About the Family Law Week blog

The Family Law Week Blog is a companion site to Family Law Week. It complements the news, cases and articles published on Family Law Week with additional comment and coverage of the wider aspects of family law.

The Blog is edited by Jacqui Gilliatt, of 4 Brick Court and Lucy Reed, of St Johns Chambers.

Friday, 30 January 2009

Grandparents or gay adopters continued

The Daily Mail follows up on the grandparents vs gay adopters story with a piece suggesting that the price the family will have to pay is that they will not be able to have contact. This is apparently denied by social services.


Anonymous said...

Social services CAN comment on individual cases (and should do so if the parents or in this case grandparents give their consent);
There is a statutory duty to unite families wherever possible not to destroy them . A grandmother aged 46 with diabetes who has successfully raised her own children married to a grandfather of 59 with angina would surely not have had her own children aged 4 and 6 taken and they could easily have been her own son and daughter rather than grand children.Should every woman in her forties with diabetes have her children confiscated?
As for the issue of gay adoption,well like ,adoption by heavy smokers/drinkers or adoption by very fat people,they should not be barred but should be lower in the queue than a hetrosexual couple who do not smoke heavily ,drink heavily or eat to excess providing such a couple can be found.Normally plenty of such couples CAN be found and were I believe available in this case.
In this case a sudden appearance of the two children in the house of a gay couple would soon get the neighbours buzzing and children teased unmercifully by their peers !
Children should only be removed from their own families if they have actually suffered significant physical or sexual harm or if their carers are incapacitated. This is how it works on the continent;Social Workers should stop trying to forecast a dismal future for healthy,happy children but should take swift action when real damage has been caused as in the case of baby Peter(does he really still need " p for privacy"?) who was callously left to die.

Anonymous said...

Not sure how 'Anonymous' knows that the children were healthy and happy with their Grandparents. From my experience of social work, they would be extremely unlikely to remove a child from a family that was providing adequate care for children. I wonder what it is that social work know that we don't about the grandparents. They must have told the Sheriff who made the order free-ing them for adoption anyway, and s/he must have been convinced, as a Sheriff would not issue such an order lightly.

The Mail tells this story as if the children were taken 'to order'.

Complete nonsense.

I feel sorry for everyone working in Social Work and Family Law who has to put up with this kind of ridiculous tabloid scaremongering about their professions.