Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Council standing firm as calls grow for gay adoption probe

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: 31 January 2009
THE city council is resisting growing demands for an inquiry into its decision to allow a gay couple to adopt two city children against their grandparents' wishes.
Christian charity Care has approached the local authority asking for assurances that the law was not broken when the grandparents' protests were over-ruled.

The grandparents have reportedly now lodged a formal complaint about the actions of social
work staff in a first step towards overturning the adoption. They claim they were pressured into giving up their carers' rights and their wishes ignored. The council is legally obliged to consider the family's views before deciding who should bring up the children.

Social work leaders insist they did take the grandparents' feelings into account before deciding where to place the children.

The grandparents say they were told they must change their attitude and support the decision to place the children with a gay couple or never see the five-year-old boy and four-year-old girl again.

Gordon Macdonald, spokesman for Care, said: "We obviously don't know all of the details of this case but I personally believe that the allegations are of such a serious nature that it merits further investigation.

"The Adoption Act requires the views of both relatives and the children to be taken into account and we need to be satisfied that has happened here."

Social workers fear the adoption may fall through following the row over the decision. They are worried the gay couple and the children may face abuse if their identities become known.

But council leaders have insisted they stand by the policies they have followed and the way they have been implemented.

City education leader, Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, said: "The care of children has never been more regulated or under such close scrutiny. Not only is there national legislation which covers our duties and responsibilities, but we have well-established policies that we stand by.

"These are difficult decisions but we are confident we made the right decision and have no reason to doubt the staff involved acted with anything other than professionalism and sensitivity."

Today, the Tories attacked the decision to rule out an inquiry.

The city's Conservative spokesman for children and families, Councillor Jeremy Balfour, said: "There are still a lot of issues that have to be clarified and we need the reassurance that this is being dealt with comprehensively.

I have a couple of concerns.

"Firstly, how the grandparents have been treated but also the alleged phone conversations where they were told they would never see the children again because of their objections.

"This goes to the heart of the council's adoption policy and we need to be confident that the system is fair and transparent."

The grandparents, who are believed to live in the south of Edinburgh, have said they are not homophobic, but believe the children would be better off with a mother as well as a father.

It is reported that there have been at least ten other gay adoptions in Scotland over the last five years.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 31 January 2009 10:35 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Gay and Lesbian issues
 
1

,

31/01/2009 11:56:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

31/01/2009 12:12:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

ellbee,

EDINBURGH 31/01/2009 12:29:01
#2 - As a gay father let me hear your views on WHY gay people shouldn't have been considered......
4

,

31/01/2009 12:36:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

brandy al,

embra 31/01/2009 12:40:56
Its just a pity the Grandparents cant look after the kids until they can be adopted by a man and a woman who cant have a family.
6

Curley Bill,

31/01/2009 12:48:58
NorT, I'd alter what you said to say 'The IDEAL place to bring up children should be in a loving atmosphere where they can have both a mother and a father.'
Unfortunately life isn't always what we would wish for.
However, it is simply wrong to tear these children from a loving family simply to enhance some politically correct viewpoint.
In my opinion, if proof can be provided by the threatened grandparents, then there is a case to be made against the lead social worker for extortion and possibly illegal detention and removal of the children who, apparently, wished to stay with their grandparents.
To use innocent children to promote a suspect policy and sterile lifestyle is abhorrent. By its very nature - and each to their own - the choice to live a homosexual life brings many caveats, and childlessness is one of them.
Society need to say enough is enough, you can't always get what you want...
7

Alannah,

31/01/2009 12:50:12
I live in hope that one day as a society we may actually put the interests of the child ahead of narrow-minded bigotry and prejudice. Gay people can provide just as stable and loving an environment for a child as any other. Time we stopped pandering to hatred and intolerance.
8

Hmm ...,

31/01/2009 12:51:01
... looks as though the City Council has been rumbled. OK, so it is "policy" to stick kids with gay adopters but that doesn't make it any more right, particularly where the little girl has a problem with men! And why could the caring grandparents be given a little support which was all they wanted in the first place?

Employ monkeys and get daft decisions. This department needs to be cleared out and professional staff appointed to replace them and provide a sensible policy - then implement it.

Meanwhile, give the kids back to their caring grandparents who want to bring them up in a good family environment and admit that irresponsible errors have been made. We need social workers who actually provide support for families, not kidnap kids.
9

Speedy Gonzales,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 12:59:05
#4 I cannot argue with you that children should be brought up in a loving atmosphere. I do however take offence at your suggestion that gays are "unnatural".
The dictionary definition of "unnatural" means many things, none of which, I feel, apply to women or men who are gay. The very fact that these people are humans mean they're actions are "natural". Many species of animals practise same sex "sex", by all means this means these acts in nature are "natural".
Being gay does not make you a freak.
Before anyone thinks I'm a left wing, homosexual-sympathiser, I'm far from it. Being a raging hetro, and father of one, I just cannot stand this nonsense that practising gay sex is against 'nature'!
10

Curley Bill,

31/01/2009 13:00:58
Alannah says: 'I live in hope that one day as a society we may actually put the interests of the child ahead of narrow-minded bigotry and prejudice'

I second that, I truly do. Where we differ, I suspect, is that I would not wish the child to have gay parents.
I knew two brothers whose father was a back-alley homosexual and their teenage lives were a living hell due to the bullying and abuse they got from their peers - and I'm ashamed to say I did not defend them.
Maybe, someday, things will be better, but not right now and it's just plain wrong to go ahead with this adoption.
11

Fifi la Bonbon,

31/01/2009 13:12:30
The homophobic bigots really aren't helping here.

Thie important issue is that the grandparents (or "kinship carers" in the social work lingo), according to the newspaper reports yesterday and today, have been ruled out by social workers from consideration because they are not youngsters and have some chronic health problems (diabetes, angina).

Now they are being blatantly bullied to keep their mouths shut - contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which demands that the state guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. "Go along with what we're doing or you'll never see your grand children again, say the social workers.

And the social workers are being backed up in this blackmail by the Tribune of the People, Councillor Marilyne Maclaren. Shame on her and her political party for this craven deference to authority.

I am sure that the young gay men selected to provide an adoptive home would do a fine job, probably better than these diseased old bigots (one of who is younger than me, actually) who social workers think are likely to die off imminently and anyway have the wrong kind of mindset. I would probably loathe the grandparents if I cane across them.

Doesn't matter. They are grandparents, they have shown they can do the job, even if they will need support, and they should be able to continue to foster the children rather than see the kids given away to strangers.
12

,

31/01/2009 13:25:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

The Ayrshire Bard,

31/01/2009 13:29:44
All the pressure on the council is making it more and more difficult for them to accept that they might be wrong in this issue.
14

Fifi la Bonbon,

31/01/2009 13:38:28
#12 - in my real life I have had "direct dealings" with loads of gay parents, but I've never yet ome across any of their kids being gay. Odd that. But then I'm not a homophobic bigot and you are.
15

,

31/01/2009 13:54:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

ellbee,

EDINBURGH 31/01/2009 14:05:32
#12 - With that diatribe that you've posted I'm surprised you haven't been given the sack. You're one sickening bigot. You should crawl under your stone and give someone your job that you've demonstrated on here you're not suited to.
17

Fi,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 14:06:50
The request of the grandparents for a mother to be part of the adoption is reasonable.

I cite as support for this the remarks of the grandparents, reported in the Scotsman/Evening News earlier this week. In these remarks, they described the abuse the mother had suffered at the hands of male "friends" and that the little girl, who witnessed some of it now has issues with adult men.

The overriding question here must surely be that if this is the case, why are social services determined to place a traumatised young girl with two adult men?

I wonder how the young girl would feel on reaching puberty. It is hard enough for young girls to talk to a mother at that time, but what young girl would be comfortable discussing her first menses with a man? What advice about pads and tampons could he give her?
18

,

31/01/2009 14:45:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

James (1),

31/01/2009 14:52:06
#3 I take it you are still staying with your wife? Surely not a broken marriage? Your "moving on" to pastures knew will have had not effect on your child or your wife I am sure. Both will be very pleased? Your child will be fair proud of you or so you would imagine?
Strange how you "turned" after having a child. Maybe a lesson to all gays if they want to play happy families?

It is weird and totally unnecessary having gays adopting children but as we have to accept everything gays do in this pc world I am not allowed to say this in case gays collapse in a heap.
20

James (1),

31/01/2009 15:10:10
#15 The word now is gay now not homosexual. Like prostitute is now street worker. We need to change the title to make the description more palatable and it works.
That way you link a nice word with unnatural behaviour and it then seems acceptable.
Try saying out loud "You're a homosexual" then say "You're gay"
The first sounds too clinical and makes mention of sex between the same sexes and the other less so.
Marketing I think it is called.
21

ellbee,

EDINBURGH 31/01/2009 15:40:28
#19 - I don't see what my personal circumstances have to do with it. The main thing is that my son is VERY proud of me for what I am for what he sees - a father who is very loving and supporting compared to the efforts of some so-called parents who can't be bothered looking after their feral brats. Surely you should vent your poisoned spleen at that increasing part of society.
22

Chaplin,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 15:51:33
The homosexual and lesbian debate always appears to polarize opinion, your either a pink flag carrying, fully paid up exponent of gay rights or a knuckle dragging rampant homophobe hell bent on the annihilation of anything you can't understand, yet for the majority of heterosexuals there is a happy middle ground.
No ones sexuality should mark them out for any form of prejudice, the introdution of legislation on gay rights and civil partnerships is admirable and the vast majority fully support such ideals.
However there will always be areas where homosexual and lesbian desires are at odds with the majority of the publics view. Adoption of children by homosexuals is probably the biggest. For many the politically correct nature of this adoption and possibly any childs adoption into a same sex relationship is questionable. Ultimately the best place for a child to grow up is in a mother/father or man/woman environment and the childs future has more to do with its happiness and well being than politically correct decisions.
23

,

31/01/2009 17:01:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Tracker,

31/01/2009 17:22:39
If what Duncan(1) says is correct, this is very concerning. We must be wary of virulent campaigns against gays funded by extremist Christian organisations.

The adopted child may suffer unduly not as a consequence of the adoption itself, but as a consequence of the publicity generated by the unjustified campaign to prevent the adoption.

We must not give in to intolerant Christian bullies.
25

,

31/01/2009 17:32:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

31/01/2009 17:35:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 18:01:58
"Doesn't matter. They are grandparents, they have shown they can do the job, even if they will need support, and they should be able to continue to foster the children rather than see the kids given away to strangers."

Actually, aside from the fact that the grandparents appear to be bigots, they have conclusively proven that they cannot provide the best home for these children.

They have already brought up one child to be a junkie.
They have been unable to cope with the childcare and have sought help from social services.
They have refused to commit to keeping the children's mother away from the home - this woman appearing to the main source of danger to the emotional and physical wellbeing of the children.

Let's all not forget that these people were happy for the adoption to proceed until they discovered that a gay couple had been matched to the children.

The other issue troubling me is the sensationalist reporting of the "threat" from the social workers that unless the grandparents accept the situation they are unlikely to see the children again. This is not a threat, it is simply a statement of fact: Once adopted the children would be under the sole care of the adoptive gay couple - who would have a choice whether or not to maintain contact. It is easy to foresee that under the circumstances the contact with the grandparents could be destructive to the cohesion of the new family and the bonding process between the parents and children.

Above all it is totally disgraceful that the Edinburgh Evening News is continuing to report this story and in this way. Many of the comments on this board have been bigoted, uneducated and ill-thought through. I would suggest that some have bordered on illegal. Pandering to the "rant in the pub" mob that this story appears to have attracted was presumably the intention of the EEN - but at what cost? Threatening the future of a family and wrongly tarnishing the reputation of social workers - who they know full well
28

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 18:03:04
contd...

Above all it is totally disgraceful that the Edinburgh Evening News is continuing to report this story and in this way. Many of the comments on this board have been bigoted, uneducated and ill-thought through. I would suggest that some have bordered on illegal. Pandering to the "rant in the pub" mob that this story appears to have attracted was presumably the intention of the EEN - but at what cost? Threatening the future of a family and wrongly tarnishing the reputation of social workers - who they know full well would be unable to respond in detail to why these decisions were being taken. If adoption was to fall through then with the current shortfall in adoptive parents it is likely that these poor children will remain in long-term fostering, which although is safe and loving, is never a substitute for a permanent family.

Borderline cases are not put forward for adoption against the will of the parents. Andrew Picken (the reporter) is therefore either intellectually challenged
and incapable of understanding the full situation or continues to sensationalise this story. He is as much of a disgrace as those people who have contributed to the bigoted and abusive tone to this message board.
29

Mike96,

Devon 31/01/2009 18:03:34
Abviously the Scotsman doesnt want to muddy the waters otherwise they wouldnt have removed my last comment, be that as it may there is one sure way to bring this wrongfull adoption to a crashendo nationwise and thats to out the surnames of the children and adoptees and give full support to the maternal family.
30

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

31/01/2009 18:07:04
27...Thank you for that comment...it sums up entirely what GAY people are still up against..particularly your last pathetic attempt at humour...which frankly Benny Hill would hang his head in shame at...

Language changes...the use of words changes..ie "Wicked" can now mean 'fantastic'..you really do need to move with the times and stop stagnating...

Nothing "Palatable" about you I'm afraid...
31

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 18:50:51


One must stop thinking about their own values in life, and must think about these two 'poor wee children'!

As I stated before, albeit this proposed couple may very well have given these two poor wee lambs the best or care, these children might not have been physiologically happy, who, tell me who, can measure that?
These Children most likely will do well in their Grandparents care, they will know they are blood relatives, call it the sixth sense, just like any species they will instinctively know where they belong, and this is not with any adoptive couple.

The Children are 'NO-WAY' any Commodity, and were in no danger, as far as I can ascertain, the Grandparents went to seek help, and ended up in this scenario.

Shame on those, who think they Know Best, may with this reverse decision, they that "Know Best", will think twice, and realise they do not "know best"!
Yes for me, the Grandparents should have soul custody of these children, as far as "Gay" is concerned, live and let live.
For me it would be wrong to remove these children from their grandparents, to any other couple, gay or not gay!
However, I do wish all the best for the Children, talked about in the article, and a resolve will take place, that fills these Children with Love for the future, Material goods and wealth and security, does not replace, True Love!

Charles Linskaill has spoken!


32

Think of the Kids!!,

Midlothian 31/01/2009 19:27:13
Parents should be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It takes a man and a woman to make a child, look at the obvious here.
The most important thing here is the kids. There seems to be alot of people jumping on the old homophobia band wagon, just simply because the people commenting do not agree with two gay men bringing up these children. I do not agree with two gay men bringing up these kids but it doesn't make me a homophonic. These kids sound as though they have been through enough without putting them in the firing line for constant abuse about having 'two daddies'.
If these men wanted kids, they should have met someone with the correct child bearing attributes.
33

James (1),

31/01/2009 19:44:59
#21 perhaps he is going the same way? Get married have a family and then break up the marriage and find some guy to live with?
Yeah that seems quite normal and as I said something to aim for if gays want a family.
Your wife will be boasting about the love of her life and what he is up to now?
No, somehow I don't think so.
As I say playing happy families with real children is not what any gay should be allowed to do.
34

The real dracula,

31/01/2009 19:45:25
For those of you against gay people adopting , would you rather unwanted children left in authority run childrens home rather than with a couple ( doesnt matter what sex) who have the time and compassion to care for them when others have let them down.

If so you are just thinking of your own agenda and not the kids involved.

Yes in this individual case it is not right for the adoption to go ahead as the wee girl is wary of men but in other cases why is their a problem????

Gay people I would imagain dont carry on their bedroom antics in front of the kids , so what harm does it do.

I also believe having many gay friends that they are a damn site more suitable to look after children than a lot of 'real' parents.
35

Daff,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 20:27:23
Nice to see the Tories showing their old Section 28 colours again. They will never change however they pretend to be 'gay-friendly'. We can make just as good parents as straight couples. Good on Edinburgh Council! (I didnt think Id ever say that!)

36

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 31/01/2009 20:53:54
Its quite clear that the grandparents ought to have had a far greater input into this, and the councils threat to the grandparents is outrageous.
37

is it me?,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 21:09:09
Diary
Day 1: This story was worth comment, although I'm ashamed to say, I did make some faceitious, but I hope non-malicious contributions.

Day 2: Story attracted a crowd of rent-a bigot posters, many of whom didn't seem to be regular names. Just lurked.

Day 3: Everything that can be said on this issue, has been said. Enough is enough. Stop it now, whatever your persuasion.

I don't think any further comments should be allowed. They can only be harmful to the blameless people involved.

Having said all that, get torn into the Social Workers . Just can't help myself, can I?
38

,

31/01/2009 21:30:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

,

31/01/2009 22:05:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

,

31/01/2009 22:06:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

31/01/2009 22:07:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

31/01/2009 22:10:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

The real dracula,

31/01/2009 22:12:06
#43 veritas
What about single parents then ,,,,their children dont necessarily have a mammy AND a daddy ,,,is that wrong too.
44

King Richard IV,

Brisbane 31/01/2009 22:23:38
This is really just about acouple of lonely guys wanting to play "dress up" using live models instead of dolls!Your either for that sort of thing or your against it.
45

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 31/01/2009 22:43:45
POOR.KIDS.MUST.WONDER.WHAT.THE.HELL.IS.GOING.ON
46

Suzi B,

31/01/2009 23:13:27
Children need to be aware of their heritage and shouldn't be severed from their family, especially if it is due to the spiteful whim of a social worker who wants to punish the grandparents for daring to stand up and tell the world what is happening to them. The best interests of these children are not being met here at all. Why do the social work department HAVE to have them adopted anyway? If the best interests of the children were being put first, then they would be placed into the permanent care of this couple, and cound continue to have access to the grandparents. The adoption is purely for the sake of expediency on the part of the social work department and adoptive parents because it is messy when children are not severed from their past, but it still doesn't make it right to attempt to wipe the slate clean, leaving grieving grandparents and confused and frightened children behind.
#28 Chris. I hope none of your kids turns out to have a drug problem because I think you will find it hard to judge yourself as harshly as you have judged the grandparents in this case. There but for the grace of God go all of us-there are a lot of very good paents out there who have been unlucky enough to find themselves with a child who makes poor life choices.
47

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 31/01/2009 23:33:05
Suzi B wrote:
"Children need to be aware of their heritage and shouldn't be severed from their family, especially if it is due to the spiteful whim of a social worker who wants to punish the grandparents for daring to stand up and tell the world what is happening to them. The best interests of these children are not being met here at all."

Well said Suzi. In all of these processes the interests of the children should come first - not the narrow dogma shown by social services here.
48

PaulB,

Edinburgh 01/02/2009 00:06:06
I am disgusted living in Edinburgh surrounded by so many narrow minded homophobic bigots. The children in this story are the priority - give them a stable home instead of turning them into political footballs.
49

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 01/02/2009 03:05:43
The term 'Gay' is an acronym 'GAY' coined in the 1960's rights campaign in the US. It stands for 'good as you!'. If you don't know the facts, you shouldn't publicise your stupidity!

Any family seeking to adopt a child have to be thoroughly vetted. Given the woeful amount of child neglect and abuse by some parents, it's a pity that all parents are not vetted before they have children! That way, there would be no need for adoption.

Some children in Edinburgh are brought up in squalid miserable homes with adults who have serious behavioural and parenting deficiencies.

I would rather the children were brought up in a loving home environment, regardless of the sex of the parents. The gay and lesbian couples who choose to become parents are often far better at the task than straight couples who have children by accident and don't really want them!
50

Idris w,

Aberystwyth 01/02/2009 04:08:15
HOW can so many of you have such vehemently strong opinions on this case when practically NO DETAILS are known?

Nobody here knows the true reasons the grandparents were deemed unsuitable. Nobody knows what the social workers reasoning was. All any of us know is the grandparent's bitter words at losing the case and right-wing newspapers poisonous propaganda.

NONE of the "other side" of the argument can say a word to defend themselves - because they have legal and ethical duties to remain silent.

How can you form an opinion on this when there is so clearly only biased misinformation available? Why is it so hard to suspend judgement in absence of all the facts?
51

Suzi B,

01/02/2009 11:47:17
#54. Hear, hear! Everybodies family circumstances could always be better or viewed by other people as dysfunctional, but it isn't on that social services perpetually throw the baby out with the bathwater in this country. Why can't they give these people a chance, under supervision if necessary, to continue to look after the children that, lets face it, they have been parenting for the past 4 and 6 years. It seems like a terrible punishment on them for having the misfortune to be a. growing older and b.becoming unhealthy c. initially asking for some assistance from social services. There must be families across Edinburgh in similar situations who are quaking in their boots that they might be reported to social services and end up losing their kids/grandkids/neices and nephews completely.
52

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

01/02/2009 13:17:55
45...No they are not...but you clearly would be totally unsuitable and no responsible adult should pass a child onto you.
53

Tom - Invershire,

Invernesshire 01/02/2009 19:35:30
I find two things here that disgust me:

1). That the grandparents did not get the kids
2). That somehow the Gays are getting as much a hit of blame as the social workers

1). Them kids in all of their situations should of stayed with their grandparents who are more than healthy enough to look after them. I mean if they weren't what about all them children who have to help their mothers and fathers who are so ill, are the social workers going to split them up. It's horrendous. I hope the Grandparents win them.

2). Why is it the gay couples fault? All they did was innocently and legally signed this document and had all the checks to make them suitable parents. They didn't cause the problem and they ain't even a part of the problem. Their just people, just like anyone else, who were unfortunate enough to end up in this hell of a situation.

A gay couple can handle children like anyone else. Or are you going to end up saying that single parents will have their children taken away, fathers with no wife who have a daughter. Because all these incidences happen in real life.
I mean in general social abduction and orphanages weren't created by gay people, they were created by single and married people of all orientations who couldn't look after their children.....or at least told and proved that they can't.

If christians, politicians (who all come down the category as people) care about the children, they'll give them a family that loves them, gay/straight/lesbian or even single parents.
54

me150,

01/02/2009 19:55:31
The editors of this forum are getting kinda pathetic. My non offensive and factual post has been removed.

Totally unbelievable. It seems that we are in fact NOT entitled to post facts or opinions that the editor doesn't agree with. Makes the point of the forums void.
55

Jaimeson,

Scotland 01/02/2009 20:25:27
I can't believe some of the junk posted on this site. Fact. Homosexuality is not normal no matter what the liberal lefties and the Gay Pride Movement believe. Fact. How would you like it, if when you go to school your 'parents' are described as homosexual? Even worse, when you are a young teenage boy or girl, would you like a homosexual as a 'father' or 'mother'.
56

Tom - Invershire,

01/02/2009 20:42:11
# 60.

Possibly no different to when your parents are described as druggies or junkies.
despite both bullying is unacceptable

and your reason there is the trigger of bullying, bullying happens no matter what.


Also to be factual, Homosexuality is perfectly normal, and whats funny is you disrespecting parties, movement and politics when to be perfectly honest that factual is that Christianity is no longer religion and is now political.

Christianity says that you get a choice to follow religion yet they make the laws to follow the religion. Also how the bible tells you to love someone no matter what.

To be honest Homosexuality is pretty natural, by animals as what we all are.

So all these people who don't like discrimination, bullying and hurting other people and yet make these sorts of comments should be ashamed of themselves.

It's even worse how they cover up the discrimination with these sorts of stories which really have nothing to do with them and is not their fault.
57

Campsie,

01/02/2009 21:00:32
#60

I...really don't know what to say to you. I don't see how you can make a comment like that, I really don't. You can try to define something as wrong, or not normal, but all you're really doing is showing a closed mind.

It's pretty clear that your mind is already made up, and I will admit, you are entitled to your opinion. But please, don't try to force your opinion on others. It just degrades the person that you are. And however much you may hate to admit it, Tom is right. You can't make a distinction in the bullying thrown at gays. Others get far worse for their parents being druggies, or junkies...or hell, prostitutes even. So stop making a distinction. I would be willing to bet that being raised by two gays in coherent relationship is a hell of a lot better than being raised by two druggies.
58

Jaimeson,

Scotland 01/02/2009 21:45:29
Nos 61 and 62
Obviously a pair of homosexuals. I expected that. And let me add with the greatest conviction that I could not give a damn what you do in private. But I do object to homosexuality being forced on me and other normal people at every turn as normal by the homosexual and politically correct establishment.
I am well aware that some animals and birds also indulge in these practises. But they are still abnormal since normal sexual relations amongst animals under the evolutionary dictum is meant to (eventually) result in the production of offspring. It is in the genes. You'd have a hard job producing a baby by means of homosexual behaviour.
59

LYDIA REID,

EDINBURGH 01/02/2009 22:15:19
The real issue in this story is not discussed. When the future of children depends on whether their nearest relatives who can give them a loving home cannot afford the court fees to fight for them then something is very wrong with our legal system.

As Chairperson of Grandparents Apart, an organisation helping grandparents and fathers who are in dispute over contact or residency of much loved children, I see families selling houses and getting into a great deal of debt to fund court cases. Remember though that residency of children is awarded to families who have reasonable housing.

We are not told anything about the parents but normally children are removed because the parent or parents have a problem.

To refuse loving grandparents is not unusual; social workers often decide the children are better adopted.

As the figures prove this is not always the best option for children. More effort must be made to keep families together when this is the best option for children.

What most people do not know is even when a parent or grandparent is awarded contact to children then the adoptive parents can move anywhere in the country to stop contact.

I am unsure why social workers would decide to remove these children from their family. It seems the grandparents were very misled. The problem is that everybody respects’ a social worker and a bit like visiting the doctor you tend to take their advice and allow them to introduce fear when this is not necessary.
60

krusty the klown,

01/02/2009 22:24:19
we can all now assume then that grandparents apart will be taking this case forward to ensure the best outcome for the kid/s in question?
61

Speedy Gonzales,

Edinburgh 01/02/2009 22:37:16
#63
Getting way off the story now, but everytime you have/or have had sex, you were making babies were you? I undertand the evolution argument, so by that nature, homosexuals will breed themselves out of existence. How many more millenia do you think that will take?
Let's face it, sex is a recreational past time these days and babies are the wanted/unwanted by-product for some.
A 'normal' guy who doesn't think homosexuality is 'abnormal'!
62

Tom - Invershire,

01/02/2009 23:23:46
#63

You didn't really reply to what i said really, not only are you off track of this entire story, your so highly discriminated that your not even listening and then judging people who fight back at your assumptions.

Anyway thats not what this topic is about, though it's irritating how people swing it that way.

They belong with the grand parents, they made a fatal error with all of the complications, and the grand parents are young and healthy enough to look after children.

Jaimeson no one is forcing you to do anything or homosexuality on you. It's not like them gay guys ran up to you and pushed that paper in your face.
Your irrational and i don't see why your bothering to post here as your intentions are basically to put the blame on the gays, just as hitler blamed the jews
63

veritas1979,

Aberdeen 01/02/2009 23:41:10
No body (including me and everyone else posting here)other than the social workers involved in this case who have access to the details know what is going on here.

No doubt common sense will prevail. Even at Edinburgh City Council (eventually!).
64

Jaimeson,

Scotland 01/02/2009 23:54:38
No 67
I'M irrational? Your last paragraph is the last resort of the person who's argument is unsound. And I'm NOT off the subject, which is that two children are being adopted by two male homosexuals when perfectly adequate grand parents and/or man/woman adopters are available. I disagree with that.
I am NOT blaming gays. I blame the stupidity of the social workers who it appears have bent over backwards to be politically correct whether it is in the best interests of the children or not.
And please note I am not a catholic.
65

Tom - Invershire,

02/02/2009 00:11:29
Jaimeson what is your problem, you sound like some angry wilder beast, even your typing is getting loud. Now your irrational and making no sense.

well last post, as i've said what i had to say and it's just gonna be me and Jaimeson boy here arguing.

Oh and Jaimeson your contradicting yourself, so it's ok for gays as long as you don't see them but you don't mind butting into their stuff and creating a riot about it?

Grandparents should have ownership, end of.
The ball is in the social workers court. They better see sense.
66

ATISHU,

Inverness 02/02/2009 06:47:44
"Doesn't matter. They are grandparents, they have shown they can do the job, even if they will need support, and they should be able to continue to foster the children rather than see the kids given away to strangers."

1. The grandparents were not the foster Carers!!!!

2. They didnt want the children until they knew it was a gay couple that were fostering the children!!!!

3. The mother is a heroin addict who lives with them!! They obviously didnt manage to bring their daughter up that well if she's a drug addict!!

There are a lack of adoptive parents especially ones who will take more than one child!! I agree it would be better if they had both a mother and father but life is just not that simple anymore!!

I think that the grandparents are probably being paid for the "story"

67

James (1),

02/02/2009 10:51:22
#70 the post at #69 makes perfect sense. You don't like it because it is not supporting gays!
As said there were many permutations before a gay couple should have EVER been considered.
It would appear that the majority of people can see this is wrong but not gays, which shows they are not normal and to repeat just want to play happy families with real children.
Trinkets to show they are nearly like the rest of us.
Should not happen but in our PC world probably will as being a minority means your views are more important.
68

Skirving,

North Wales 02/02/2009 11:01:59
52#. Thank you for that gem of information. You’ve certainly held that very close to your chest for a few years. I must remember to quote you when next I ring the police. “There are two “good as yous’'” misbehaving in the Public toilets officer”
If giving love was the main criteria for adoption would the social services consider two heterosexual men suitable for adopting a three year old girl child? I think not, do you?
69

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 03/02/2009 13:04:12
#73 Skirving,North Wales. Good win against the English mate, and nicely put in your post!The social workers are obviously wrong, but haven't the gumption to admit it!
70

Prospect Street,

04/02/2009 21:07:52
How many of you homosexuals, came from homosexual parents ??, keep away from our children.
71

Ulrike,

USA 14/02/2009 16:14:12
Leaving aside the question of gay adoption, the children should not have been taken away from their grandparents in the first place. The reasons they gave (at least publicly) had nothing to do with any abuse or neglect: the (fill in the blanks) who made this decision simply alleged that having diabetes makes them unsuitable to raise children.

They should not have been adopted out to a homosexual couple - and not a heterosexual couple, either. They should be returned to their grandparents. When there are family members who can care for children, that's where they should be.
72

Phil1,

Edinburgh 14/05/2009 17:02:50
71 ATISHU,Inverness 02/02/2009 06:47:44

come on you know so much and talk pifil is your partner a social worker?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.