Friday, 20 February 2015

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

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:-



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.

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:


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?

No comments:

Post a Comment