PDA

View Full Version : Slovak parents fail to block adoption by gay couple.


superq7
24th May 2014, 11:45
Interesting case, see link.

BBC News - Slovak parents fail to block adoption by gay couple (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27552716)

John Hill
24th May 2014, 12:42
It is indeed very interesting especially due to the number of aspects to the story.

superq7
24th May 2014, 12:49
If they'd cared for the poor little mites they wouldn't be in this position.

Bronx
27th May 2014, 22:06
If they'd cared for the poor little mites they wouldn't be in this position.
If you mean by English standards then I agree.

But I sympathize with the parents despite that.

In Slovakia, they were a model family - very different from the way some Roma live. The father is hard-working, well-educated; he wanted the best for his children. In what the appeal judge described as a "very sad case", the boys - aged two and four - were put up for adoption because of concerns about the couple's parenting. The court heard the boys' older siblings' school attendance was poor, that they were left alone and "over-chastised" - the father admitted he had beaten them - and sometimes appeared dirty and unkempt.
Mrs Justice Theis decided the parents were unwilling to acknowledge the criticisms or to change how they parented their children and ruled the younger boys should be adopted, for their long-term welfare.
Fair enough.
If they choose to live in England they have to accept English standards.
If they won't they lose their children.
However, the judge also said any adoption placement should be "sensitive to their needs and identity".

The children come from a Slovak Roma family and are practicing Roman Catholics.
So what do the social workers do?
Place the children with a homosexual couple. :rolleyes:

That won't promote their Roma heritage or promote their Catholic faith.
Their homosexual lifestyle goes against Roma culture and lifestyle. The children will not be able to be brought up in the Catholic faith because of the conflicts between Catholicism and homosexuality. Their Slovak roots and values will not be maintained.

The parents argued -
“If, as expected, our children will try to find us and their siblings and roots, then they will discover the huge differences between our culture and the couple with whom they have been brought up. This is likely to cause them great upset and to suffer a conflict within themselves such as to set them against their adoptive parents. This would therefore cause the children great psychological harm as homosexuality is not recognised in the world wide Roma community. Having Roma children live with homosexuals or being adopted by them would be found to be humiliating ... Ethnic, cultural and religious identity is an important part of identity and this aspect of a child’s needs in an adoptive placement should be considered very carefully.”
“This is social engineering and is a conscious and deliberate effort by Kent County Council to transform our children from Slovak Roma children to English middle class children.”

The Council ignored the first judge's direction that any adoption placement should be "sensitive to their needs and identity"
and the appeal judge upheld their decision on some technical point of law.

Were there really no assessed/approved heterosexual couples available to adopt the children?
I doubt it.

Having your children taken away is punishment enough.
Ignoring the parents wishes and placing the children with a couple of homosexuals is more distressing than necessary.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th May 2014, 23:07
A lot of good points Bronx, but
as homosexuality is not recognised in the world wide Roma community

Sounds suspiciously similar to "There are no gays in ...(insert latest bigoted regime to utter this - Sochi, Russia I think)"

What if one or both of these boys turn out to be gay? Anyone think they'll be better off in a community that doesn't even recognise them as human beings?

Bronx
27th May 2014, 23:37
I wasn't suggesting putting the boys in a community "that doesn't even recognise them as human beings" (as you describe it).
They were being placed in a community in England.

IMHO they should not have been placed with a homosexual couple unless there really was no eligible hetersosexual couple available which is extremely unlikely.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th May 2014, 23:44
Anti-Homosexuality is illegal under English law. The Council would have to be blind to the sexuality of the adopting couple. Freedom of religion is a right. I would hope that Catholic couples were considered first. Unsurprisingly, they would all be heterosexual; but assuming none of them were available and willing, it's difficult to see what restrictions the council would, could or should place.

p.s. How else would you describe the "recognise" comment?

cattletruck
28th May 2014, 12:17
Sounds like these children are just pawns in the social workers' personal agenda to force/expedite a bit of social re-engineering in the making.

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th May 2014, 12:28
Sounds like these children are just pawns in the social workers' personal agenda to force/expedite a bit of social re-engineering in the making.



This echo's my thoughts exactly, I cannot for one moment believe there was not a better outcome available for these children. Placing them with a homosexual couple is not the issue but failing to comply with the court statement about placing them to be "sensitive to their needs and identity" appears to have been totally ignored.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th May 2014, 15:06
Gentlemen, we do not have any facts on this case's process from which to draw a conclusion. The only evidence is, sadly, a long track record of Social Services across the UK engaging in blatant social engineering, Rotherham being the most recent.
So, whilst you are both probably right, the facts may lead to a different conclusion - it would be nice to have them.

Bronx
28th May 2014, 19:28
Fox

There's a clue to the social workers attitude to the parents in the appeal judge's decision.The parentsí views, whether religious, cultural, secular or social, are entitled to respect but cannot be determinative. They have made their life in this country and cannot impose their own views either on the local authority or on the court. Thus far I agree with the local authority.
I have to say, however, that it was, in my view, unfortunate that the local authority should have referred at one stage in the proceedings to the parentsí views on homosexuality in such a way as to suggest that they are bigoted. The label is unnecessary and hurtful.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th May 2014, 20:04
I would like to know the answer to the questions
Were any Catholic families available?
and
Were they offered the boys first?

If the answers are Yes and No respectively, then social engineering would seem to be happening.

maxred
28th May 2014, 20:22
Ok, ignoring the pros and cons of same sex marriage, same sex relationships, and the absense of any church, religious input, on the subject, where in the overall constitution did we get to a stage where

1. Already troubled youngsters, where it was deemed that they had to be removed from the family situation, do we get,

Oh Yeah, lets put them into a homosexual family?

2. Not only has the council deemed that it was the correct thing to do, the legal system then backs the decision.

3. There are times I would like just ten minutes with the lunatics that make these decisions.

Where in the social engineering project, is the playground support for these youngsters as they negotiate the vagaries of playground bigots, bullies, and general ne'er do wells. Or are they being home schooled:confused:

Daysleeper
28th May 2014, 20:53
Were any Catholic families available?

How do you know the couple they are with are not Catholics. It's not just the priests that are gay...

cattletruck
30th May 2014, 08:58
Gentlemen, we do not have any facts on this case's process from which to draw a conclusion. The only evidence is, sadly, a long track record of Social Services across the UK engaging in blatant social engineering, Rotherham being the most recent.
So, whilst you are both probably right, the facts may lead to a different conclusion - it would be nice to have them.

I'm convinced that it's more than social engineering, its social exploitation.

I took a homosexual executive to court for ordering my dismissal and getting his HR Manager to falsify evidence. Even though I won the case I am now in my second year of unemployment and I am convinced I have been blacklisted by these creeps with their secretive agenda.

Octopussy2
30th May 2014, 16:03
Yes, cattletruck it's well known that all gays in every organization know each other and liaise so that if one of their number is upset by someone, the perp finds himself permanently excluded from future employment. When you think about it, it's scandalous. I'm surprised there isn't more of an outcry.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
30th May 2014, 17:14
Cattletruck - may I offer my sympathies for your situation, but I can assure you this is pretty common these days, and has nothing to do with the sexuality, religion; or any defined characteristics of the company except executive hubris, and immoral and incompetent HR personnel. I have encountered the same in 5 of my last 6 jobs, and that's about the same rate as for my friends and relatives. Work for yourself - it's the only answer.