Jump to content

Rescuing children from middle-aged caregivers

Michael

By Michael
in Archives

 Share

Recommended Posts

CTXMEDIC Newbie

CTXMEDIC

Posted
Posted

Yes. I can see it now, this actually makes sense. Of course its better to remove the children from family members and give them to complete strangers, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation. I mean, what does a 46 year old know about raising their grandkids? :roll:

Un-F(*&in-believable

Eydawn Newbie

Eydawn

Posted
Posted

Who the HELL has the right to tell natural family that they are too old to raise a child? Christ, my father was 40 when I was BORN... if age is the sole defining factor in this case, there's something very wrong.

This is ridiculous. I hope some agency in the UK helps this poor couple regain custody of their grandchildren.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

akflightmedic Newbie

akflightmedic

Posted
Posted

I am thinking (hoping) there is way more to this story than what was allowed to be printed.

I have no issue with same sex couples or them adopting, but to say the grandparents are too old??? They are 46 and 59. They may be a wee bit slower, might not make it to their HS graduation, but damn...they aren't that old.

There has to be more to this. If the grands are in poor health and Gdads prognosis is very poor, meaning he has <30% EJF amongst several other complications and the Gmom is a huge diabetic cow who can barely get around under her own weight, then maybe, just maybe they are doing the right thing by placing them with a loving family now, while they are young.

But without knowing these factors, I can not leap to any major conclusions at this time. I definitely could go either way on this one depending on more pertinent information.

mperkel Newbie

mperkel

Posted
Posted

Looks like a very biased story to same-sex adoption.

I can tell there are many facts left out of this story.

To what extent are the grandparents health conditions?

The straight couple might not be the best choice for the children. Maybe the same-sex couple has a better standard of living, can provide more for the children, etc.

It seems the writer deliberately portrayed this story in order to bring up politics of same-sex adoption, not to report on the best situation for the children.

Obviously the natural relatives are best for the children, but if their are underlying reason not reported, we have to consider those before we make a harsh judgement. The orientation of the adoptive parents have no bearing here.

Arizonaffcep Newbie

Arizonaffcep

Posted
Posted

Wow...there is a LOT being left out! While I don't know the stroy...I kinda do... :? My wife and I, as mentioned on other threads, are foster parents and are in the process of adopting our foster child. This child was taken (please understand, taken as a LOOSE term) from the paternal grandmother (whom he still has a relationship with) for many reasons...her age (60's) and health (LOTS of health issues, non are minor in nature) plus she already has custody of her son's 2 other kids (12 and 11 I believe). Plus, single mother situation. Our kiddo is 22 months old. Honestly, she just can't keep up with him. A hard situation, CPS here came in and talked to her about it (giving him up to a family for adoption, as part of the case plan assuming non-reunification between Bio-Mom and Child). This is exactly what has happened. He still does have a good relationship with his "Nana," who we hope to continue as long as physically possible. This is why I say, there is a LOT missing from the story. Assuming (I know it's a long shot :twisted: ) that Arizona laws regarding foster/adoption are at least similar to UK's, placing a child with family members is paramount, followed by close family friends, and lowest on the priority list is foster family.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...