“Her parents had applied but were turned down, they claim because of their age and health problems.”
Plus, of course, they succeeded in raising a drug adict daughter.
Oh, of course, a drug addict is a much better parent than a stable loving gay couple. Silly me, what was I thinking…
I’ve just read the comments after this story in the Daily Mail (reported today and with the grandparents’ view yesterday) Enough to make you weep. Anyone who thinks our fight for equality is over should read those comments. Most of them are horrible :(
this whole thing is despicable but ofcourse plays really well with the Dailly Mail and its readership..the council can’t defend their decision for legal reasons BUT the grandparents and mother can say whatever the Dailly Mail pays them to say…Interesting that the grandparents apparently had NO objection to this adoption until the mail started waving it’s check book and agenda in their face. the granmother is 46, with a 26 year old daughter who gave birth to her first child at 20…i don’t think that 46 is too old to be raising her own granchildren so there must be some very real reason why the council consider her unfit…social services can’t win..they leave a child with unfit biological relatives like in the baby P case and they get pilloied byu papers like the mail, they try to intervene to remove children from unfit relatives and they get pilloried again…
I could understand her personal objections if it was a simple case of not wanting them adopted, but a former heroin addict is in no good position to lecture anyone on appropriate parenting. Naturally the Daily Mail takes her side. Junkie mum versus gay fosterparents? No contest for the Daily Hate.
She wants her child to have a mum and a dad? it seems the child never had a mum in the first place.
Here’s the latest on this from the Daily Mail (take a stiff drink before going here).
Substitute the word “Jew” or “black” for gay/homosexual and see how these articles (from a Jew and a person of colour) read. And if you can stand it, go through the readers comments. Such hate.
Aside from this poison, I think the Mail reveal their agenda by using this individual case as a general excuse for having a readers poll on whether gay people should be able to adopt under any circumstances. Ninety per cent against. No suprise there.
An object lesson for those who think the battle for equality is over.
Ah yes a lowly drug addict who took horrible care of her own children still thinks she has any right to judge anyone else’s ability to raise those children. I can see her logic now “Hey well I’m a druggie and I took horrible care of my children but at least I ain’t gay!” Stupid homophobes.
Not much reason to complain, I guess, having been an unfit mother does seem to disqualify you for making comments on other people’s parenthood.
OBVIOUSLY the children would be better cared for by someone who takes it in the arm and not up the bum!!!
OBVIOUSLY the children would be better cared for by two complaining, publicity-seeking grandparents than two quiet and dignified gay people.
A couple of things I AM unsure about though is, according to one of the well-balanced “adults” involved, the little girl will suffer and be confused discussing her periods (in about ten years time) with two men who have only loved and cared for her for the majority of her life, do we KNOW, or are we all just assuming, as the gay couple have said nothing nor given a photo shoot, are gay MEN and not gay mothers; who I feel pretty sure would be able to understand/empathise physically?
(NB Both of my step-daughters turned to their father, my husband, at the beginings of their periods because of their excellent relationship with him, rather than their mother, the full-time nurse, who was not their to raise them at all).
Second, and making the assumption that the adoptive parents ARE a MALE couple, and humans/Mail readers would prefer ANY normal heterosexual couple than THAT; how can they justify Hettie Mommy, a druggie, and Hettie Nanny and Grampy who raised her, be ANY better?
Oh yes, and one other thing…
Do any of us know (including Hettie Druggie Mommy?) who Hettie Daddy is? He seems to have been left out of the picture ALL together; by the Mail, by “Outraged of Tunbridge Wells”, by the children, AND by Social Services?
… social services had explained to her that of the available adoptive parents the gay couple “were the ones who were able to cater for their needs best.”
Never crossed her mind that say thank you for providing a stable and loving home then I take it.
Of course the Mail have whipped this up and sensationalised it , which is awful.
But almost every post here is being incredibly judgmental about the mother and even her parents!
Not every heroin addict is a ‘junkie’ and drug addiction can ruin all kinds of relationships and families.
And how dare anyone judge her and her mother for having children at the age of 20. 20 is not a teenage pregnancy and for all we know they had a supportive network of friends and family.
Generally a child is best off with its parents and if the Mum is making good progress with beating her addiction and getting a stable lifestyle then really at some point she should have her children back.
I am prepared to accept that as a man I do not and will not ever fully appreciate the bond between a mother and child.
I think it is heartless to view this as an issue of equal opportunities and judge her, when it should be about what is best for the child and gut-renching emotions of a mother who has befallen an addiction.
I agree with CP. This is all outrageous PC nonsense. Just because a mother is a heroine addict, it doesn’t mean that she is an unfit mother. I’m sure there are many heroine addicts that are very careful with the disposal of their needles etc. and are capable of making appropriate choices for the care and welfare of their children. And even if it was right to take her children away, clearly the loving grandparents would be the natural choice to look after the poor children. After all, blood is thicker than water.
Moreover, as the grandparents have already brought up one child that became an addict, who else could be better placed to know what not to do with the grandchildren so that they have the best start in life?
And don’t start me on the gayers wanting to adopt. If they have been accepted as a suitable couple for adoption, then they’ll probably be a namby pamby stable couple with no problems and a nice house. What do they know about sending a kid out for 20 Benson & Hedges and a loaf of white sliced. What social skills will these poor children have? The world’s gone mad.
How pathetic this addict sounds. Passing judgement on the parenting skills of others when she is deemed an unfit parent.
This lady abundantly illustrates a simple principle that lots of homophobes seem quite unable to internalise – that there is no correlation of any kind between enjoyment of the conventional manner of producing children and the ability to care for them. And her attempts to pontificate about the best upbringing for children are, in the light of her record, nauseating.
I don’t belong to the conspiracy school but there is something deeply disturbing about this happening when Scottish Catholic leaders are having another bash at gay people generally and gay adoption in particular. As at the time of the introduction of section 28 the anti-gay lobby cynically create an atmosphere of suspicion and hate using concern for the welfare of children as their Trojan Horse. There is clearly more to this than meets the eye and the social services cannot put in the public arena lots of the facts that led them to conclude that the children would be better removed from the mother and that the grandparents were not the best people to adopt.
Hey “Grrr”…you’re a bigot
Daily Mail has reported well a true story. Homosexuals do not need to jump up and down and twist facts when someone speaks boldly. I understand your trouble to present the story in a different way so that people are cooled down, but you will have to fight truth with you false facts and statistics – basically as you usually do – and hate everybody around. Everybody is “homophobic” and you are the “victim” if they speak truth about you. I believe this story MUST be given a serious publicity to address this politically correct non-sense in this country. I personally am spreading the word across the world with all possible means as honestly as possible.
Not quite so outraged as certain people about this based on the fact the former smack head mother is 18 times more likely to die over the next 5 years than her non-smack head white female counterparts.
Research data also shows that over a five year period only about 18% of people are abstinent without relapse (i.e. clean), 14% are clean after only one relapse, 41% continue to try to get clean after repeated relapses and 27% are still hooked and have given up trying.
Who is going to look after the kids if she’s dead or in the throws of a relapse? You can bet in either event she’s not going to give a toss who does it.
Giving up drugs is a long and ugly business and bearing in mind these children are hardly babes in arms, the mother has had a bit of time to sort her sh*t before the ultimate sanction of adoption has been carried out, she has clearly failed to make the necessary headway in cleaning herself up. Lord knows drugs additication can even make people lie or bend the truth in order to get what they want sometimes
Fine, the grandparents might be good and willing to take on the responsibility for the kids, but in the first instance, they track record on bringing up kids is hardly exemplary, and secondly one of them sounds like they are on their last legs anyway (having gone out and bought the Daily Mail to read the whole story.)
I’m sorry she’s pissed off to be lossing her kids, but its not bothered her enough before to get herself sorted out. Truth be told I’m more sorry for the kids. I hope they now provided with the love and support they always should have had.
This is first and foremost a tragic story. Tragic for the mother, who is entitled to her own testament be it against gays or any other than has, justifiably or not, been allowed care of her children. What the mother hasn’t done is linked the consequences of her addiction to the loss of the kids. Additionally, addiction is a family illness and an illness of the addict (ie the mother). Thus, the whole family unit needs to deal with the illness and it can take a long time for recovery to manifest. Patently, acceptance of responsibility first and foremost lies with the mother, then the family but the children shouldn’t have to wait, perhaps in vain for a recovery to emerge. Children have a small window of opportunity to be nurtured loved. Gay men are quite capable of offering that. to believe contrary to this, is homophobic, unrecovered (bigotry is a form of hatred which for addicts is a major symptom). The Daily Mail is an enabler of hatred, I’m glad it’s around, just to show how inappropriate its stances are and as such should it speaks for itself. :-)
Dear Montoya, what truth is there in claiming the gay parents are unsuitable?
Montoya you need to Drink the coffee you’re smelling! Get real. The only people who twist facts are the Homophobes and religious bigots, which in quite a few cases are basically the same thing OH and the very ignorant too! AND that’s in ALL cases!
why people still read the daily fail i have no idea, they’re defending the mother but why?? if she’d been a fit parent then she would still have her children. why should she have a say in who she thinks should raise her kids when she’s obviously spent more time getting herself into the state she is than taking care of them?
Grrr appears to have less-than-zero understanding of the devastating consequences of heroin addiction on all those involved, especially impressionable and vulnerable children.
Heroin has been widely recognised as a highly addictive drug for a long time now – that’s one of the reasons it’s a class A drug.
It’s not an addiction that anyone can just ‘slide’ into by accident, like, say, prescription tranquiliser addiction, without knowing that EVERY time they go to score they’re committing a crime.
It’s also a very expensive habit to maintain – where does the money come from? Well, typically, more crime, including theft and prostitution. Maintaining a smack habit without bringing your kids into frequent contact with some pretty unsavoury characters seems unlikely at best…
Is that really preferable to their being cared for by a same-sex couple – against whom there are NO allegations of parental inadequacy, except that they are gay?
Folks – I think grrr’s comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I couldn’t see even the most rabid Daily Mail reader taking that seriously. Some folks here need a course in troll-spotting!
Well, I’ve quietly been going down the comments list and giving marks for content. Keeps me happy
It is fairly rare that drug addicts’ kids are taken into care and even rarer that they are put up for adoption. It is widely accepted in child placement that the best placement is usually with biological family, if at all possible. Given that the decision to put a child up for adoption is taken quite separately and long before the decision on placement, the ‘mother’ and the grandparents really ought to shut up, because the lot of them have been found to be woefully inadequate as parents. Oh, and I think, at least in England, the decision to put a child up for adoption has to go through the courts, so it isn’t a whimsical administrative decision, and it certainly isn’t a decision taken in order to pander to gay rights or whatever.
Also the process to become adoptive parents is unbelievably tough. All sorts of character references, psychological profiling and so on. Nowadays anyway. A friend of mine who is about 50 was regularly beaten by her adoptive parents (Catholic) as a punishment for her mother’s sin. And I read a similar story about someone else on a blog recently.
Now these children will have a chance of happiness and making something of their lives.
FWIW I’m straight.
One day we will look back at these stories that the Daily Hate insist on churning out and say ‘did people really get away with printing that stuff?’ Times they are a changing and this country is going only one way, and it’s not in the direction of the Daily Mail – a paper propped up by an older, narrow-minded readership whose views will die out with them.
On the good news front, Iceland has a lesbian PM, Ireland is proposing a civil partnership bill and we’ve had 12 years of progressive laws from a labour government. We’ve come a long way, but stories like this do remind us of how much more hatred there is to fight against. We need stuff like this to get us politically agitated again. Peter Thatchell and Stonewall can’t be the only voices of outrage.
I love how these raging homophobes ALWAYS start their bay bashing statements out with “I’m not anti-gay or anything but…”.
How about a simple, “Thank you for making all the sacrifices it takes to take care of my children since I and the childrens’ father (the supposedly perfect “mum and dad” senario) were too selfish, careless, ignorant and no good to take care of them themselves”?
How about a bit of gratefulness and graciousness and a little less ignorance and hatefullness?
It makes my blood boil to hear scumbags like this looking down their noses at gay people who have to do everything twice as well to get half as much credit.
Montoya – What’s the bets you would be the first to complain if people attacked a white child going to black parents? Chip? Shoulder? McCains? Large bag of?
The point of this story that this sensationalist rag of a website totally, (as usual), missed was the fact that the council had threatened the grandparents with not being able to see their kids again if they didn’t comply. Had this been a situation where the children were going to a conventional heterosexual couple, the papers wouldn’t have even sniffed at it. This case has nothing to do with gay adoption, and everything to do with local authority bullying and railroading, and should be seen in that light. Whatever the profile of the adoptive parents, they have been approved, so that factor is irrelevant. Edinburgh Council’s Social Services needs a rocket up it’s backside for it’s reprehensible attitude to people struggling to bring up kids in a difficult situation. It’s a shame outfits like this didn’t spend a bit more time investigating the likes of Baby P etc. than stirring up controversy like this.
The Daily Mail will only ever give a sensationalised version of the story. Many mothers who have been separated from their children by whatever circumstances want to get them back. But there may be good reasons why this woman’s children need more support than she and her parents are able to give. For example, if she was using or drinking while pregnant, her children may have developmental difficulties requiring a higher level of care. The Department wouldn’t be able to comment on this. Maybe if the mother calms down she may be able to have supervised visits at some future time. The children need a stable home life that the adoptive parents are apparently giving. When they are older though they may also want to have more information about their biological heritage. I hope that eventually the mother will be able to think about what is best for the children.
Just when you thought it couldn’t sink any lower:
If there is any encouragement to be gained from all this it is that, as Littlejohn complains, no other news organisation has taken this up. The irony of the Daily Mail and its readers finally turning into one of the minorities they so despise is delicious indeed.
Despite this, the battle is hardly over. A rabid dog is most dangerous when cornered. And don’t forget that the progressive and liberal Weimar Republic was suceeded by the Nazis. Following an economic collapse as it happens………
Thanks for the links, Ivan. This is a part of dear old Melanie ‘I’m not a homophobe’ Phillips vitirol:
“The underlying agenda behind gay adoption, as it is behind the whole gay rights movement, is nothing to do with protecting the rights of gay people”
F**king disgusting. I’ve left a comment telling her so but i doubt it’ll get printed. I really, really hope the Law starts taking action against people who promulgate such hate and whip up bigotry in their readers. I’m depressed reading all those who agree with her lunatic views :(
why the lovely mummy didn ‘t think before abt children’s future?..Was she busy to joint the pleasure of drugs?…Why do we need to hit the gay community?
So I find HORRIBLE in a civilized Country like UK to promulgate: a politically cynical, racist and boorish message on a news paper.REALLY rubbish
I wonder what the Mail’s take on this woman and her parents would have been had the adoptive parents been white middle class conservative heterosexualsis?
Phillips has completed her journey to the dark side and is now a thorough bigot of the worst kind. Littlejohn remains as always.
And it’s interesting how both say it’s not abiut gay rights BUT….
Hopefully their readership will die off. Hopefully they will actually have to do somereal work sometime rather than, for large salaries, pandering to bigotry
Yep, this stinks of another Christian Institute – Daily Mail collaboration, which will go the same way as the Lilian Ladele campaign.
I’ve been reading all the comments posted on the “Mail” and they range from homophobic to realistic. I would say that your article, especially the title “heroin addict…” is trying to present the situation in as bad a light as the Mail is doing. Why do you have to get down to the “Mail”‘s level to make your point? Actually, I feed sorry for this family. Adoption should be the last option, and in this case it is not. Also don’t tell me that any couple, gay or straight, who wants to adopt, does this “to provide a loving environment, etc…”. The truth is adoption is always a selfish move. Human beings need food, water and a roof over their heads to survive, a child is the fruit of love and / or a luxury. People who look to adopt are just selfish. They don’t need a child, they want one. I hope you understand the difference. If this gay couple had a heart, and they are surely selfish for wanting to adopt in the first place, then they would return these poor children to their natural family. If the SS were doing their job, they would be assisting this family, who admittedly needs external help. Blood is thicker than water. That’s all. Don’t get me wrong, I am an atheist, a teetotaler and don’t even smoke (so don’t think I’m writing out of of sympathy for this heroin addict), some of my friends are gay. No bigotry in me. But I just happen to respect children and family bonds.
Beatrice, I find it difficult to believe that you could actually believe what you have just written. Do you seriously believe that all human kind only, do things for their own benefit? I’m sure they are people who only do so-called ‘charitable acts’ because they get something out of it, but I’m also sure you’ll find that a very large percentage do so because they want to make things better for others, whatever the circumstance may be.
Is this perhaps a reflection on your own views on doing things to help others – you’d only do so if you got something out of it?
I have long taken the view that rather than spending a small fortune on IVF therapy, childless couples should be encouraged to adopt a child rather than attempt to rear one of their own in a test tube. Thus enabling an unfortunate child whose life chances are looking poor to be nurtured and grow in a loving family unit.
This gay couple, if they are as selfish as you seem to think, could always have gone for the option of making their own designer baby, but instead they have chosen to give an enormous commitment to making life better for this poor unfortunate kids.
Beatrice, there is a fundimental flaw in your understanding of the adoption system. Social services don’t remove children from their natal family because an unrelated family wants to adopt, they remove children from their natal family because the family is unable or unwilling to provide addiquat cair and support to the child, because they provide a threat to the childs wellbeing, because an expecting mother has chosed to give an unwanted baby up for adoption rather than opting for an abbortion, or because the child has no living relatives able to cair for them.
The child is then placed in cair. At some point it was decided that rather than keeping all the children that end up wards of social services in cair untill they reach 18, it might be a good idear to have them addopted by willing families.
Clearly that is what has happened here (family unable to provide adiquat cair – due to substance abuse habbit on the part of the mother, and health issues on the part of the grandperants – children taken into cair, independant of this a couple applies to addopt, couple where judged best available adoptive family for children, children where placed with couple), as uposed to ‘couple want to adopt, children removed from natal family for adoption on demand’, which you seem to be sugesting.