Barring cults who actively abuse children (polygamous cults which raise daughters into sexual slavery) should we turn away a Muslim couple because they might raise their kids to be terrorists?
This is The Telegraph, April 7th, 2011
They were desperate to give a child a home, but their Christianity and restrained views on homosexuality meant Sonia Maples and her husband had no chance
You can't miss them – in newspapers and magazines, on advertising hoardings, in buses and bus shelters, across the country – those poignant posters of children who need a home. Local authorities seem desperate to place them, so why is it that so many willing heterosexual couples, especially those with a religious faith, are not being approved as adoptive parents?
Long before the current row over whether church-based adoption agencies should be allowed to set their own rules about accepting homosexual couples on to their books, my husband and I felt the cold breath of discrimination. It wasn't because of our sexual orientation – no, nothing as routine as that. Instead, we were found wanting because we were Christians and because we hold strong views about the importance of children having both a father and a mother.
Research endorses this model as best for children but our "idealism about family life", as the social workers called it, prevented us being able to provide a needy child with a loving home. If you are single or gay, it seems, it would be far easier to adopt.
My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.
We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months. We didn't want to wait, so we approached our local council, which had a slightly shorter waiting list. As we were over 40, we knew we would not be eligible for a baby, so we said we would be happy to have a child up to the age of 10. The home assessment process then began, which involved regular visits by social workers over an 18-month period.
We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians.
The social workers seemed to be forever trying to trip us up. They asked us how we would cope with a child who smeared faeces on the walls or trashed the house. We knew that children who had had difficult, insecure lives could be challenging and might be prone to temper tantrums, but I said surely every child wasn't that bad? We run a social club and we had some experience of people whose difficult lives had left them withdrawn and introverted. We have seen how their lives can be transformed and we believed that we could help a child to blossom similarly.
However, it wasn't just our reaction to the "faeces question" that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn't want to go? We said that it wouldn't be a problem because, if a child didn't want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone's throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.
We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.
The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don't believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn't agree with the lifestyle they chose.
In our social club we have gay and bisexual people: they've had problems with their families and we've supported them. If they are not following a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, then we shouldn't and wouldn't condemn it. We are not homophobic and yet the social worker warned us our views would prejudice our chances of adopting.
At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn't be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn't the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?
Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality.
It was a devastating time: to be turned down after being grilled by social services for a year and a half, and also made to feel we were so much in the wrong. We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them.
I wish now that we had gone through a Christian adoption agency that might have looked on us more favourably. We felt that in dealing with the local council our faith was a liability and we were discriminated against because of it. We know people who adopted via the same council 10 years ago who were not asked similar questions. Once, the government used to respect the religious views of the electorate. Now the Catholic Church and the Church of England are under attack.
I agree with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, who have written to the Prime Minister saying that "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning".
If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.
People should be allowed to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don't affect others. I feel that, as Christians, we are being denied our freedom to choose and are being persecuted for our faith – while a child who would benefit from all that we can give is missing out.
• Names have been changed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631526/Adopt-We-were-too-idealistic.html
We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians.
The social workers seemed to be forever trying to trip us up. They asked us how we would cope with a child who smeared faeces on the walls or trashed the house. We knew that children who had had difficult, insecure lives could be challenging and might be prone to temper tantrums, but I said surely every child wasn't that bad? We run a social club and we had some experience of people whose difficult lives had left them withdrawn and introverted. We have seen how their lives can be transformed and we believed that we could help a child to blossom similarly.
However, it wasn't just our reaction to the "faeces question" that went down badly with the social workers. We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn't want to go? We said that it wouldn't be a problem because, if a child didn't want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone's throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.
We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.
The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don't believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn't agree with the lifestyle they chose.
In our social club we have gay and bisexual people: they've had problems with their families and we've supported them. If they are not following a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, then we shouldn't and wouldn't condemn it. We are not homophobic and yet the social worker warned us our views would prejudice our chances of adopting.
At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn't be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn't the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?
Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality.
It was a devastating time: to be turned down after being grilled by social services for a year and a half, and also made to feel we were so much in the wrong. We appealed, but in vain. We have since spoken to a fostering agency, which told us that only one or two heterosexual couples get approved by them.
I wish now that we had gone through a Christian adoption agency that might have looked on us more favourably. We felt that in dealing with the local council our faith was a liability and we were discriminated against because of it. We know people who adopted via the same council 10 years ago who were not asked similar questions. Once, the government used to respect the religious views of the electorate. Now the Catholic Church and the Church of England are under attack.
I agree with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, who have written to the Prime Minister saying that "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning".
If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.
People should be allowed to choose how they live their lives, so long as they don't affect others. I feel that, as Christians, we are being denied our freedom to choose and are being persecuted for our faith – while a child who would benefit from all that we can give is missing out.
• Names have been changed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631526/Adopt-We-were-too-idealistic.html
