Utah judge removes child from lesbian foster parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Yes, that’s just you, and clearly not the Church.

The answer is to find solutions to the problem you describe (which is real), not turn to child abuse as a means to get kids off the street.

We could seel them off as sex slaves too in order to keep them from the streets, but is that a a viable solution? The Pope himself called this a form of child abuse, so why seek it as an answer to our problems?
Click to expand...
I’m just going to say that your wording here is really horrible in my opinion. I do agree that children are best raised by a mother and father, but do you really have to call it child abuse?
 
Inisfallen said:
Well, here’s my take on why it’s sketchy –

In my city (New York), there are an enormous number of children in the foster care system. A staggering number of them age out of the system without being adopted, or returned to their biological parents. And a huge number (a majority, last time I read up on it) of those who age out end up homeless or in prison.

Seems to me that a life being raised by a same-sex couple who will love and care for that child is far better than a life in group homes, and being tossed out on the street when the kid turns eighteen.

But that’s just me.
Click to expand...
New York City and Utah are not even remotely the same. In all likely hood the baby is bring placed with another family and will be adopted. I suspect that is why she is being removed in a week.

Generally kids that age out already have other issues that make thme difficult to place. My sister adopted 2 older girls. One used come into her room and stand over her while she slept. When she woke up and saw her, her adoptee would say she could take a knife and drive it through her eye any time she wanted. The other dropped out of school at 17 and ran away with her boyfriend. So older kids bring placed has zero guarantee of ending up better off then being in the system. A loving family doesn’t fix things and a disordered parental relationship makes thing that much harder.
 
St_Francis said:
Wow, I don’t have time to search through the 57-page document which refers to other documents, so I am just assuming that the DCFS criteria do not include that the adopting couple must be of opposite sexes nor that being a homosexual couple disqualifies, since the couple was approved.

Since the judge ruled on the basis that the child would be better off in with heterosexual couple, it seems that what I said is the case and the reason for the involvement of the DCFS lawyers.

I did say possibly; it was not offered as a fact that I need to cite Utah law for.
Click to expand...
I never said you need to cite Utah law. I thought maybe you had information regarding the criteria and I was curious what the criteria was. 🤷

I wonder if this (in bold) is what the judge was referring to:

Adoption Assessment (Home Study) Requirements -
Major objectives:
Families who wish to become adoptive families, including kin or Child and Family
Services employees, must meet all of the following requirements:
A. Complete adoption training program approved by Child and Family Services
(preferably before the child is placed in the home).
B. Be assessed and approved as an adoptive family following completion of a home
study by a licensed child placement agency.
C. Obtain a foster care license issued by the Department of Human Services, Office
of Licensing, or meet the same standards, or receive a written waiver of a
standard.
D. Receive a determination by Child and Family Services that no conflict of interest
exists in the adoption process.
Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services
Adoption
Practice Guidelines Revised August 2014

Major objectives:
A. In the matching process, the selection of an adoptive family will be in the best
interest of the child.
B. The adoption decision must be based on a thorough assessment of the child’s
current and potential developmental, medical, emotional, and educational needs.
C. The ability of the adoptive or foster/adoptive care family to successfully meet the
child’s needs and to love and accept the child as a fully integrated member of the
family must be considered.
D. Child and Family Services will comply with The Interethnic Placement Act.
E. Sibling groups should not be separated. When separation is necessary to protect
the well-being of one or more children in the sibling group, all reasonable efforts
must be made to maintain contact between siblings.
 
St_Francis said:
Since the judge ruled on the basis that the child would be better off in with heterosexual couple, it seems that what I said is the case and the reason for the involvement of the DCFS lawyers.
Click to expand...
I am not even sure the question is one of “being better off with” a heterosexual couple. It would seem to be more a case of children having an innate (natural and biological) right to a competent and caring mother AND father, whereas an adoption by a lesbian couple would deprive the child of that inherent right. The lesbian couple would be imposing their rather arbitrary (in terms of having no discernible connection to nature or biology) gender ideology on the child with regard to what it means to be a human being.

The large majority of human beings are heterosexual simply as a fact of biology. That fact ought to be the de facto standard under which laws determining the suitable care of vulnerable children should operate.

To have any merit, the lesbian couple needs to demonstrate that being raised by two women is inherently no different to any child over the long term than being raised by a competent and caring mother and father. This isn’t a question of equality under the law nor of the rights of homosexuals, it is a question of demonstrable difference and the inalienable rights of children that need to be fully taken into account.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I am not even sure the question is one of “being better off with” a heterosexual couple. It would seem to be more a case of children having an innate (natural and biological) right to a competent and caring mother AND father, whereas an adoption by a lesbian couple would deprive the child of that inherent right. The lesbian couple would be imposing their rather arbitrary (in terms of having no discernible connection to nature or biology) gender ideology on the child with regard to what it means to be a human being.

The large majority of human beings are heterosexual simply as a fact of biology. That fact ought to be the de facto standard under which laws determining the suitable care of vulnerable children should operate.

To have any merit, the lesbian couple needs to demonstrate that being raised by two women is inherently no different to any child over the long term than being raised by a competent and caring mother and father. This isn’t a question of equality under the law nor of the rights of homosexuals, it is a question of demonstrable difference and the inalienable rights of children that need to be fully taken into account.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the stigma of being raised by gay parents. Remember, this is Utah not San Francisco we’re talking about.
 
AFerri48 said:
I’m just going to say that your wording here is really horrible in my opinion. I do agree that children are best raised by a mother and father, but do you really have to call it child abuse?
Click to expand...
I think to downplay some of these issues we discuss on here is to do a disservice to how dangerous they really are. How can it be too “horrible” when you already ten posts into a topic have Catholics defending it as okay? Clearly, we haven’t done a good enough job describing it.

Perhaps if people treated life and death type issues with the requisite gravity, such phrases wouldn’t seem to jarring. Sort of like calling abortion murder - well, it is, you know?

In any case, Pope Francis described it in stark terms long berfore I did.
 
Usige said:
Since they are foster parents they had not adopted the baby yet, so it could have been the adoption hearing.

It’s important to remember that foster parents aren’t guaranteed that they will be able to adopt any children they foster. In the past it was fairly common for couples to foster children until they were adopted by other families. These women seem to think that since they fostered the baby that they have a right to adopter her, but every foster parent should accept from the begining that any child may be removed or adopted by others at any time.
Click to expand...
The article says, “The women, who are legally married, were approved after passing home inspections, background checks and interviews with the DCFS. They hope to adopt the baby and have the support of the child’s biological mother.” They *hope *to adopt the baby, then, which is different than an expectation. They also have the support of the bio mom, which I would think would add to their sense of optimism.
 
It is unclear as to whether same-sex couples are allowed to adopt in Utah. The law on the books is that unmarried couples can’t adopt and that would have excluded same-sex couples in Utah until a few months ago. It may be that the law just hasn’t caught up and the judge may feel that the child is better off to be in a foster care placement where adoption wouldn’t be ruled out by pending changes in the law.
 
I know a teenager from a strong family with five kids. They looked into adoption and were turned away, basically, because they already have too many kids. I know they would be a good family though. Do stories like theirs make sensational headlines? The state deemed they weren’t fit.

I have no idea who these two women are, I mean them no disrespect, and I pray God sends his love upon them.

I would love to adopt. The costs seem prohibitive, the local Catholic agency isn’t taking applications, and some of the secular ones basically say no adoptions if you already have two children. (We have one. By the time we had enough money to meet the costs of adoption, we probably wouldn’t meet the stingy “two” requirements.) So I looked into foster care, and I don’t think that’s where our talents as a married couple lay. Seems like a tough vocation.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
The answer is to find solutions to the problem you describe (which is real), not turn to child abuse as a means to get kids off the street.
Click to expand...
My friend, nobody is suggesting that we turn to child abuse, and your implication (at least) that all homosexuals are child molesters is factually wrong and pretty much slanderous.

It has no place in this conversation. I’m sure you’re familiar with the relevant section of the Catechism.
 
Inisfallen said:
My friend, nobody is suggesting that we turn to child abuse, and your implication (at least) that all homosexuals are child molesters is factually wrong and pretty much slanderous.
Click to expand...
I believe MK was referring to the Church teaching that to intentionally place a child in a family with a same-sex couple is a form of child abuse – not that homosexuals as individuals are abusers.
 
This will not stand on appeal and the judge should face disciplinary action.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
This will not stand on appeal and the judge should face disciplinary action.
Click to expand...
What for? Placing concern for children above endorsing the gay narrative?

It is a legitimate perspective – and not a crime – to question what every person in this lovely culture of ours is being coerced to accept without being permitted to give it a passing thought.

It isn’t as if sound and indisputable reasons have been developed and significant effort made to understand the long term repercussions of overturning millenniums old standards for civilized culture and human society. Nope – it is: "Believe or you will be made to suffer (or “face disciplinary action!”)
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
For placing religious beliefs above the law and recommendations of the relevant authorities.
Click to expand...
The law says to put the child’s well being first. In his ruling, he believes he did. If one believes gay marriage is really enshrined in the Constitution because a few judges said so, I do not see how it is a stretch of a judge’s power to make a ruling like this.

It seems judicial fiat is only acceptable when it fits leftist ideology. Don’t like rulings like this? Resist judicial tyranny, regardless of ideology.
 
SWolf said:
The law says to put the child’s well being first. In his ruling, he believes he did. If one believes gay marriage is really enshrined in the Constitution because a few judges said so, I do not see how it is a stretch of a judge’s power to make a ruling like this.

It seems judicial fiat is only acceptable when it fits leftist ideology. Don’t like rulings like this? Resist judicial tyranny, regardless of ideology.
Click to expand...
The judge had no grounds on which to allege that the child’s well-being was at risk.
 
SWolf said:
The judge disagreed.
Click to expand...
And the court of appeals will disagree with the judge. Not unusual for this particular judge as he is no stranger to controversy or disciplinary action for his bizarre rulings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top