'They say we're too old to care for our grandchildren': Social workers hand brother and sister to gay men for adoption

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html

‘They say we’re too old to care for our grandchildren’: Social workers hand brother and sister to gay men for adoption

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.’

Nothing like a little legal blackmail. I hope there is some organisation that will take the grandparents’ case on pro bono.

Anybody who thinks this madness isn’t coming to the good ol’ USA better go hide under a rock. :mad:

I bet it’s already alive & well in California.

Wow. There’s an agenda there a mile wide.

I wonder if they would have tried this if the granparents were Muslim?

Given the seemingly large outrage about this incident (from the comments posted on the Daily Mail website), maybe social services will change its mind and allow the children to stay with their grandparents.

There has got to be something more to this story. I know several people who’ve been adopted by grabdparents older than that. There was no talk of forcing them to live with gay people or anybody who wasn’t a biological relative.

Ya know, the homosexual adoption issue is one (frightening) thing, but it is downright scary how much power the government has over families. WHAT right do these people have to step in and take these kids from their grandparents?! Because the grandma is in her late 40’s and takes medicine for diabetes?! Grandpa’s in his 50’s?! It’s not like these grandparents are senile and in their 80’s for pete’s sake! Just how many parents had their babies at 45 and have diabetes, should they lose their kids too?

I fear what would happen to my own kids if, heaven forbid, I would come down with DIABETES! :mad: Don’t think this could never land on your own doorstep, people!

My heart just breaks at the trauma these poor kids will go through being ripped from their family and put in a strange environment with people they have never met in their life. So much for looking out for THEIR best interest. I’m just sick at this. :frowning: :nope:

Yea, maybe in the US but this in in England. They’ve jumped off that bridge of insanity a long time ago…unfortunately, we’re right behind him. Monkey see monkey do.

It is incredibly morally wrong in so many ways. I pray things work out for the grandparents, and that this type of stuff comes to a permanent end.

Poor financial situation?

I read this story and I actually started crying. It absolutely breaks my heart. I for one will be praying for this entire family (grandparents, children and biological mother).

I desperately hope that the grandparents get to re-gain custody of their grandchildren.

PS:
According to the article the grandparents also have diabetes.
Here’s some useful stuff.

DIABETES FACTS
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than 180 million people worldwide have diabetes. This number is likely to more than double by 2030.
In 2005, an estimated 1.1 million people died from diabetes.1
Almost 80% of diabetes deaths occur in low and middle-income countries.
Almost half of diabetes deaths occur in people under the age of 70 years; 55% of diabetes deaths are in women.
WHO projects that diabetes deaths will increase by more than 50% in the next 10 years without urgent action. Most notably, diabetes deaths are projected to increase by over 80% in upper-middle income countries between 2006 and 2015.

WHAT ARE COMMON CONSEQUENCES OF DIABETES?
Over time, diabetes can damage the heart, blood vessels, eyes, kidneys, and nerves.

Diabetic retinopathy is an important cause of blindness, and occurs as a result of long-term accumulated damage to the small blood vessels in the retina. After 15 years of diabetes, approximately 2% of people become blind, and about 10% develop severe visual impairment.
Diabetic neuropathy is damage to the nerves as a result of diabetes, and affects up to 50% of people with diabetes. Although many different problems can occur as a result of diabetic neuropathy, common symptoms are tingling, pain, numbness, or weakness in the feet and hands.
Combined with reduced blood flow, neuropathy in the feet increases the chance of foot ulcers and eventual limb amputation.
Diabetes is among the leading causes of kidney failure. 10-20% of people with diabetes die of kidney failure.
Diabetes increases the risk of heart disease and stroke. 50% of people with diabetes die of cardiovascular disease (primarily heart disease and stroke).
The overall risk of dying among people with diabetes is at least double the risk of their peers without diabetes.

WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF DIABETES?
Diabetes and its complications impose significant economic consequences on individuals, families, health systems and countries.

who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en/

I’ll state it in another way. Any one that thinks this is not coming here HAS been hiding under a rock.
:eek:

It is very rare for social services to adopt children outside the wider family if unnecessary. If they have been taken with no good reason, I agree the story is appalling, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out there’s more to this than the Daily Mail is letting on - a newspaper with a well-known reputation of… erm… ‘embellishing the facts’, let’s put it that way. :wink:

Firstly, just because they are the grandparents, doesn’t make them automatically wonderful carers. We’re only hearing the grandparents’ side of things, and social workers don’t do things just for the sake of it. How do we not know of another issue that hasn’t been raised in the article?

This is most likely a case where the grandparents were ruled out in the best interests of the childrens’ welfare, and it wouldn’t be on the whim of some social worker with secret orders to steal children and place them with same sex couples, for goodness’ sake. :rolleyes: It’s perfectly possible that the grandparents would have been expected to cut all ties with their child (the parent of the grandchildren) to prevent the children from being put at risk, the reason they’re in care in the first place, which would have been an incredibly difficult thing for them to do.

It’s just unfortunate that they were placed with a homosexual couple, which is completely irrelevant but unfortunately detracts from the actual situation and allows the Daily Mail to go off on a ‘OMG TEH GAYZZ ARE STEALING OUR KIDZ’ rant.

It’s heartbreaking all round, and I hope the children will be able to enjoy a loving childhood in their new home.

:rolleyes:

If it was a straight couple, this wouldn’t even be a new story.

Gays getting equal rights to raise children? how terrible

Yes it would. Taking away kids from biological relatives because they are are too old is a big deal.

As for giving the children to gay people when heterosexual couples are available, that is not fair to those struggling with infertility who want to raise a child.

I agree with you that(if that is the real reason) that they shouldn’t of been taken away.

How isn’t it fair? heterosexuals adopt kids ALL the time. Gays should also be able to.

Their humans as well.

I only think infertile couples should able to adopt infants domestically. The waiting period is so long that I don’t think people are capable of having kids make the process more difficult. When it comes to foster care, I think the infertile should get first dibs because it might be their only hope to raise a child.

Hmm…interesting, but it’s also the only hope for many gay couples as well.

Well lets see:

Infertile heterosexual couple: ability to have children is beyond their control unless they go through IVF which is not allowed if you are Catholic.

Homosexual couple: ability to have children due to a disordered same sex relationship. IVF is only available to them if they were lesbians or wanted to use a surrogate.

So one is not because of a disordered relationship and the other is. Do you give the child to those that flaunt rules of nature or those that follow the natural laws? I choose the heterosexual couple over the homosexual any time.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.