Catholic family branded 'bigoted' .... not wanting their children to be adopted by gay couple

mail online ^ | Steve Doughty,

[Morgana]

FULL TITLE: Catholic family branded 'bigoted' by social workers for not wanting their children to be adopted by gay couple

A Catholic family were labelled bigots by social workers after they complained about the adoption of their children by a gay couple.

The parents, of Slovak Roma origin, protested after they discovered that their two youngest boys, aged four and one, were not going to be adopted by the Roman Catholic family they had asked for.

They claimed the gay adoption would humiliate the children and deprive them of their Roma heritage and Catholic faith, and said the decision amounted to ‘social engineering’.

Yesterday, the country’s most senior family judge upheld the adoption plan.

But he criticised social workers from Kent for the way they condemned the parents because of their views.

[ottbmare]

As horrified as I am by the prospect of these two innocent children being raised by homosexuals, I have limited sympathy for parents who would give their children up for adoption after the children have reached such ages. It’s one thing to give up a newborn baby, but a four-year-old is never going to recover. If they wanted their children raised as Slovaks, gypsies, and Catholics, they should keep and raise the poor kids themselves.

[Viennacon]

Insane. Britain is a fascist country, but these people should have taken their children BACK to Romania to be adopted rather than deliver them into the hands of this scum, who now let perverts own them.

[max americana]

That’s why they’re social workers...they’re morons.

[Pontiac]

Yesterday, the country’s most senior family judge upheld the adoption plan.

But he criticised social workers from Kent for the way they condemned the parents because of their views.

Well isn’t that helpful. A judge completely disregards the wishes of the parents but chastises the callous social workers for their insensitivity.

I don’t know why the parents were surprised that after giving their children up to the faithless state that their children would be given to faithless people.

[Pontiac]

these people should have taken their children BACK to Romania

The Roma are a race of people otherwise known as Gypsies and are not necessarily from Romania.

[Viennacon]

The parents were idiots, but Roma people often are detached from world events and would not have seen such a thing coming. The state took advantage to guild the pleasures of deviants and degenerates.

Anyone with their head screwed on would never bring kids into such a country, either through birth or immigration. Even in the darkest holes on earth, the state is often less sick than these people. Just by looking at the judge you can tell he’s a Roland Freisler type.

Europeans look down their noses at those ‘backward third world’ societies. I would much rather live in a ‘backward’ country than an Orwellian hell.

Blake once wrote

“I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England’s green & pleasant Land”

Just remember what happened to old Jerusalem when they turned their back on God. They were destroyed.

[Dr. Sivana]

It’s one thing to give up a newborn baby, but a four-year-old is never going to recover. If they wanted their children raised as Slovaks, gypsies, and Catholics, they should keep and raise the poor kids themselves.

We cannot say without knowing more about the circumstances. Terminal or psychiatric illness in one or both parents, pending long-term imprisonment, in some countries (not England) unfathomable destitution.

In the U.S., birth parents typically have a LOT more to say about where the children land (provided that parental rights have not already been terminated). My wife and I are Roman Catholics. There are plenty of proper parents in the western world who could have provided quite well for the welfare of the children.

[Morgana]

Don’t they have family? That would be better if they can’t care for them.

[MeshugeMikey]

rumor has it that the judge has double dated with the adoptive couple several times.....

[oldbrowser]

To people that are indiscriminate, careless, reckless, or irresponsible, a careful person would appear to be a bigot.

[Veto!]

That’s why they’re social workers...they’re morons.

LOL. My two most difficult acquaintances are social workers, and you've just confirmed what I suspected.

[kearnyirish2]

“In the U.S., birth parents typically have a LOT more to say about where the children land (provided that parental rights have not already been terminated).”

Any time I see deviants with adopted kids they look like they were bought overseas; if people don’t give away their kids the freaks can’t play “family”...

[Jeff Chandler]

In the U.S., birth parents typically have a LOT more to say about where the children land

Give it 5-10 years. I am dead serious.

[Beowulf9]

They should take their kids back for the kids sake. Why would they give up these two children anyway? It’s like throwing away your children. Where they land is not up to you at that point. Should’ve recognized this and protected their own.

[ForYourChildren]

What’s wrong with a little bigotry every now and then. I agree with this catholic family. The children should not be allowed anywhere near the sick, perversion of homosexuality.

[TribalPrincess2U]

SO BE IT!

[ravenwolf]

As horrified as I am by the prospect of these two innocent children being raised by homosexuals, I have limited sympathy for parents who would give their children up for adoption after the children have reached such ages.

---

I get the idea that the parents had no choice, they are on welfare so are controlled by the public servants even more than usual.

[miss marmelstein]

These are gypsies we’re talking about. Not the most honest or trustworthy people around.

[Dr. Sivana]

Give it 5-10 years. I am dead serious.

Because of the power of the homosexual lobby, I won't rule it out. Certainly there is already a problem in the foster care system when rights are already terminated. I can personally attest to a case in Washington state where a foster family taking care of an infant with mild sickle cell anemia begged an adopting family to come forward as the child was at risk of being placed with two pervert men. We called the agency, as we were out of state but paper-ready. We heard nothing back until we called again and found it was a done deal. So there is truth in what you say. The big difference here is that the rights were already terminated.

The present model has the birth mother (and in some cases, both birth parents) very much in control for newborns and in most cases when the child is placed in foster care after birth, often placing the best interests of the child behind the preferences of the birth mother. In Illinois, the agencies were rather proud of the fact that they were actively discouraging adoption in the foster care system in order to "reunite families".