From the post below we know that in New York two women can be named the “parents”(?) of a new born baby of either woman. This presents a bit of a logistical problem for gay male couples who want children of their own; namely elemental biology. Both foreign adoption and surrogacy are quite expensive and time consuming arduous affairs. Local adoption is even more difficult and arduous (do too abortion) young healthy children are an increased rarity…who’s mothers often want the children to go to good homes with a Mother & Father.
According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couplesSo enter the Social Workers Bureaucracy – a notorious left wing guild that has signed on to race sensitive adoptions keeping needy black children from being adopted by white families and is now advocating in legislatures for gay “marriage” and adoption. Well once they get the law on their side: evidence from Britain shows what happens next. They just don’t let gays adopt, but prefer them to adopt while discriminating against Christian couples or anyone who doesn’t share their politics. The first is the forced adoption & The Daily Mail story is… HERE
The forced adoption of the children by two gay men - and the council's decision to ignore their grandparents' request to care for them - has provoked fierce debate.
“Heather Rush telephoned the youngsters' 26-year-old mother after the family publicized their grievances with her council department…………..Mrs Rush allegedly said the price they will pay for speaking out is complete loss of contact with the five-year-old boy and four-year-old girl. The mother, who cannot be identified, said: 'She asked me if I had seen the paper and said "it does not make very good reading"………'I said I didn't think it was right that she was not letting me meet the fathers because of the story going in the paper and that she should speak to my Mum and Dad. ……..'She said, "No, just pass the message on." She said she didn't want to speak to them but there would be no recommendation for them to see the children twice a year.'……….. Last week Mrs Rush had told the grandparents they would be allowed to see the boy and girl if they gave the gay adoption arrangements their blessing……… "
In another article on the same case shows that the (more than fit & young enough) grandparents wanted to raise the child, but the social workers strong-armed them into agreeing on a adoption that was neither necessary or fair. Typically Grandparents are though to be the next best case scenario when a child’s parents are unfit… But not when gays need babies and there is a shortage.
The Telegraph story is … HERE
The grandfather, 59, and his wife, 46, were told they were too old and unfit to care for the children however……The couple thought the fostering was temporary but the local council went to court four times to have the children permanently removed and adopted……..Each time the court ruled in favor of the grandparents but when the council threatened to hire lawyers the couple reluctantly agreed to let them go….Their grandmother said:"If we had known how it would turn out, that social workers would choose a home without a mother for them and we'd have to like it or not see them again, we'd never have given up the fight. "The thing is they were so happy here. They knew they were loved and they were safe."
And the pro-gay, anti-Christian bias doesn’t end there. In another story about how these laws are used – We all know that special needs children and foster children are given excellent care by the many, many loving Christians who do such work out of a sense of duty to the underprivileged.
The Daily Mail Story… HERE
But Eunice and Owen Johns have been forced to abandon their good work because they refuse to tell children as young as ten that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. To do so, they say, would go against their Christian beliefs. The devastated couple withdrew an application to their council to continue as foster carers after being told they must condone homosexuality to adhere to gay rights laws. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation), which came into force last April, makes it illegal for any business or organisation providing a public service to discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality. The council says its fostering panel felt it would not be following the regulations if it placed a child with a couple who could not comply with the Act. The couple's case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis. Around 8,000 more are needed nationally”
[UPDATE] Hat-tip IMAPP
Just In case you thought this was limited to Europe. A recent Ohio battle shows how the preference to change adoption procedures is being changed through legal threat.
State legislators encourage Ohio County Commissioners to reinstate adoption policy
These Ohio County Commissioners had suspended the traditional adoption policy in early March after it came under attack by the local chapter of the ACLU and homosexual activist organizations. That policy is common sense and illustrates why the Grandparents in the case above would usually have been next in line for custody.
The county’s preferences in the adoption matching process were, in order of preference:(1)relatives of the child, or someone who the birth mother designates as a potential adoptive parent for her child; (2) married couples; (3) foster parents; (4) other adoptive parents.
If marriage doesn’t change (Ohio has an amendment) then legal threats attempt to make smaller changes. Changes contrary to common sense and the social science on child wellbeing.
Look for more such stories in the future. After they force Christian adoption agencies out of the business, they will have a total monopoly on available children. Given their extreme left wing bent of the social workers, many more such abuses will never even be reported.
The important thing is not to let them get the full force & weight of the law to begin with” Here’s how from BeetleBlog
This is the most irresponsible, baiting headline I have ever seen! Congratulations!
ReplyDeleteIf you read the article, you see two things very quickly- the mother of said children was a heroin addict, and the grandparents were deemed unfit to care for the children. (Considering the extremely low level of care that is deemed fit, that's probably saying something.)
We're not getting the whole story here- we're getting a politically charged rant from a pair of aggrieved grandparents. Nobody snatched children out of the arms of their healthy, wonderful parents, which is exactly what that headline implies.
Shame on you.
PersonalFailure
ReplyDelete#1. Shame on you.. If you read the articles you will find that the only reason the Grandparents were declared "unfit" was due to age.
"The grandfather, 59, and his wife, 46, were told they were too old and unfit to care for the children however"
Of coarse the apparatchiks are going to find a legal hook to hang their hats on. Shame on you for bowing before the word of bureaucrats. The right of parents to raise their children is well established in law. As is the right of blood relatives to take custody due to incapacity. Many parents face problems with addiction and run ins with the law.Finding of incapacity and lack of fitness are rightfully high burdens for the State to meet.
I stand by the post in its entirety- as a sound point packed up with solid real world evidence and examples.
#2. Your one to talk … I have perused your sight and its filled with invective and hyperbole as a matter of coarse. The only follow up you gave me to my pointed question was some lame swipe were you totally misunderstand precedent (as standing for a point of law in a case regardless of the outcome) and are blindingly oblivious to the commonly understood concept of a evidentiary ruling & its importance on appeal.
Evidentiary Ruling: "If an evidentiary ruling is one admitting evidence, the opponent of the admitted evidence must make a timely objection to the ruling to preserve the question of the admissibility of the evidence for appeal.”
(Note – precisely the point of law you couldn’t grasp.)
You embarrassed yourself further by lying that some (fictional) friend was supposedly fired for this same “offense”. An “offense” that is no offense at all, done as a matter of coarse without any concern on either side if the “ultimate issue” was ruled for either way. You proved your ignorance on a most elementary legal precept – and added liar to your resume.
Precedent - "In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."
(Note- nothing about the holding, just the principle of law.. and similar facts in the case)
Time to go to School ….you are truly a Personal Failure when facts, law or logic is at issue.
Oh. This just makes me sick! Children NEED the inherent gender differences provided by a mother and a father. The two come together to provide a complementary whole - if not parents, the grandparents are certainly the next best thing. Children need that sort of security. It's so selfish for these people to think only of their desire to be a parent - not of what's best for the child. I mean, I have a dear gay friend who would be a fabulous father, no doubt - but I still grieve at the thought of children being without a mother, especially when I also think of a few happily married friends who struggle with infertility and would provide an excellent home to adoptive children.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article cited I've gathered this:
ReplyDelete"...mother, who is currently taking methadone in an attempt to kick her drug habit..."
"She is unable to care for them as she is a recovering heroin addict."
"The boy's father was a schizophrenic who killed himself two months before his son was born. The girl's father is still alive but has had nothing to do with his daughter."
"I don't think such a call could be motivated by the best interests of the children."
I think that we should examine all the people and couples willing to adopt these children, including the grandparents, interview them all including background checks, and choose the best option for the children. I agree that the grandparents seem to make a better choice than strangers, but is there more about the grandparents that we don't know.
I also agree that from the article alone as our only source of information it seems that the social worker was out of line. I would like to see other sources to compare the accuracy to.
I noitced that this article was written on January 30, did you research this story further to get the more current information?
Mr H-G sais: "I agree that the grandparents seem to make a better choice than strangers"
ReplyDeleteGiven the information above from Fitz, what do you propose to do in order to effectively leave the preference to kin in the question of placement for the children?
In most cases children are more apt to be comfortable around their relatives rather than strangers, but that is not always what is best. A qualified interview panel will know what is best for the child after reviewing all the options. This should always be the course of action so that the children get what's best for them. A report detailing the recommendation with the reasons for said opinions should accompany their decision so it can be reviewed for correctness by all intersted parties and governing bodies.
ReplyDeleteAbove we see someone bureaucratic-izing the welfare of children. While ultimately some mechanism must exist for the government to “sign off” on custodial parentage, the history of child welfare shows the state to be amongst the poorest predictors of chills wellbeing or care. Indeed the state itself it often the most negligent & abusive of custodians.
ReplyDeleteKin altruism exists not just because children prefer grandparents and the like, but because related kin are reliably better caregivers & those parents and relatives have a right over the state to those children.
The legal standard has never been “the best interest of the child” not in adoption or severing of parental rights. That is just a standard the state uses in some circumstances. That standard is obviously too amorphous and relative to reliably protect parents & children’s rights.(as the examples above demonstrate)
No matter what bureaucratic machinations one devises, the locus of the law must remain blood relations or (as history has proven) the State itself becomes the de-facto parent of all children and the real parents and relatives simply post facto guardians.
This has always proved to be too much power and has always lead to the authoritarian abuses I cataloged above. In this case it happens to be the latest fashion of homosexual aggrandizement that has become the excuse. In past ages multiple other rationalizations are used to justify the abuse of fundamental rights and children.