ADOPTION DECISION-MAKING. Another case of dubious decision-making in relation to the placing of children removed from their natural parents by those charged with the responsibility: – Tim Veater

Posted on May 25, 2014 by Admin

ADOPTION DECISION-MAKING.

Another case of dubious decision-making in relation to the placing of children

removed from their natural parents by those charged with the responsibility:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2637725/Catholic-family-branded-bigoted-social-workers-not-wanting-children-adopted-gay-couple.html

Please note I am not necessarily against the placement of children with

homo-sexual couples, but is it wise to choose families that so blatantly that

are contrary to the real parent’s wishes, even if they have proved incompetent

themselves? Was it not possible to match the children with a heterosexual

Catholic couple? If nothing else it might have softened the blow of the forced

removal. After all it is not long since the official doctrine was that you

couldn’t place black children with white parents (and presumably vice versa) for

the cultural confusion that would result.

Then the wholly unnecessary reference to the natural parents being “bigoted”a

classic example of the way language is used to label and coerce by a new

prevailing  bureaucratic predilection. It reveals as much about the authors as

it does the targets and it is not in anyway reassuring about the philosophy that

is being applied. I seem to remember Nick Clegg intended to use the same

derogatory term to those who found it difficult to accept the “gay marriage”

proposals, although he wisely dropped it when he delivered the speech.

Nevertheless it eloquently demonstrated the direction of the prevailing

political wind.

No-one is suggesting that this particular couple pose a risk to the children by

virtue of their sexuality but the reality is that ulterior motive can never be

completely ruled out in any adoptive situation of any variety, as this notorious

Australian/American case exemplified.

http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/ . From that article we can

see homosexual couples do not have exclusive claim to risk as the following

quote illustrates.

“The law banning American citizens from adopting Russian children was named

after a two-year old Russian boy, who died in 2008 from heatstroke after his

adoptive US father left him locked in a car on a hot day. The supporters of the

law have cited multiple cases of abuse from the US adoptive parents against

Russian children. According to Pavel Astakhov, 19 Russian children have been

killed in American families since 2001. ”

Clearly heterosexuals can pose as great or greater threat, just by virtue of

absolute numbers if nothing else. It is also a recognised fact that step-parents

– particularly male – pose a greater risk than natural parents, although

physical injury may be contra-indicated. See:

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/stepchildren-family-parents-abuse-0409132

As regards the Roma case, here two boys of one and four were presumably chosen

by the male couple. The boys will presumably be deprived the love, affection and

unique skills of a “mother”. Let’s hope the two males have the requisite

skill-set and that a thorough assessment has been carried out by the officials.

Call me old fashioned but I do not see two adult men, bringing up two deprived

children, can be as good a solution for any of the affected parties, as a

conventional husband and wife. I suppose by the new mindset that would make me

“bigoted” too?