Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents

Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents

A CATHOLIC couple of Roma origin who were judged unfit to raise two of their sons have failed to block the adoption of the boys by a same sex couple in Kent.

The Slovakian couple argued in a case brought before the High Court in London that their two young children would grow up alienated from their family and community.

In what Mrs Justice Theis described as a “very sad case”, the boys – aged two and four – were put up for adoption because of concerns about the couple’s parenting.

The court heard the boys’ older siblings’ school attendance was poor, that they were left alone and “over-chastised” – the father admitted he had beaten them – and sometimes appeared dirty and unkempt.

The judge had ruled the younger boys should be adopted, for their long-term welfare.

Taking the case to the High Court, the couple accused the local authority of “social engineering” by attempting to turn the children white and middle class.

An earlier hearing heard evidence they had neglected their children.

Mrs Justice Theis had found them unwilling to acknowledge the criticisms or to change how they parented their children.

She said that any adoption placement should be:

Sensitive to their needs and identity.

But the parents argued the current plan – to place them with a gay couple – did not fulfil this.

At the High Court earlier this month the parents accused Kent County Council of:

A conscious deliberate effort… to transform our children from Slovak Roma children to English middle-class children.

They also claimed homosexuality was not recognised by the Roma community and that adoption by a same sex couple could cause their children psychological harm in the future.

Gay marriage has been condemned by Catholic bishops in Slovakia, where currently any form of same-sex civil union is illegal, and Prime Minister Robert Fico intends to keep it that way.

In 2010, Slovakia’s first ever gay pride parade was canceled after neo-Nazis attacked the participants with rocks, eggs and a tear gas grenade.

Neo-Nazis pictured opposing a gay pride event in Slovakia in 2010

Neo-Nazis pictured opposing a gay pride event in Slovakia in 2010

The couple said in statements to the court:

If as expected our children will try to find us and their siblings and roots, then they will discover huge differences between our culture and the way they’ve been brought up. This is likely to cause them great upset and to suffer a conflict within themselves such as to set them against their adoptive parents.

However in his judgement – made public on Friday – Sir James Munby, the most senior judge in the Family Court, said the couple had no grounds in law to appeal.judge

He added that while any judge should “respect the opinions of those who come here from a foreign land”, he had to judge matters according to English law and by reference to

The standards of reasonable men and women in contemporary English society.

The parents are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, although it is likely it will take months before their case is heard.

Lucie Boddington, from Children Belong to Parents – a Slovakian charity which has been supporting the couple –  said she hoped the Slovak government would request the case be heard more quickly.

She told the BBC the parents were “desperate” and had cried openly when they heard the judge’s decision.

This is I think in some way a cultural misunderstanding. In Slovakia, they were a model family – very different from the way some Roma live. The father is hard-working, well-educated; he wanted the best for his children.

Hat tip: Agent Cormac


57 responses to “Gay pair to adopt children of unfit Catholic parents”

  1. Paul Cook says:


    I watched the sycophant Jeremy Bowen ‘s BBC report’s on frankie’s crass statement. I spat my tea out as I heard Bowen spout that shit. If slug’s could talk Bowen would be a slug, for the way he made out this was brilliant for frankie to say this, was nothing more than disgusting slime parading as speech.

    Moreover it begs the question why is it so big a deal for this man to condemn these pedophiles! I just don’t understand this logic, its as though either he should’t and it was highly unusual (which it was) and its great he has (which it isn’t he should have done it long ago), or else the church still needs to be protected not the victims.

    Currying favour for what any decent person should do as a natural reaction of immediate condemnation shows how low these people will stoop. I wonder if he has made this bullshit statement pretending to care so that soon people will think ‘its all sorted out” and there are no pedophiles left.

  2. Broga says:

    Frankie says, ‘Sexual abuse is such an ugly crime … because a priest who does this betrays the body of the Lord. It is like a satanic Mass,’

    Note those first few words, ‘Sexual abuse is such an ugly crime’. His phraseology suggests someone who is not dealing in absolutes here. He is conversational. It is not just “such” and ugly crime. It is an abomination, vile, despicable. I can imagine him prefacing his words with “Oh dear, how unfortuneate that sexual abuse is …….” This man does not feel for the victims, there is no visceral disgust and there is no anger leading to tough action. It is all part of his PR.

  3. JohnMWhite says:

    Sexual abuse is bad because the priest who does it “betrays the body of the Lord“. That’s why it is bad? Never mind the body of the victim, or their mind, or the shattered lives left in the wake of such crimes and their almost inevitable cover-up. Never mind the betrayal of victims by those around them who should be caring for them but care so much more about their precious church and their absentee landlord of a deity.

    This attitude is encapsulated in the behaviour of the likes of Tom80: when faith drives you, it owns you, and robs you of your conscience. Things become bad not because of the damage they do or the pain they cause, but solely because of whether or not god or a holy book say it is so. That is not morality.

  4. barriejohn says:

    Broga: Sexual abuse has caused such damage to the reputation of the church.

  5. Angela_K says:

    “Satanic mass” Something else fabricated in the minds of the deluded. Popey and his storm-troopers are still a thousand years behind us and still imagine they have absolute control and are above the law.

    @JohnMWhite. “when faith drives you, it owns you, and robs you of your conscience.” How very true.

  6. Broga says:

    @JohnMWhite: I thought your comments were spot on, an excellent summary. Religion does “own you” and it does “rob you of your conscience.” And Tom80 is a sad example of its effects. He cannot see what religion is doing and so is entrapped in its coils. The tragic irony is that people like Tom80 think they are defending a worthwhile and moral cause when they are all too clearly doing the opposite.

  7. James says:

    Bottom line: If you’re such a bad parent that your children must be taken away and cared for by someone else, you don’t get a say in how they’re to be raised.