134 Look - you don't know anything about this case other than what is in the story and that is only one side of the story cause the social workers are not allowed to discuss their clients.

Even so - the story is not about children being takem away from grandparents to be adopted. The children have been in foster care for the past two years. For all you know they have been fostered by the couple who are now adopting them.

141

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 18:12:26
#143 Observer
I like to think that I'm pro-child - which is supposed to be the whole point!
142

Miss H,

29/01/2009 18:14:42
121 Are you joking? Have you never read any of Oscar Wilde's fairy stories or stories for children? Written for his own kids.

I suggest you get a copy - might help to chill you out!
143

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 18:15:23
#144 Miss H
And for all YOU know, there may have been regular contact with that family, as I said. So, IF that is the case, you think it would be a good thing to cease contact with people who brought them up - at least for the first few years? (It's also quite unusual for foster carers to adopt the children they're fostering)
144

,

29/01/2009 18:20:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
145

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 18:20:05
#143 Observer

It isn't enough to simply accuse others of being anti gay.

These children could have been adopted by a heterosexual couple.

It's accepted that the children will be subjected to ridicule by their peers because the adoptive parents are a homosexual couple.

For that reason alone it would had been better for the children if they had been placed with a heterosexual couple.

Unless of course you have another agenda than the children's best interests.

You have accused me of being anti gay. I could equally accuse you of being anti children. The difference is that I have some evidence on which to base my accusation.
146

Miss H,

29/01/2009 18:22:29
147 I don't know why they don't get contact and neither do you. It's a fundamental problem with these types of stories. The mother/grandparents can say whatever they like but social workers cannot really say anything because of confidentiality rules.

If you choose to accept one side of a story without knowing the other then fine but I am a bit more cautious and on the basis of my experience I do not believe that children get taken into care arbitrarily or because the kinship carers have angina or diabetes which are both manageable conditions.
147

Miss H,

29/01/2009 18:40:35
149 You say these kids will be subject to ridicule because their adoptive parents are gay.

Well that’s not necessarily so. Everyone isn’t like you. And it also depends where they live. If they live in certain parts of Edinburgh no-one would raise an eyebrow. If they lived in other parts yes they could have problems.

But presumably their prospective parents live in the more gay-friendly parts of Edinburgh which let's face it are much wealthier and generally nicer than the gay-unfriendly parts. I would have loved to have grown up in Broughton.
148

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 18:46:54
#150 Miss H
Like you, I don't know if there is contact or not now - irrespective of whether the SWD have the ability to reply however, there is no argument that these children were looked after by their grandparents until they were taken into care, agreed? If the article is right and all contact stopped about four months ago, then both kids (especially the older one) will remember their grandparents. My personal interest would be the welfare of the children.

I am pleased you place such faith in the workings of the SWD.
149

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 19:01:51
#151 Miss H

You have no experience of bringing up children, do you?
150

,

29/01/2009 19:03:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
151

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 19:04:19
Veritas - a dreadful name for someone as full of falsehoods as you - your position is illogical.

By your logic, any couple who cannot biologically conceive children should not be allowed to jointly adopt. So that would include two mixed-sex couples who are friends of mine. In one, the woman had ovarian cancer and therefore cannot conceive without a donated egg; in the other couple the man is infertile. You would deny them the right to adopt too.

However you cut it, your view is simple homophobia. There is no logical justification for denying children an adoptive home on the basis that the adoptive parents are a same-sex couple. There is only homophobia.
152

,

29/01/2009 19:15:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
153

Observer,,

Glasgoe 29/01/2009 19:15:31
153 How many kids do you have Baffled. I sincerely hope none of them are gay because you are one low down nasty piece of work. You want to live in a prejudiced society. What kind of man (if you can claim the description) is that.
154

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:17:10
154 You obviously live in an area of low tolerance, perhaps these children will be brought up in an area which doesn't share that affliction. Good for the weans.
155

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:18:41
152 How many times do I have to say this. It's not the Social Work Dept that make these decisions, it's a Court.
156

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 19:19:40
#156 still studiously avoiding the hard questions? Your case is weak.
157

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:21:36
149 Yes these children could be adopted by a heterosexual couple, or a single heterosexual, or a gay couple, or a single gay, or a bi-sexual, or multiple variations of all of the above. Regardless of what they do in the bedroom department, which most of us well adjusted types don't really care about, the kids will be placed with the people assessed as best to meet their needs.
158

,

29/01/2009 19:23:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
159

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 19:23:49
#159 Observer
And who do you think provides the court with the information to MAKE those decisions?
160

,

29/01/2009 19:25:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
161

Observer,,

Glasgow 29/01/2009 19:26:16
162 They could where I live, I reckon they could in many other places.

163 Multi disciplinary teams.
162

,

29/01/2009 19:27:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
163

,

29/01/2009 19:27:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
164

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 19:27:57
#164 No personal insult there. You copied and pasted the wrong response.

Your kind will be extinct in 100 years. Your great grandchildren will not understand why you felt such hatred just because of difference.
165

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:27:58
164 Ho Hum Veritas you haven't actually made any substantive point to debate.
166

,

29/01/2009 19:29:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
167

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:29:25
166 Well it must be pretty prejudiced if you think weans are not allowed to have parents who differ from the main. They wouldn't stand out where I live.
168

,

29/01/2009 19:29:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
169

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:30:14
170 err no it was a statement of fact. I have the advantage of knowing what I'm talking about.
170

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:31:14
167 you are repeating yourself.

Now to get back to the debate - your substantive point is ?
171

,

29/01/2009 19:31:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
172

Ewan Oosami,

29/01/2009 19:32:04
Will no one save us from these morons called social workers who advise the courts what is best - for who? certainly not the children in this case. Who are all these jumped up, self important idiots who think they can social engineer everyone. The world was better off before these people were thought of - they do nothing but cause trouble
173

,

29/01/2009 19:33:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
174

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:33:31
175 No - YOU are saying that.
175

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 19:34:13

The children WILL be ridiculed because the adoptive parents are a homosexual couple.

Anyone who denies that has no credibility.

Such ridicule will adversely affect the children.

Any child placed for adoption has already suffered enough pain and distress.

Why add to it?
176

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:34:13
177 - 167 is you
177

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:34:39
179 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
178

,

29/01/2009 19:34:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
179

,

29/01/2009 19:35:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
180

,

29/01/2009 19:36:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
181

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:36:15
Right wasted enough time you two are just going round in circles. You haven't made any substantive points other than we shouldn't allow gays to adopt because of homophobics. That's not an argument.

Dismissed.
182

,

29/01/2009 19:38:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
183

,

29/01/2009 19:39:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
184

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:40:48
187 If you make one I will answer it. Until then.
185

,

29/01/2009 19:41:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
186

,

29/01/2009 19:41:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
187

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 19:41:41
#185 Observer

You haven't even addressed the issue of the upset that will be cased to the children by the taunts and ridicule they will be subjected to.

You have steadfastly ignored the point.

Don't you care about how these children are going to suffer?
188

Observer,,

29/01/2009 19:47:29
You two are just daft small town boys. Veritas you think gays can't have kids, Stan you think all people share your ignorance and prejudice. There are , fortunately, places where such ignorance doesn't reign supreme. Maybe one day you'll go some place like that. On the other hand you wouldn't know what to do if you got there.

Bye.
189

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 19:53:14
#192 Observer

You have previously agreed that these children will be ridiculed by their peers because the adopted parents are a homosexual couple.

You are now wishing to deny that because you aren't prepared to face up to the fact that placing the children with adoptive parents who are a homosexual couple will unnecessary add to the problems these children already have to deal with.

You're a moral coward.
190

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

29/01/2009 20:22:12
191...Dont you care how gay kids will suffer as adults because of phobics like you?..

What if a gay kid were to say..."No way man..you aint placing me with no heteros!"

Perhaps kids suffering "Taunts and ridicules" will grow up to be better balanced and whole individuals than the ones doing the taunting and ridiculing...thought of that mate?

Whoever asked about the homosexuality in animals..do a bit of reading...chimps...dolphins...certain birds etc..I could go on but you go on...and educate yourself!
191

Miss H,

29/01/2009 20:25:39
179 Where do you draw the line with that kind of mentality though?

The kids could be ridiculed if their adoptive parents are devout Christians. Or listen to classical music. Or talk with a posh accent. Or make their own clothes.

192

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 20:29:20
#165 Observer
"Multi disciplinary teams. "

I think you'll find it's actually the SWD.
193

Miss H,

29/01/2009 20:30:19
153 You have no experience of Edinburgh do you?

Maybe you live in Glenrothes - you are dismal enough.

I accept you wouldn't want to send children to live with a gay couple somewhere where they would be liable to ridicule but I suggest the gay couple are not likely to live somewhere like that in the first place.

194

Miss H,

29/01/2009 20:36:50
162 If you were a Daily Mail reader (and I am surprised you are not) you would know that in Brighton one in every five adopted children lives with gay parents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430087/Rise-adopted-children-living-gay-couples.html
195

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 29/01/2009 20:52:26
What on earth is Ediburgh playing at? Plenty normal people wishing to adopt these children and they give them to a pair of homosexuals.
These kids had little chance of a normal life before but now they have none.
This is political correctness gone stark staring mad.
196

Observer,,

29/01/2009 20:57:50
196 How many social workers do you know on child safety who don't work as part of a multi disciplinary team ? Is Fife different from everywhere else ?
197

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 21:34:24
#200 Observer
How many non-social workers do you know who go to court when there is a court hearing? Of course the ENQUIRY is done as a multi-disciplinary team but everyone plays their own individual part.
198

WSS,

cheshire 29/01/2009 22:01:34
This is PC gone mad. If the same rules are applied to all grandparents then a lot of children will be put in foster care. As a parent,grandparent and former Childrens Panel member, I am amazed at this decision. The children could have been left with the grandparents and heavily supervised by the social workers instead of this stupid solution of placing them in an unsuitable environment. As usual, this was a team decision, nobody takes the blame and the losers are the children.
199

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 22:11:47
#202 If you seriously are a former Children's Panel member (and that is meant to be a confidential piece of information, so I have my doubts that you are) then thank goodness you aren't still imposing your prejudice on children today. Unsuitable environment? How the hell would you know whether the environment that the generous, self-sacrificing adopting couple are providing is "unsuitable"?

Shame on you for projecting your own prejudices onto lives you know NOTHING about.
200

Stan Butler,

29/01/2009 22:30:21

Miss H

You have no experience of bringing up children do you?
201

WSS,

cheshire 29/01/2009 22:39:36
203- Childrens Panel members names are not confidential. I was looking for the best solution in the childrens interests. Pity you had to see predudice where none existed certainly not on my side, but I suppose it is difficult for you to see fairness through your narrow blinkers.
202

WSS,

sandbach 29/01/2009 22:43:30
Please excuse the typo it should be "PREJUDICE"
203

Duncan in Edinburgh,

29/01/2009 22:55:14
#205 Excuse me, how can you possibly claim not be prejudiced when you have stated that the environment the gay couple is providing is "unsuitable" on the basis of absolutely no knowledge of any of the people involved whatsoever?

That is the definition of prejudice - you have prejudged the situation according to your own opinions of what gay people are like.

There is only one thing worse that gross prejudice - and that is gross prejudice denied.
204

JG,

Fife 29/01/2009 23:11:46
#207 Duncan
What are you getting so upset about? WSS said he/she was a FORMER children's panel member, mentioned none of their actual cases and asked the same question I did this morning! I have no aspertions to cast on the prospective adoptive couple, only the wonder that the children are being removed when extra support to the family may be an option.
205

Budgie,

Renfrew 29/01/2009 23:54:53
# 197.
You have a damned impertinence castigating Glenrothes and by implication, castigating the residents of that town also.
206

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 30/01/2009 02:58:44
In Nature, hetero-sexuals, male and female together are designed for procreation.H-o-m-o-sexuals on the other hand it is for recreation!
Had Nature intended them to have children,they would have the correct equipment.
Children are being treated like fashion accessories to please the PC zealots.
It is time for the pendulum to swing back to a more appropriate position,it has gone far to far in the wrong direction.
Many saw this coming a long, long time ago.
207

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 30/01/2009 03:01:37
In China you can write the words in front of Sapiens, etc without problems. Yet the PC zealous cringe merchants at the hootsmon are in full flood on this one.Wonder what would have happened had I used the word in the dance before ...Gordons? Lunacy personified.Then that is PC UK!
208

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 30/01/2009 16:43:40
And there was me thinking the loony left was thing of the past. It appears it is now ok for the government to destroy the lives of two young children on a whim. there is absolutely no sense in this.

Why would anyone give kids to a homosexual couple when there are two loving grandparents to care for the children. It's madness...
209

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 31/01/2009 02:27:14
More than a modicum of heterophobia on this thread.Get over yourselves!For years we have had our views and rights outlawed in the name of enlightenment.Social engineering is always trumped by the truth.These children are being robbed of a normal childhood with their natural grandparents.Obscene doesn't even come close.Try it in a muslim or Chinese society and see what happens.
210

Dark Lochnagar,

Symington 31/01/2009 13:06:05
#210 I agree 120%. refreshing thinking from a different perspective.
211

Dark Lochnagar,

Symington 31/01/2009 13:07:33
Please not the words RECOVERING DRUG ADDICT. Let those of us without sin cast the first stone or whatever.
212

Mike96,

Devon 31/01/2009 20:22:53

Many of you guys on here who have used this sad and unjust affair to banter back and forth would do far better were you to use your time trying to identify the surname of both the children and potential adoptees, after which this can be brought to public attention in the hope that the grandparents and children involved might gain their human right to family life. Oh how I would love to have those surnames and given that the grandparents have been denied all by going to the Daily Mail what’s there to loose? Trust me you have at least 90% of UK support.

213

Mike96,

Devon 01/02/2009 13:35:38
To the grandparents I say this. Contact the NSCFC via www.nscfc.com
214

CanadianJoan,

Canada 03/02/2009 15:24:22
After reading about the children being taken from their grandparents, I felt sick to my stomach. If these children were being treated poorly by their grandparents I'm sure that the news reports would have mentioned it. But no, the only thing that dear Marilyne MacLaren could come up with is their age and health. How pathetic. What's next, kids being taken away because the parents are teaching their children about Jesus Christ, and the leftists don't like that and/or don't believe? I don't know about Edinburgh, but here in Canada 59 and 46 is a long way from being too old to raise kids. And to suggest that someone with angina and another with diabetes can't take care of blood relatives goes beyond reasoning.
These so-called professionals say that the kids will have a safe, secure and loving environment. Is this not what the grandparents were providing? To put these kids into a non-Christian home is absurd. All that is being accomplished is to further confuse these children with politics with an obvious socialist agenda.
I wish I had the means to help the grandparents stop an injustice against Christian family values and keep these childen with their blood relatives. I can only hope that Marilyne MacLaren will see the errors of her ways and right an obvious wrong.
I'm glad that my family doesn't live in Scotland.
I will pray for these children.
Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? I guess that God Himself doesn't agree with homosexuality, as he wiped them out. And yes, I am totally against homosexuality.
Those poor, poor children and those poor, poor Grandparents. I can't even imagine what they are going through. I heard an American report that the little boy clung onto his mother's leg when their last visit came to an end, as he didn't want to be taken away from her. To be taken from grandparents, and put with total strangers is horrible.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.