Gay couples adopting , or bringing up kids

A Black Child may not be placed with White adoptive parents because

This is clearly bullsh*t, zilzal - lots of black children have been placed with adoptive parents that are white.

Could you please post a link to the actual government policy document you find so offensive?

Thanks.

"Dr Crippen 11 Nov 16:23


Cameron is in favour of gay adoption by the way."

Cameron believes in nothing. He just says what the liberal establishment want to hear so that he can avoid being labelled a racist, **phobe, bigot, and so on... So he goes on pink parades and spouts rubbish about climate change. That's all he does.

From your favourite Newspaper Doc, the Guardian

Something to do with the 2002(enforced 2005) act

y the 1970s there were three factors backing transracial adoption: it was seen as successful, there was a shortage of black adopters and the thinking was that 'permanency' was best. The practice began to be questioned, pushed by The Association of Black Social Workers and Allied Professions, in the Eighties. But transracial adoptions have never stopped. In the early 1980s it was estimated that over 80 per cent of black and ethnic minority adoptions in the UK were transracial. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (enforced in 2005) was the first legislation in more than 25 years. It most famously gave unmarried and same-sex couples the right to jointly adopt, but it also enshrined the demand that social workers should 'wherever possible' put a child with a family which 'reflects their ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language'.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to social workers from local authorities around England, The Observer found anecdotal evidence that this has left many social workers feeling 'paralysed'.

Every one of them agreed they would be 'deeply uncomfortable' with anything but a 'same race' match for a child in their care, even if the child had spent six to 12 months in care. 'I have little confidence white people really can ever understand racism - now there's a pretty big matter right there. Unless you bring me a utopia when everyone is colour blind, then I'm sorry but deep down I think we as a society are nowhere near ready to have successful interracial adoptions,' said one recently qualified man.

Yep. Blair Mark 2

social workers should 'wherever possible' put a child with a family which 'reflects their ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language'

Seems like common sense to me.

Surely you don't have a problem with that?

Whenever possible becomes impossible when there is a distainct lack of Black people wanting to adopt compared to the number of Black kids

The US dont do this anymore, from the same article

The US used to have same-race matching, and still does for Native American children. In the mid-1990s, Congress passed the Multi-ethnic Placement Act. Social workers are not allowed to emphasise race or ethnicity when matching children with parents.

· There are more than 4,000 British children at any one time in the UK awaiting to be found new families.

· Every month an average of 1,200 prospective adopters call the Be My Parent newspaper and website, which advertises children who need families, to ask about children featured there.

· More than half of all the children waiting for new families are siblings who need to stay together. Older children, especially boys aged over seven, wait longer than younger girls.

Every one of them agreed they would be 'deeply uncomfortable' with anything but a 'same race' match for a child in their care, even if the child had spent six to 12 months in care. 'I have little confidence white people really can ever understand racism - now there's a pretty big matter right there. Unless you bring me a utopia when everyone is colour blind, then I'm sorry but deep down I think we as a society are nowhere near ready to have successful interracial adoptions,' said one recently qualified man.


With Social workers like that who have been "re educated" what chance have kids got??

So swap RACE for SEX ????

double standards

In an April 2001 article in the American Sociological Review, researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California reported the results of their examination of 21 studies on gay parenting. Stacey and Biblarz found that although "the authors of all 21 studies almost uniformly claim to find no differences in measures of parenting or child outcomes," their examination of the data suggests that the children of gay parents demonstrate some differences in gender behavior and preferences. Lesbian mothers reported their children, especially daughters, are less likely to conform to cultural gender norms in dress, play, and behavior, and are more likely to aspire to nontraditional gender occupations, such as doctors, lawyers, or engineers. They also discovered that although the children of gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual than the children of heterosexual parents, they are more likely to consider or experiment with same-sex relationships during young adulthood.

Stacey and Biblarz also found that the children of **sexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance, but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and "seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength."

Gay parents were found to be more likely to equally share child care and household duties, and the children of gay partners reported closer relationships to the parent who was not their primary caregiver than did the children of heterosexual couples. "These findings imply that lesbian coparents may enjoy greater parental compatibility and achieve particularly high quality parenting skills, which may help explain the striking findings on parent-child relationships."

Stacey and Biblarz point out that the differences they found should not be considered deficits. "They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent 'just a difference' of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect." They go on to stress that categorizing parents as gay or heterosexual "erroneously impl[ies] that a parent's sexual orientation is the decisive characteristic of his or her parenting." They suggest that sexual orientation only matters because **phobia and discrimination say it matters.

There you go Larry's, another take on the study I mentioned. Apologies if you found my first post rude, it wasn't my intention. The above was taken from the Child Welfare League of America. There are plenty more studies that have been done if you look for them.

Sir Henry of Bucks.


Are you Dr Whites brother?

Dr J

In other words (because you're doubtlessly too thick to get the analogy), why would anyone bother investigating such a prejudiced and pointless hypothesis?

Do you really want parentless children to sit around waiting while excellent (though possibly, dare I say, gay!) couples have perfectly safe and loving homes to offer them?

Let's face it, Larry's - this is about your problem with gay people, nowt else...

I'll tell you what, you put your nonsense ideas about me having a problem with gay people to one side and I'll put my feeling that you are a grade A cnunt to one side and we can get on with the discussion. What do you say?

I've already made the point that perfectly suitable heterosexual couples are being refused by politically inspired social services departments. Show me a child crying out for an adoptive parent and I will show you a potential adoptive parent who has been denied. Anybody who denies that the ideal family environment to bring up a child in is not a married heterosexual couple is**ers and yet perfectly suitable couples are denied for spurious reasons and that is baffling.

I am quite sure that there are many gay couples with plenty of love to offer children but that is not the issue which is really very simple despite your desire to label anybody with concerns as **phobes:

There has been little research into how children cope with the effects of being brought up by same sex couples. What has been done has apparently been undertaken by people pushing an agenda (quelle surprise). I am aware of no research into how often psychologically damaged children cope. That is the crux of the matter and no amount of seeking to close down the discussion with wild accusations will alter this.

And pleaqse stop bleating on about how much love these gay couples have to give. That is not the issue.

And pleaqse stop bleating on about how much love these gay couples have to give. That is not the issue.

Stephen Gately.


Now answer that the brothers. Imagine if this pact had a small child.

Sirhenry

My concern is in what I quoted. Allow me:

The authors discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next they explore findings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings indicating difference regarding children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could stimulate important theoretical questions. A less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework is proposed for investigating these issues.


It seems that the authors are quite critical of those who have done previous studies accusing them of a defensive approach and in essence ignoring inconvenient factors. This suggests (certainly to me)that the people doing such research may be politically driven and possibly skewing their research to achieve a desired outcome.

What seems beyond conjecture is the fact that such research has been done into families where children have been brought up with their natural parents which begs the question how (if at all) it would differ with often traumatised children placed with strangers of all persuasions. That research needs to be done in my view. There may be no difference but it strikes me as extraordinary that our most precious asset is being farmed out in this way.

I don't make the same accusation of you that I do with Dr J. You seem happy to debate the issue on its merits without resorting to hysterical accusations. I accept your apology unreservedly and likewise apologise for my wholly in character outburst in response. :)

Larry

You know.........I know.............the mouse under the stairs know.....................it's not normal to be a P00F and it's certainly not normal to raise kids in that enviroment. Where are we going to draw a line on this...........is it normal to fancy kids because it's in your genetic makeup? I would suggest you stop wasting your time with DR and Henry of Bucks.

Larry's - apology also accepted.

I understand your concern, and there are undoubtably people with an agenda on both sides who will push their point of view, conveniently ignoring the bits that don't quite tally.

My view is that sexuality has no bearing on your ability to be a parent. I think most of the opposition to it comes from people who are uncomfortable with **sexuality full stop.

I certainly don't see it as a grand social experiment, and don't think that **sexuals should be given preferential treatment. They should be assessed in the same way any other couple would be when applying to adopt a child. Sexuality wouldn't be on my checklist.

My view is that sexuality has no bearing on your ability to be a parent. I think most of the opposition to it comes from people who are uncomfortable with **sexuality full stop.

CR.AP


So if I think single mothers don't produce the same qualities in raising children as a married couple then I am against WOMEN....wake up Henry you're digging a bigger hole.

Logic is clearly not your strongest suit.

Sirhenry

I really don't think your view or mine should matter. As I have said my own view is that there are likely to be a lot of gay people with a lot of love to give and I wouldn't doubt their sincerity in their desire to give it.

However, properly independent government funded research and possibly trials into the matter is surely the only way to test the issue?

And for the sake of clarification I have no objection in principle to gay people adopting. If the research came back to suggest that on balance adopted children were as likely to thrive within a gay family unit as they do in a married heterosexual unit then I assure you my objections would vanish.

As a matter of interest if the opposite were the case how would you respond?

the best for kids is a mum and dad ,just like it used to be .things have changed single mum is just the norm,no shame in fact they seem to be proud of it.and its not my wife or my hubby its my partner,gays dont set out to be gays,something goes wrong no fault of their own ,but adopting kids ,please dont put young lads under the age of 16 with two men ,asking for trouble (and i'm not blaming the gays).

SirHenryMorgan 11 Nov 22:43
Larry's - apology also accepted.

I think most of the opposition to it comes from people who are uncomfortable with **sexuality full stop.




anextraonbenhur 11 Nov 22:54



So if I think single mothers don't produce the same qualities in raising children as a married couple then I am against WOMEN....wake up Henry you're digging a bigger hole.




SirHenryMorgan 11 Nov 23:16
Logic is clearly not your strongest suit.



Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




You couldn't make it up.

Larry's

I think gay adoption is already being tested as it's been allowed in plenty of countries already for many years. I'm not aware of how many cases there are worldwide but certainly enough for a study like you suggest. I have no doubt someone will do one in the future, or that one is underway already.

If the evidence shows me to be wrong I would hold my hands up and change my opinion.

SHM, it differs a lot in Europe, most single gay people can adopt, but as a couple they cannot in France, Germany, Italy and Poland so i believe

One of the funniest threads I have read on the forum in ages. Usually I skip a lot of the stuff because its just banal, but with EO, benhur zilzal, in full flight it was pure comedy gold.

For my tuppence worth, all state adoptions should be allowed but monitored discreetly as in the end humans have always adopted children voluntary or involuntary (in respect of the oold jewish phrase it takes a wise man to know his own father).

Just pointing out the inconsistency in thinking that seems to reign in the adoption agencies Pussycat, most of the stuff you post is only fit for the litter tray

you cannot use a phillips screw driver were a flat is required. nor can you put a square peg in a round hole.

by allowing children to be brought up in the care of phillips screwdrivers and square pegs just shows them from age 0 that to defy logic is OK. what logic do i speak of? the logic of nature.

Sex is natures way of ensuring procreation. if it was hard to procreate, lets say banging your head with a hammer, the human (and i dare say all) species would be long extinct.

without the need to procreate, i doubt humans and animals would have evolved to enjoy the feeling of sex, or sexual attraction, so gender would be meaningless ( i doubt anyone would even care if two guys always hanged out together, did stuff together, etc. if the taboo of sex was not involved). However gender is not meaningless, and just as a round peg goes into a round hole, gender has its place in the procreation and raising of offspring.

now, if one is attracted to another of the same gender, this by all means is not bad. in fact, it is good in many ways. however, when introducing the variable of children into the equation, one comes to a null conclusion. it is just not natures way of doing things. i whole heartedly agree that many gay couples may provide a better environment for young ones, more love if you like, but they cannot provide the basis, the 'standard' of nature for an individual growing up to have as a foundation for understanding the world. Once the foundation is set (children absorb EVERYTHING), introducing new concepts, choices, or preferences is a good thing, as there can be a basis for comparison. however if the standard is initially wrong (not by me, by nature), then i dare say things start to look distorted, especially for a hormone brimming adolescent...

these are my opinions. laugh if you will, but this is the opinion of a heterosexual neanderthal greek lover...

Some interesting replies. FWIW, I'm against it.

Whether or not there is a bullying issue with regards to a child being brought up be a gay couple is a side issue.

We should be basing our policies on gay adoption on the welfare of the child rather than liberal prejudices in favour of **sexuality. It is my view that the latter seems to be taking precedence.

The fact that children are sometimes born into dysfunctional heterosexual families has absolutely nothing to do with whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt or not. Suppose it's ok to adopt a child into a family that can barely afford the weekly food bill on the basis that other children are growing up in impoverished families or in famine ridden countries?

We cannot stop bad parents from having children, but we can look out for the child's welfare (social services). As for single parents it might not be the most ideal of upbringings, but the fact remains that the child does have at least have one biological parent which is far better than being adopted into a different family. It is still natural.

Putting a child into the care of a **sexual couple is a decision which is should not be taken lightly. It is good for a young mind to have a mother and a father. The human race has been largely based on the nurturing of the young by both parents and to rewrite this evolutionary trait for the sake of political correctness is a big mistake in my view.

I am not anti gay adoption for the sake of it. I just do not personally believe it is good for a young mind to grow up and be taught that being **sexual is the norm. Because it isn't. Moreover, I do not think we should be rushing to allow for widespread gay adoption based on the evidence provided. It is something that needs far more consideration than it has been given.

liberal prejudices in favour of **sexuality

But no-one is advocating this.

My position is that sexual orientation is irrelevant, not that gays should be given priority.

Much of the opposition to gay adoption seems to come from a media-generated myth that straight couples are being disadvantaged. Take away this objection and there's really not much left to complain about imo.

of course they should and i know two blokes who do.

Would you prefer to leave a chlld in care than with adoptive parents ?

That question applies across a lot of categories btw like smokers who are banned by a ludicrous council from adopting and also diffrent race/religion adoptions where it is surely more important for a child to have parents than a historical culture

My position is that sexual orientation is irrelevant

how is it irrelevant?

Would you prefer to leave a chlld in care than with adoptive parents ?

No but if the only adoption available is with a gay couple then yes.

so you think that a child will be more able to have a beter life brought up in care than with a gay family?

how is it irrelevant?

Read the thread - I'm not repeating myself.

yes madsimon

The life stats for kids brought up predominantly in care are consistently awful.

An honest question for those saying gay adoptive parents would provide bad role models/influences, is it because you think the kids may be pushed towards being gay or because you think gay people have worse morals or standards than straight?

There are certain things I discuss with my mum that I wouldn't dream of with my dad and vice versa. The thought of a 14 year old girl talking to 2 poofs about her first period is just too horrible to contemplate for the poor girl. And two butch lezzers cheering on a young lad at sports day ffs, you seriously say that should be encouraged?

not saying any of that that ribber

My point here is that so much of the development of the human race, and any advanced speicies for that matter, is based upon knowledge and customs passed form the parents to the young.

What I do notice is that sexuality itself tends to be singly the most important issue in a homsexual person's life. You don't get heterosexual people going on and on about being 'straight' and going on 'straight pride' marches etc. I think sexuality as an issue could be given far too much airtime in a family with gay parents and that it would form a bias is such a household.

Wouldn't your points would apply to single parents and care workers too Blackburn?

Can't really be @rsed going down the 'some of my best friends' route, but the 3 gay couples I know/knew were as likely or unlikely to speak about their sexuality as anyone else, and like everybody they probably talked about it a lot less as they got older (and all of them completely uninterested in adopting kids incidentally). Tatchell and co are the exceptions imo.

I understand the points on both sides, but shouldn't the 'natural' laws of nature far outweigh those of man? man is imperfect in many ways, allowing his(her) beleifs, values, and habits judge what is right or wrong.

i if you start to measure something with a ruler which is not calibrated, you will undoubtedly get the wrong measurement. All i am saying is that the callibration is put off by having two parents of the same gender...

Being gay should mean you cannot have kids just like being a vegetarian means you cant have meat and being teetotal bars you from alcohol.

Plenty of **sexuality in nature though.

This is a difficult issue. I can see both sides but think that I am, on balance, against gay couples adopting. If there were more kids available for adoption than potential adopters I would say yes, it's better than putting them in care. As it is, however, there are more potential heterosexual couples than children to adopt, and I feel that as this is the natural way that should be actively promoted by government.

I don't feel this is discriminatory because it is merely reflecting nature.

blackburn 12 Nov 14:44
There are certain things I discuss with my mum that I wouldn't dream of with my dad and vice versa. The thought of a 14 year old girl talking to 2 poofs about her first period is just too horrible to contemplate for the poor girl. And two butch lezzers cheering on a young lad at sports day ffs, you seriously say that should be encouraged?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Spot on blackburn, it's worrying that the forum has so many Woolies.

Plenty of **sexuality in nature though.

There isn't. There is however, cannabalism and gang rape. I wouldn't use nature as an example of how we should live.

alf, not saying I disagree but I'm keen to see some examples.

FWIW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**sexuality_in_animals

The thought of a 14 year old girl talking to 2 poofs about her first period is just too horrible to contemplate

The truth is, bb, that most 14-year-old girls would be more than happy discussing menstruation with anyone grown-up, well-adjusted and sensitive, regardless of whether or not they're gay.

I doubt that your daughter ever felt close enough to her macho, poof-hating Dad to have such a conversation though...

Aah Doc appears to be back, any answer on how the differing criteria that is used by the adoption agencies seem to vary when it comes to race and sexuality????

Dr J

Will you never learn to leave family out of such things? You really are a cnunt sometimes.

Ignore him EO, we all know he always resorts to personal abuse when beaten. His last post proves categorically that he has no understanding of teenage girls.

In fact we found that out a while back when he came on here boasting about impregnating underage girls.

In fact we found that out a while back when he came on here boasting about impregnating underage girls.


If this is true why would anyone converse with Dr Pedo.

Ask him about him anex, it was one of his street cred proving posts about his youth in Liverpool.

Of course it just proved what a plank he is.

I doubt that your daughter ever felt close enough to her macho, poof-hating Dad to have such a conversation though...

No denial, I note...

Go on doc, tell anex about your teenage adventures

You can only guess at the relationship I have with my kids, you brag about what a lad you were in your teens on the streets of Liverpool.

BB, must you distort the facts like this all the time?

You know damn well that Dr J said that was something he wasn't proud of. It seems that anyone mentioning anything about their life is "bragging" to you.

What's creepy is the way blackburn constantly brings up a one-line comment I made on thread some two years ago. It was an excellent thread about Sex Education and I acknowledged that I'd had unprotected sex as a teenager (as did several other posters). Blackburn went utterly ballistic, much to everyone's amusement. Quite why it troubles him so much is anyone's guess.

Perhaps it was him you were sh*gging.

:D

evski

Hang on a minute. It's a bit hypocritical having a pop at blackburn when two minutes ago you were describing my life as incredible and begging me to take you as my lover.

And the Dr avoids my question yet again about social engineering

Aah hes ran away, probably because he's stumped over the issue.

Funny how the left remind us that there is no difference between skin colour and how we have more in common with a black Englishmen than a European white -then do a complete turn around on adoption because of "Different culture"

And then have the Audacity to say that Gay adoption is ok because of kids can overcome differences

According to the trade paper(Guardian) social workers are Paralysed and dare not put a ethnic with any other culture

There must be a mistake here somewhere

I think you will find our only point is that someone's sexuality is such a vanishing triviality, that it has no place in the debate as to who would make a better parent.

I accept that you will never see that,

As is race, unless you dismiss the consensus that we are a multicultural society and that all cultures are equal, thus agreeing that as in US law there should not be this criteria for adoption.

Well as it happens, I don't have the answer on different ethnic groups adopting, I find ot rather complicated with arguments both sides. Sexualtiy though, I regard as irrelevant.

Why would you think it is, is what puzzles me.

So do the French, Germans and Italians, a European Tripartite as they do not allow gay couples to adopt(single ones excepted)

The US varies from state to state, but on race, a bill was passed in the 90s that race should not be a criteria to adoption, it appears that in the uk, the social workers are paralysed by it

If you are more srious about putting kids in loving homes, i would suggest that there are more interracial homes available than gay ones, however this does not appear to be acceptable to the current regime.

I tend to agree with the inter-racial point, for what it is worth. I would prefer it not to be taken into account. But, I am not expert enough to express a stgrong view.

The stuff I have read, which has been posted on here in part, suggests sexuality has absolutely no effect. Which is as I would expect. I take no discomfort from a couple of countries you quote as not having seen this yet, just as I am sure you would ignore the countries who take the same position as the UK. I don't have a list to hand.

Sib, the point i am making is Criteria, if as suggested race should be a determined factor, as the 2002 adoption act put forward on the ground of race, on account of someone feeling different and suffering bulling and feeling left out, then surely sexuality would be the same??

BTW i have never resorted to **phobic remarks here although i realise some people have

Not read most of this, but when you foster children the agencies do thuir best to place white children with white families and black children with black families.

It's do with bringing them up in their own culture.

Common sense would denote that children bought up by a **sexual couple, regardless of colour, is not normal.

Common sense would denote that children bought up by a **sexual couple, regardless of colour, is not normal.

But then people who advocate gay adoption aren't either.

zilzal -

Please stop baiting me about not answering your question. I've twice said that I disagree with what you call 'adoption apartheid'. I don't think either race or sexual orientation need be a factor. Quite what more you want me to say I don't know, but there's nothing hypocritical about my position here at all.

Criteria Doc, Criteria, you are quite happy to place ethnics in their "own grouping" but apply a different one to sexual orientation where you ignore differences and feelings.

amazing to see the right wingers believe that gay adoption began a couple of years ago.

maybe it was the permissive 60's that created all these gay adoptees?

^^^ childless female

Big Charlie 14 Nov 17:45
^^^ childless female

You do have a lot of issues dont you?

I'm waiting for the day when I see a **sexual male couple consisting of a black man and a chinese man bringing up a little Pakistani girl. The fact that so few can see the absurdity of it all and will say things like "As long as the child is loved" means that society is so far gone we may as well have a giggle at the dying days of it.

Until you can explain that opinion then it counts for very little, other than the ramblings of a dimwit.

^ "The fact that so few can see the absurdity of it all..."

You still need to explain your opinion.

Are you able to do that?

I don't need to do anything. If you can't see the absurdity of it all then you're a moron who would be incapable of having it explained to you anyway.

Madness - just ignore the teacher

Well done both of you.

When an opinion can't be explained, other than 'it stands to reason' or is 'common sense' I always regard it as pretty flimsy.

I will give the most controversial reason for not allowing gay men to adopt... A high number of gay men are pedarast :)

What does the smiley indicate at the end of that sentence?

That you know it's complete horse**?

whats your opinion on this baracouda ?

baracouda30 10 Nov 19:57
I can imagine walking into a children's home and explaining to a kid that we've found some people that will look after you, feed you, clothe you, care for you but....

they're gay so you'll have to stay here.

I'm sure he/she would understand.

Is male/female ideal? Yes. But what is ideal and what is necessary/practical are two separate things.
Gays should not be excluded, nor should they receive preferential treatment (which I'm sure some brainless tabloid hack will suggest next time any child in the care of a gay couple so much as grazes his knee on the school playground).

Well i certainly wouldnt debate any of that, i totally agree, there is no reason why Gay men shouldnt be allowed, surely two gay men can love a child 10 times more than nobody

i only called you a teacher cos of your unnessesary comment in my thread below, but on this point you're completely right, and anyone disagreeing is pathetic

I see. Ok, sorry about my comment, but it was ironic and I felt I should point it out.

You admit yourself that a male/female couple would be the ideal.

Yes, the ideal, but not because gay men are kiddie fiddlers (any more than straight men are).

And what is ideal does not mean excluding all other options.

Ideally, I'd like Cotto to be 50/1 tonight, but the 3.6 is fine and I can cope with it.

no worries mate, it was poor i guess :)

yeah man/woman is more ideal, but only a nice man/woman

like is a man/woman who possibly smoke, drink and go out leaving there kids better than a Gay couple who take very good care of there kids ?

far from better imo

Foster Agencies (T.A.C.T. for one) have a strange outlook on foster parents who smoke.

You can foster a child aged over 2 years of age if you smoke, but they insist you don't smoke in the same room as them.

Which is logical.

But if the child is under 2, he/she won't be placed with a Foster couple, even if only one of them smokes, and even if he/she does it outside the house.

Which is daft.

surely its all about placing the child in the best and most appropiate home available and that would rightly put any sexual deviants at the bottom of the list. Prospective parents should have zero rights as the decision is all about the childs future

Hmm, most sexual assaults on children carried out on girls by men, most carried out within family structure, most carried out by family member or friend. I hope all you 'normalists' are factoring these into your voodoo formulae.

I struggle to see any relevance in this ^^^^

So as long as they're not sexually deviant it's okay to torture or beat them to death then, like Victoria Climbie.

In Haringey.

NATION SHOCKED AT HORROR OF CHILDS INJURIES

'I'M APPALLED' SAYS MP

'IT MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN'.

Then we had the Baby P case.

In Haringey.

and even less relevance in this ^^^^

Sniffer, perhaps you should read through the whole thread rather than assume posts have anything to do with your (frankly facile) contribution.

This has just been noticed by me on chit chat

BlackT 15 Nov 09:58
Did you know that white people can't adopt mixed race kids.
Just saw on nicky campbell its on the big questions at 10. I think thats disgraceful.

so what was your point ribber ?