PDA

View Full Version : Couple Forced to Give Grandchildren Up for Adoption by Gay Men



Frozen Ash
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 01:09 PM
Couple forced to give grandchildren up for adoption by gay men because 'they are too old to look after them' - at 46 and 59

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.

The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was 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.'

The man said last night: '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.'

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women.

More at source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 01:59 PM
That's a devastating example why gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children by the law. :|

Old Winter
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 02:52 PM
Sick! Now I can see that there really is something behind it all, why else put them with gay men when there are also heterosexual couples who would wanted them.

GroeneWolf
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 02:52 PM
What is going on this world. Two middle-aged grandparents are considered too old to take care of their grandchilderen. And forced to turn them over to a gay couple. And they are even being blackmailed about it :| .

Steeljam
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Truly incredible. Democracy seems to mean that minority groups are more powerful than the silent majority.

forkbeard
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Adoption by homos won't last. It only needs one legal precedent that the decision ruined someones life. Then the million dollar compensation will stop councils making such a risk.

Dreyrithoka
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 04:27 PM
As much as I distrust the Daily Mail, I feel that this may be a relatively unbiased article, considering their usual fare. With this in mind, I must say that I object to such things for the same reasons as the grandparents seem to: not because of the couple's ability to raise a child, but merely the psychological effects of growing up without a mother figure. I have had this argument with many people before, but I fail to see how a "female friend of the family" can function as a mother. A strong female role model, perhaps, and maybe even a kind of "aunt", but by no stretch of the imagination a real mother figure. Some would say a strong role model is enough, but I can testify, from the opposite side of the fence, that growing up with a father that was merely a strong male role model and not a "father" in the complete sense of the word caused me a fair amount of psychological trauma throughout my teenage years, especially when going through the onset of puberty.

BeornWulfWer
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 04:34 PM
As much as I distrust the Daily Mail, I feel that this may be a relatively unbiased article, considering their usual fare. With this in mind, I must say that I object to such things for the same reasons as the grandparents seem to: not because of the couple's ability to raise a child, but merely the psychological effects of growing up without a mother figure.


I'm with you on that one. The article seems genuine and not speculating any minor points to sell a story.

The whole thing is disgusting and one which should be held up and displayed to the fawning animals that this cannot, and will not, continue.
The British family should be united, not divided.

And to put them with the mentally ill homosexuals was just one more kick in the teeth for the Grandparents.

Sigurd
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Too old at looking after their grandchildren at 59 and 46? What is that all about? In a month's time, my parents will be 46 and 45, respectively. Imagine, due to "high parent age" they'd either take my little brother away from my mother at age 9, or worse take my little sister, aged less than a year away from my father.

A school friend and his brother were even born to a couple aged 52/53 and 38/39, so by the time they were 6 and 7 respectively, their parents would have reached the age the grandparents in the case had. I've never heard them complaining that their parents were too old, if anything then having parents of advanced age made them much more reasoned and well disciplined, with both becoming prefects in due time at our school.

The fact that I am anti-gay-adoption because I feel that childrne should at best both have a male and a female role model in their lives aggravates the matter, but even without that it'd be aggravating enough to understand why any social worker would be of the opinion that children were better off with some random couple (and especially a homosexual one at that! :|) than with their biological grandparents.

I stayed with my grandparents quite a bit when I was a child, and a youth, and if anything then I think it's made me more mature or more reasoned. Having "mentors" who'd seen a lifetime of situations was definitely a bonus if anything.

This case here is just ridiculous. The social worker who wished to allowed this to be sanctioned should be hanged, drawn and quartered. :thumbdown

Dreyrithoka
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 05:58 PM
And to put them with the mentally ill homosexuals was just one more kick in the teeth for the Grandparents.
I did not see anything in the article to claim that the gay couple were suffering from any mental illness, and I am relatively certain that a council would consider such things a liability, therefore I am wondering if you had additional information on the subject to share, or whether you are one that believes homosexuality itself to be a mental illness, in which case I must agree to differ on said subject rather vehemently, even if I do not wish to heist this thread with said disagreement.

harl
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009, 06:03 PM
What the hell!!! This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Your children can be taken away because you're "too old" ???? Since when are 40s and 50s considered old?

Will Larry King's child be taken away?

Freaking disgusting, that too adopted by fags.

Hersir
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 09:49 AM
That is so sick, what is going on with the world:S How can they be considered to be too old. And the children are forced into gay homes, disgusting...

hildolf
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 10:26 AM
There is nothing more important then family. These children should be with their grandparents. Words can not fully describe what I feel at the tearing apart of this family. If I was the grandparents I would do everything in my power to prevent this happening. Even if it meant leaving the country.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 11:18 AM
Truly incredible. Democracy seems to mean that minority groups are more powerful than the silent majority.
Hmm, yes, but in Scotland it was done in spite of a majority opposition.


Adoption by gay couples in Scotland was approved by MSPs in 2006 - despite an official consultation process which showed that nearly 90 per cent of people opposed it.

:|

Zauberspruch
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 11:45 AM
Our countries are being swamped with grubby little government-sponsored, non-Euro, food-stamp squatters and turd world hooligans. The police are impotent in the face of drug lords. The courts are ruled by liberal judges who consistently find in favor of sexual deviants, repeat offenders, crack heads and weirdos. Afro-pop rules the airwaves, thanks to the entertainment industry. The media is repackaging mystery men like Obama who cannot even show that he is a legal citizen ... we are called to bow to his image and his charisma ... all in the name of Diversity.

Our traditions, values and history are being degraded everywhere we turn.

How much more will it take before brave men of European ancestry ban together, rise up and drive out the enemy inside our gates?

Hello? Is there anyone out there?

Nachtengel
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 11:49 AM
Children shouldn't be taken away from their biological parents. I'm opposed to adoption.

BeornWulfWer
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 04:50 PM
I did not see anything in the article to claim that the gay couple were suffering from any mental illness, and I am relatively certain that a council would consider such things a liability, therefore I am wondering if you had additional information on the subject to share, or whether you are one that believes homosexuality itself to be a mental illness, in which case I must agree to differ on said subject rather vehemently, even if I do not wish to heist this thread with said disagreement.


I believe homosexuality to be a mental illness and one which has considerable evidence to weigh in on its defence.
The continuation of society to ignore evidence to avoid upsetting and disturbing certain sections of society is disturbing in itself.

I can greatly imagine the situation has already damaged the children on some level to be later manifested against the stability of society, and yet more for the taxpayer to vouch for; but also the instability of residing with two homosexuals will no doubt add considerably to the result.

I would suggest using the search option and typing in "homosexual" or "homosexuality" for further opinions provided by members of this board. :)

triedandtru
Thursday, January 29th, 2009, 04:57 PM
That is utterly disgusting. Couples should not have to give up their children, and certainly not to another couple they do not necessarily approve of. That is horrific.

InvaderNat
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 03:44 AM
Thats just wrong, how are they too old?. If that happened to me I'd forcibly take the children back - I don't care how long they'd put me in prison!
It'd be better than letting some liberal, homosexual 'family' raise them.

And yes I'm aware this post is starting to cross the line but I dont care because I feel very strongly about this case.

Sigurd
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 07:18 AM
Hmm, yes, but in Scotland it was done in spite of a majority opposition.

That's Scotland for you, the only jurisdiction worldwide that has seen a man accused in court of revving his car in a "racist manner" (http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17762264&method=full&siteid=64736&headline=racist-rev-row--name_page.html).

Once established, the Scottish parliament was also very keen to on a whole campagin for all types of equal opportunities for homosexuals, and as usual this was tried out in Scotland before it was tried elsewhere in the UK.

No matter what the population was to think of it, the entire UK introduced the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which allowed registration of a well, registered partnership for homosexual couples. Of course, the population was not asked there either.

It has made revision for Family Law exams exceedingly simple, as the 400 page standard course book can be read as a matter of hours, as only 300 pages are actually substantive and the other 100 pages make an effort of being politically correct enough to include a "or civil partner" after each mention of a "spouse".

For all other intents and purposes, sickening. In fact, in general one should be looking in detail at the changes brought in by the Labour government, including those brought 1999-2007 in the Scottish Parliament but also those pertaining to Scotland yet drafted in Westminster, and it should be clear what they have in mind for this nation.

The UK is to become a rainbow coloured fantasy dreamland, and as usual - a measure usually loved by politicians ever since the days of Thatcher - the intention is to first try their social experiments in Scotland.

That they do extra campaigning on top of that is evident anyhow: The average Scot may tend to be more liberal and less racist than the average Englishman; but he is also more traditional than the average Englishman, and that's yet another reason why it is so expedient for them to first try their social experiments "north of Hadrian's Wall" (I'll allow myself here to stand uncorrected by Oswiu's defacto placement of that wall :P). :|

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 07:39 AM
Democracy really has nothing to do with public opinion.. it is simply a matter of which politicians are funded. Those who are most eager to destroy the family and the integrity of European culture always seem to be the best funded. Do your own research as to why and who is funding them.

This whole situation is completely intolerable to anyone with a backbone. One's family is sacred.. nothing else matters without the family. When the state seizes our young and forces them to grow up in a household with perverse morality we find unnatural, we should all raise hell in protest, and I do mean raise hell!

Brynhild
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 07:48 AM
Children shouldn't be taken away from their biological parents. I'm opposed to adoption.

Even if one or both parents are unfit to look after them? A good example would be feeding their heroin habit, overriding the needs of the child. I don't think you gave your answer particularly clearly on this matter.

The thread in itself is about the grandparents having their little girl taken away from them - for all the wrong reasons. The tragic irony to this is the grandparents' daughter is - a heroin addict!

I'm approaching 45, and if anyone ever dared take my children away from me because they thought I was old, by the Gods I would give them a fight they would never forget!

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 12:47 PM
In my view the solution would be first of all not to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. Because the old couple agreed with adoption if it was a heterosexual couple. But it wasn't. The outrage started about the new gay "parents", that's why. Because the social workers decided to give the children to the gays instead of respecting the wish of the old couple.

Nachtengel
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 06:30 PM
Even if one or both parents are unfit to look after them? A good example would be feeding their heroin habit, overriding the needs of the child. I don't think you gave your answer particularly clearly on this matter.
What's not clear? I'm against taking away children from their families. There will always be other relatives left to take care of children if one or both parents are unfit. Exceptions should only be when ALL traceable family members are no longer alive. Children should stay where their blood is, not be sent to b e adopted by foreigners, homo or hetero.

Brynhild
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 10:25 PM
Children shouldn't be taken away from their biological parents. I'm opposed to adoption.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you need to read your post twice! As I understand the first quote, you've said biological parents only!


What's not clear? I'm against taking away children from their families. There will always be other relatives left to take care of children if one or both parents are unfit. Exceptions should only be when ALL traceable family members are no longer alive. Children should stay where their blood is, not be sent to b e adopted by foreigners, homo or hetero.

Changing tack? Enough said!

Sigurd
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 11:01 PM
What's not clear? I'm against taking away children from their families. There will always be other relatives left to take care of children if one or both parents are unfit. Exceptions should only be when ALL traceable family members are no longer alive. Children should stay where their blood is, not be sent to b e adopted by foreigners, homo or hetero.

Ah, yes - I did already have my head in wrinkles when I saw the claim of biological parents --- but left the possibility of you clarifying yourself. When you clarified yourself, it was one of the best things I'd heard.

Sometimes biological parents may be unfit to take care of their children, or may be financially able to support another child, or may find that it is more beneficial to their welfare if they are fostered out to an uncle, or their grandparents.

Fosterage was practiced by our ancestors, and it usually involved an uncle/aunt pair or a pair of grandparents mentoring the child in the stead of their biological parents, which was oft to the child's benefit. It even helps family ties beyond that --- one of the reasons why I feel that I've gotten the best out of my upbringing is because my entire family decided to put a combined effort into my upbringing: My aunt and uncle mentored me, my grandparents were a major driving force in keeping me going in difficult times, and last summer my other uncle put me up in order to help me become somewhat more independent. I thought it was excellent. :)

But overall, I also agree that fosterage outside the family should only be applied when there is no beneficial option within the family. In those cases, people should only be fostered out to families of their own folk group and who entertain a family structure which their biological family would have considered beneficial.

Now that you've clarified your position, I must say that I am 100% with you there: children should only grow up outside their biological lineage when there is no other good option. :)

Haereticus
Saturday, January 31st, 2009, 11:21 PM
Too old at looking after their grandchildren at 59 and 46? What is that all about? In a month's time, my parents will be 46 and 45, respectively. Imagine, due to "high parent age" they'd either take my little brother away from my mother at age 9, or worse take my little sister, aged less than a year away from my father....

I'm 46 with 4 children, the youngest 7 months old. These b*stard social workers are destroying these children's and their grandparents lives for the sake of their own half-baked pc dogma :mad

The article in the Daily Mail is very good. It seems to be written with great conviction. I'd certainly contribute to a legal fund to help the grandparents fight this disgusting idiocy.

jagdmesser
Friday, August 3rd, 2018, 11:13 PM
Social workers missed too many opportunities to protect a toddler who was murdered by her adoptive father because they saw the gay parents through a “positive lens” and failed to notice signs of abuse, an official report has revealed.Elsie Scully-Hicks, 18 months old, had suffered a catalogue of abuse including a broken leg and “catastrophic head injuries” during the seven months she was fostered and eventually adopted by Matthew and Craig Scully-Hicks.

In May 2016, she was taken to hospital by fitness instructor Matthew, 31, after he had violently shaken the child and smashed her head on a hard surface at his home in Cardiff, Wales. Elsie died days after being admitted to hospital — just two weeks after being formally adopted.

Scully-Hicks was found guilty (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/06/matthew-scully-hicks-guilty-of-murdering-adopted-daughter) of murder in November 2017 and sentenced to life with a minimum of 18 years’ imprisonment.

The Cardiff and Vale Regional Safeguarding Children Board subsequently launched an investigation after it was revealed that social services had visited Matthew Scully-Hicks 15 times and he had taken the child to the doctor’s and hospital multiple times, but there had been “no concern” from authorities over his parenting.

The report (https://www.cardiffandvalersb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/CV-RSCB-CPR-042016-Report.pdf) found that both Matthew and his 36-year-old husband Craig, a company director who was often away from home, were seen through a “positive lens” and were praised as “very positive parents” since the child was placed with them in September 2015 when she was 10 months old.

“Given how strongly this view was held, the injuries that the child sustained were never considered as anything other than childhood accidents,” the report said, adding there was “a lack of professional curiosity regarding the child’s experiences and injuries”.
Criticising authorities for missing other signs of abuse, the authority added that “the omission of identifying the second fracture to the child’s upper leg on the X-ray was a missed opportunity to [have] raised safeguarding concerns and instigate child protection procedures.
“The observations and recording of the large bruise to the child’s forehead both by children’s services and health was absent. “This resulted in the large bruise becoming ‘invisible’ to professionals and did not form part of building an overall picture of what was happening to the child before the final report to the court prior to the adoption order hearing being made.”

The report claimed that lessons would be learnt from the death of Elsie, writing: “There is always learning to be gained and this case is no different.” Lance Carver, social services chief at Vale of Glamorgan council, apologised to the natural family of Elsie but said that no disciplinary action had been taken against social service staff, according (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/social-workers-praised-father-who-murdered-adopted-baby-elsie-scully-hicks-7qkwz97x8) to The Times. “Social workers and staff from all agencies saw the adoption as very positive,” he said. “The report identifies issues that ‘that positive lens’ meant that they were not looking in the way they should have been… We have taken that fully on board.”

Elsie, or Shayla, as her birth family called her, was taken from her drug-abusing mother shortly after birth, but her extended family said (https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/11/08/family-baby-murdered-gay-adopted-father/) last year that had she been allowed to be adopted by relatives, she would still be alive today.

According to an opinion piece by columnist Sarah Vine, a whistleblower with 30 years’ experience in social services in Elsie’s local authority believes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5060587/SARAH-VINE-Political-correctness-helped-kill-little-Elsie.html) that the Scully-Hickses may not have been as thoroughly vetted or challenged over Elsie’s injuries as it seemed a positive move by authorities to place a child with a gay couple.


Breitbart. (https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/03/social-workers-showed-lack-professional-curiosity-abuse-adoptive-gay-dad-killed-baby/)


"Lance Carver, social services chief at Vale of Glamorgan council, apologised to the natural family of Elsie but said that no disciplinary action had been taken against social service staff" how many times have saw this B S?


MSM never mention much of this simply referring to him as a man.
This sort of thing is not unusual incident and the MSM always covers it up.
This is what happens when preference is given to a lgbtetc couples over the extended family.
The child's well being is the last thing considered.

Aelfgar
Saturday, August 4th, 2018, 10:07 PM
Ban gay adoption outright. I mean, what the hell? If it was known a boy or girl in my high school had gay adoptive parents then he or she would have been bullied big time.

Wuotans Krieger
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 04:41 PM
More at source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html

I can't find the story on that link but there is a slightly later similiar one: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html

The ages of the couple are 64 and 49. If it is the same couple then the grandfather was actually older. To be honest late 50s or mid 60s is too old to start raising young children. A terrible situation but the real culprits are the parents. They should never have bred.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 05:46 PM
I can't find the story on that link but there is a slightly later similiar one: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199076/Grandparents-children-given-gay-couple-adoption-denied-access-years.html

The ages of the couple are 64 and 49. If it is the same couple then the grandfather was actually older. To be honest late 50s or mid 60s is too old to start raising young children. A terrible situation but the real culprits are the parents. They should never have bred.

The original report had been also published at The Telegraph :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4365171/Social-services-remove-young-children-from-grandparents-and-arrange-adoption-by-gay-couple.html


By Lucy Cockcroft 8:00AM GMT 28 Jan 2009
The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.

But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children.
...
Social workers at the City of Edinburgh Council have been accused of waging a "two-year campaign" through the courts to strip the grandparents of their legal rights as carers of the children.

Social services intervened because of concerns over the age and health of the grandparents, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the children.

The grandfather is a farmhand who has angina while his wife is receiving medication for diabetes.

The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court.

However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.


So they were considered too ill , not too old .
It were actually the Public Service, who was lying, not the Media .


Nevertheless , I would not consider 50/60 year-old grandparents, aunts and uncles too old,
since the average life expectancy is around 80 years , and until then ,
the grandchildren should be of 18 years of age .

It is sad , that the grandparents were forced to spend a lot of useless money ,
which could have been better spend elsewhere .

Alice
Tuesday, November 27th, 2018, 06:00 PM
Social workers missed too many opportunities to protect a toddler who was murdered by her adoptive father because they saw the gay parents through a “positive lens” and failed to notice signs of abuse, an official report has revealed.

MSM never mention much of this simply referring to him as a man.
This sort of thing is not unusual incident and the MSM always covers it up.
This is what happens when preference is given to a lgbtetc couples over the extended family.
The child's well being is the last thing considered.

That case was terrible. :(

Homosexual relationships are inherently unstable, and children raised in homes established by homosexual partners at risk for poor socialization, emotional disturbances and violence. The risk of sexual abuse within the home is fifty times greater, too. It's obvious that children's best interests are not served in such relationships.

Wuotans Krieger
Wednesday, November 28th, 2018, 11:49 AM
The original report had been also published at The Telegraph :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4365171/Social-services-remove-young-children-from-grandparents-and-arrange-adoption-by-gay-couple.html


So they were considered too ill , not too old .
It were actually the Public Service, who was lying, not the Media .


Nevertheless , I would not consider 50/60 year-old grandparents, aunts and uncles too old,
since the average life expectancy is around 80 years , and until then ,
the grandchildren should be of 18 years of age .

It is sad , that the grandparents were forced to spend a lot of useless money ,
which could have been better spend elsewhere .

Forget 'average life expectancy'-those are figures massaged by governments for political reason. Threescore years and ten is a normal lifespan, fourscore years if you are in good health so a 64 year old does not have many years to go and he was also in poor health. I reiterate people in their late 50s to mid 60s are too old and lack the energy to raise young children and I see no reason why they should be burdened but I am not in favour of homosexual couples adopting. Who wants to spend the last few years of their life being burdened in this way?