http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_703864.html

Discuss.....

[Mark]

I don't see any reason why not. This person could be giving a child a home, so it would be silly to disallow this because a person happens to be single or homosexual.
A single or homosexual person can care just as much for a child as a couple.

Its interesting to read other peoples views on this issue - like on this thread on BBfans - http://www.bbfans.com/uk/viewtopic.php?t=4243

Oh and by the way Bonzo, why the name change to 'Fyodor'???

- Mark

[susieq]

I quite agree. What difference does someone's sexuality make to their capacity to give a loving home and a safe and warm environment to a child in need.

It riles me that the question has to be asked to be honest.

[Ig]

I agree Suzieq. No one raises any objection to heterosexual couples adopting children and yet statistically most child abusers are "straight" family members! Some people I know of who have adopted children aren't fit to run a boarding kennels quite frankly. It makes me sick.

Well mark i could hardly post as bonzo could I? and btw some people MAY think i am **** stirring but this is a topical issue, which i hope as a forum you will enjoy discussing?

This is meant in a genuine way

[Ig]

Wow!!! Fyodor is Bonzo?? Awwww! I've missed you mate!

Welcome back!

Thanks Ig



But I have told you we must keep our relationship secret........

You are a married women!

[Sticks]

The statistical evidence is that unmarried couples with children are more likely to split up than a married couple. This leads to instability which is what children need.

Also a child needs both a father figure and a mother figure to grow up well adjusted.

The numbers do not lie.

[Boris]

I am not prudish or judgmental to any faction of society ,but i work with young children. Many manage extremely well in non conventional backgrounds of many types, but managing is not enough. If a child needs a home to be chosen for it, then it should not be a home that is likely to cause the child more problems in the future. Just being adopted into a traditional family unit can cause many problems in the future.Young children/babies do not have a say in where they are going to be placed and it is up to ALL people in society to make sure they get the opportunity to grow up in a stable , loving environment that will hopefully not lead to controversy now or during their formative years.

Originally posted by Sticks
The statistical evidence is that unmarried couples with children are more likely to split up than a married couple. This leads to instability which is what children need.

Also a child needs both a father figure and a mother figure to grow up well adjusted.

The numbers do not lie.

16.4 percent of the population of England is divorced or separated. This obviously only includes heterosexual marriages which are legally binding. That means one in six of the supposed ideal of family situations fail.

However, the issue is not how children born into a family cope. The question is about how society deals with the excess of 5000 children being shifted from children's home to children's home.

Perhaps you should look up the statistics for these children. A quarter of those in jail were once in care. Likewise a quarter of homeless people were in homes. These children are far more likely to end up in a cycle of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal activity, even prostitution.

The stringent checks needed to adopt a child give every chance that any couple adopting have a stable and loving home environment and are otherwise suitable. It should be noted that unmarried people - gay or straight - can already adopt.

To suggest single parents, unmarried couples and gays, are uniformly BAD, while married couples, however dysfunctional, are GOOD is crude and inaccurate. Some gay people and some unmarried couples would make terrible parents. There are plenty of married heterosexuals who are not fit to look after a pet mouse, let alone a child.

To deny a child the chance of a loving family environment because the lifestyle of the potential parents does not fit the warped opinions of an age fading into the past is cruel and morally low.

As for trying to back up your argument with statistics, there are NO consistant official studies to do so with. It is only with the last census that data regarding sexual orientation has been collected by government.

[queenie]

Just wanted to clear up a couple of factual misunderstandings here. Single people ARE currently allowed to adopt, regardless of sexual orientation.
The new law centres on the question of joint parental adoptions. The current situation is that a child can be adopted by a man or woman who is its legal parent, but that person's partner is not allowed to assume any parental responsibility.

Oh, and two other points.
1. The 5000 children in this country currently awaiting adoption in children's homes have neither a mother nor a father figure.
2. Was the generation of children in this country raised without fathers in their formative years (namely those raised during 1939-45 while their fathers were away fighting) seriously flawed?

[dizzy bint]

Welcome Fyodor, I like Ig have missed you.

[Romantic Old Bird]

Hello everyone, old and new faces alike!

I have been working with children and their families (or lack of them) for 20 years plus, and I have tried to teach, impart and support parenting skills to couples and singles of all varieties, abilities, genders etc.

I could bore for Britain on what makes a good and nuturing home environment for a child.

So I will!

As well as offering the basic human needs of shelter and food, it is somewhere where a child finds acceptance and encouragement, warmth in relationships, opportunities to learn and explore, and (very important) consistent and predictable boundaries.

Who offers this care is less important. In the last 20 years I have seen the 'nuclear' family set-up disintegrate on such a scale we cannot use it as a measure any longer. It seems the perfect set up, but it often isn't.

Family dynamics are complex in the extreme. 'Joined up' families, with sets and subsets of half and step siblings and the incumbent trail of parents, step parents, mum's boyfriend, girlfriend etc. Mind blowing!

So it makes sense to me that we need to look to the loving and nurturing home as the measure of care, rather than the individual units of family membership.

It is absoutely correct to say that children moving through the 'Looked After' process (in care) fare exceptionally badly in every way. Children placed in the care of foster parents experience massive disruption also - moving from short to long term care, placement to placement.

Most people think of adoption as taking on an unwanted baby or very small child. This is in fact phenomenally rare. The figures quoted above as waiting are made up of children of all ages, many of whom have significant learning, emotional and behavioural dificulties. The older the child, the more difficult to place.

Since the Children Act the onus is to keep children in their own families wherever possible. This entails first trying to assess the situation, and offering support to keep the child in his/her own home. If this breaks down, they look to the wider family, who also have to be assessed as potential carers.

This can go on for months or years. When ultimately it does break down the children are so individually traumatised that they enter the care scenario unable to fit in to the 'traditional family'. The carers are unlikely to cope without significant support and specialised resources. There are precious little of either available. So the placement fails, and they move on to another family or unit.

I am not as au fait with the niceties of adoption law. To me, that is a formality of little significance in relation to the provision of long term committed love and care to a child. I do appreciate that those people currently denied the opportunity to adopt feel strongly that they are being denied access to a fundamental human right.

However, I do know the law of parental responsibilty as it stands means that thousands, if not millions of cohabiting men are unaware that they cannot legally give consent for their child to have surgery. If they are not married to the mother at the time of the child's birth, they also have to go through the process of adoption. The vast majority do not, but it bears little relationship to their ability to parent or the depth of their relationship with their child.

So, if we take the legal component out of the equation for a moment, we are left with which people can and do offer care which will nurture the child through into adulthood.

As well as birth parents and their families, I work with single and married foster parents, and lesbian and gay couples. The latter two are admittedly less common, but I personally feel this is as much due to their lack of awareness and the consequent failure to come forward as potential carers. In the area I work in, my colleagues in Social Services have undertaken positive steps to encourage applications from everyone and anyone who can offer the warmth and stability needed.

My answer (at last) to the question Fyodor is that of course they should! The torturous machinations of Parliament may well continue to thwart the changes necessary to acheive it, although even the tory boys defied their leader to support the change this time. Sooner or later the Lords will have to acquiese.

In the meantime, if you are single, married, able bodied, disabled (another overlooked group as potential adopters) gay, bi, lesbian or whatever, and able to offer the nurturing environment a child needs, and WANT to do it, put yourself forward as a foster parent!

PHEW!

[Sticks]

To deny a child the chance of a loving family environment because the lifestyle of the potential parents does not fit the warped opinions of an age fading into the past is cruel and morally low.

But this has been happening already because the Politically Correct Social workers deemed that a couple were not suitable for spurious reasons:

such as

1) A mixed race couple blocked because they had NOT experience racism

2) A couple because they were evangelical Christians

3) Middled aged couple (too old)

4) Overweight ????

(This list is not exhaustive)

There is an agenda to force political correctness on everyone, and they are winning. The needs of the child are secondary.

I have a load of statistics at home about what percentage of unmarried families fall apart as opposed to married families, although a lot of these statistics come from the US where they have been collated. When I get back to Newcastle I could try and dig them out)

To compare the US to the UK is pointless. They still have, thankfully, two very distinct cultures.

I do not know the details of the cases you mentioned, and neither, I suspect, do you. There are age restrictions, but this is understandable due to the forecast as to whether the potential parents would be able to cope 15-20 years down the line.

If a potential parent is dangerously obese, it could hinder the ability to care for the child. Again, justifiable depending on the exact circumstances.

It's impossible to comment on individual cases without knowing all the details. If the only reason a couple was rejected was that they were evangelical Christians, then that is obviously wrong. It is another reason why the adoption laws need to be looked at and given an overhaul.

[bbceleb1]

Hi
well IMO i dont think they should be allowed, im not homophobic everyone to there own but i know a kid whos dad turned gay in school and he gets bullied sooo much it wouldnt be fair on the kid i dont think.
adam

[finch]

I think that it is a good solution to adoption problems as long as

1) it's a stable relationship
2) They would accept the child's sexuality and not try to force it either way

[susieq]

The needs of the child are secondary.

Yes - you're right Sticks, and the needs of the child will continue to be secondary when the primary concern of the politician seems to be on the sexuality of the potential parent and not on the provision of a loving, caring environment for the child.

In the 80's and early 90's we had 'Family Values' shoved down our throats till I was nearly sick. According to those who purport to know better, the only stable environment for a child was in a home where both parents were of the opposite sex and were married.

As though a piece of paper suddenly makes a couple better parents.

There are many, many checks carried out by both Social Services and the police before people can be accepted as adopted parents - this alone would be enough to 'weed out' those whose heart is not fully into the process. It's a long, time consuming, exceptionally personal process involving not only the potential adopters but also their siblings and parents.

I feel most passionately that a stable, loving, warm and caring environment is the basic right of all, especially children, and whoever can provide this should be afforded the opportunity.

[peachy]

I know that ROB has much more experience of this than I do, but I believe that individual couples need to be assessed on merit and not on sexual preference. Children get picked on at school for all sorts of reasons and it is not enough to use that as an excuse for disallowing gay couples to adopt. As an individual gay person can adopt it is obviously a stupid anomaly to refuse adoption to gay couples.