Jump to content

Great Britain: State takes children away from grandparents


Jet Moses

Recommended Posts

Not much information, but on the surface this doesnt seem right:

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.

The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old - at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'

The man said last night: 'It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 is too old for a five year old boy? Something's not right there AT ALL. As a youngest child, my father was around that age when I was five. That's not a valid reason at all--middle-aged parents would have more life experience and could probably better foster the children. Doesn't make sense. Not to mention it's their own grandparents--they should have legal rights to take care of the baby in case something happens to the baby's mother. One would think at least.

Some money getting thrown under the table or something? Or is the government just purposely invading one's privacy, for no particular reason? See what happens with this, and they can just take more as they go. (As you can see, I have my tin foil hat on today.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If age is the only reason these people are not going to be allowed to care for their own grandkids there is something seriously wrong.

It's not the reason at all. It's because someone wanted to make a statement to give kids to a gay couple despite the family's wishes. Because they had the audacity to have the bigoted (in the court's eyes) belief that kids need - or at a minimum, are better-off with - a mother. One who isn't a junkie anyway.

So that belief is bad. But removing any traces of the Holocaust from their history books, because it is offensive to Holocaust deniers, is good. Great Britain blows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 is too old for a five year old boy? Something's not right there AT ALL. As a youngest child, my father was around that age when I was five. That's not a valid reason at all--middle-aged parents would have more life experience and could probably better foster the children. Doesn't make sense. Not to mention it's their own grandparents--they should have legal rights to take care of the baby in case something happens to the baby's mother. One would think at least.

Some money getting thrown under the table or something? Or is the government just purposely invading one's privacy, for no particular reason? See what happens with this, and they can just take more as they go. (As you can see, I have my tin foil hat on today.)

I read somewhere how the average Briton is spied on more closely than the average East German was. There's about one CCTV camera for every 4 people, the average council can enter your house using over 270 pieces of legislation, and the government are trying to pass a law forcing ISP's to hold all emails for a year to allow the government to check them. And the Labour Party have never been the most traditional family friendly party out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the reason at all. It's because someone wanted to make a statement to give kids to a gay couple despite the family's wishes. Because they had the audacity to have the bigoted (in the court's eyes) belief that kids need - or at a minimum, are better-off with - a mother. One who isn't a junkie anyway.

So that belief is bad. But removing any traces of the Holocaust from their history books, because it is offensive to Holocaust deniers, is good. Great Britain blows.

The moonbats have taken over Europe. You can't even fly an English flag (the King James) during parades because it "might be offensive" to the same group of people who are offended by mentions of the Holocaust.

It's ironic because the moonbats will be the first dhimmi's to have their heads sawed off when the muslims take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere how the average Briton is spied on more closely than the average East German was. There's about one CCTV camera for every 4 people, the average council can enter your house using over 270 pieces of legislation, and the government are trying to pass a law forcing ISP's to hold all emails for a year to allow the government to check them. And the Labour Party have never been the most traditional family friendly party out there.

130-126big-brother-is-watching-you-posters.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...