Max.L Posted January 28, 2009 #1 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Link This is very saddening. These kids have a future set already. Those grandparents should have a say in it , and the state should keep their fat nose out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloudshill Posted January 28, 2009 #2 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I agree...that's just wrong. The grandparents have a natural right (imo)........46/59 too old?????.........wtf?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistydawn Posted January 28, 2009 #3 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I agree...that's just wrong. The grandparents have a natural right (imo)........46/59 too old?????.........wtf?..... I wonder is there something else to it, I mean, it be just because of their age, can it?? Wasn't there a woman somewhere in her 60's or something, who just recently gave birth? All seems a bit unfair, so surely there's more to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora7321 Posted January 28, 2009 #4 Share Posted January 28, 2009 This is absolutely horrible. Unless those people can be medically proven to have some age related disability there is absolutely NO reason why those children shouldn't be with their family. I mean, if they have dimentia or Alzheimer's or something, I could understand, but simply because of their age??!! Jebus Krikey it's not like they're both 97 years old. I mean it's 2009!! When did 46 and 59 become too old for anything?? Let's put this in perspective: Brad Pitt is 45 - Should we take away his and Angelina's children??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
behaviour??? Posted January 28, 2009 #5 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Absolutely Horrible....... Thanks B??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mule Posted January 28, 2009 #6 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Let's put this in perspective: Brad Pitt is 45 - Should we take away his and Angelina's children??? I'll settle for the press to stop reporting everytime they sneeze..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle Battlefront Posted January 28, 2009 #7 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It's sad that the kids got taken away, but to complain that they were given to a gay couple? As long as the couple are good parents who cares!! There is a lot more to this story then what is being told... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora7321 Posted January 28, 2009 #8 Share Posted January 28, 2009 It's sad that the kids got taken away, but to complain that they were given to a gay couple? As long as the couple are good parents who cares!! There is a lot more to this story then what is being told... I'm with you 100%. I'm appalled at the age discrimination alone. The adopting couple being gay wasn't a factor at all. I live in a state where gay adoption is still illegal. STUPID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Kratos__ Posted January 28, 2009 #9 Share Posted January 28, 2009 I'm with you 100%. I'm appalled at the age discrimination alone. The adopting couple being gay wasn't a factor at all. I live in a state where gay adoption is still illegal. STUPID. By the grandparents own words, it was a big factor to them. Then even the church made their regular bigotry comment on the matter. The social services said that they were the best suited to meet the kids needs though. As for their ages, I don't see what the big deal is but we don't have the entire picture. They might have money problems or health issues that we don't know about that the social workers looked over. I doubt it's standard practice to just rip kids away from family for no reason and hand them off to strangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissMelsWell Posted January 28, 2009 #10 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Something like this happened in WA State just a week or two ago. In the end, the grandparents did get the child. DSHS tried to pull the same thing... that they woudln't see their grandchild at all if they didn't bend to DSHS's wishes to have the child adopted to her foster mother (a single woman). http://www.examiner.com/x-1146-Seattle-Eas...-Enumclaw-child Hopefully, this family will look into the Wa. State case and see if the caselaw matches their problem and they can continue to fight for their grandchildren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted January 28, 2009 #11 Share Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) This made me feel sad....I know lots of people who were raided by their grandparents...they all did good jobs whats this world coming to??? Edited January 28, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted January 28, 2009 #12 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Brad Pitt is 45 - Should we take away his and Angelina's children??? Well, yes. But because of their age, admittedly. This made me feel sad....I know lots of people who were raided by their grandparents...they all did good jobs whats this world coming to??? Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting the gay couple -- if they get the chance -- couldn't do as well or better than the grandparents? I'm not, btw, suggesting the grandparents could do an average job. --Jaylemurph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueguardian Posted January 28, 2009 #13 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Usually 40 is the cut off point for women to have children, though in some circumstances women older then 46 have had children, yet they are allowed to keep their children, I don't see why the grandparents cant keep them, its just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairyJosie25 Posted January 28, 2009 #14 Share Posted January 28, 2009 To me, this case has nothing to do with whether the adopted children will be raised in a hetero or homosexual environment. I see it as a moot point. If the g-parents have a problem with it, then that's their opinion. What irks me, is that the "medical conditions" the state cites as being an "issue" for the grandparents adopting, are angina and diabetes. Problems? Yes. But if taken care of, which it sounds like they are, then what's the issue? There are people I know with conditions much more severe, that get to keep their children. Are they saying you shouldn't raise children if you have a disability?? *Pfft* They are the children's biological family members, whom the children know and are comfortable with. If, besides the "health issues", there aren't other problems in the home, why would you place them with perfect strangers? When did the children's comfort fall to the wayside? Children that age have a hard time with the unfamiliar - routine is what they do best with. It seems they've had enough upheaval in their lives, without being sent to live with people they don't even know. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted January 29, 2009 #15 Share Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting the gay couple -- if they get the chance -- couldn't do as well or better than the grandparents? I'm not, btw, suggesting the grandparents could do an average job. --Jaylemurph IM not suggesting anything of the sort.......and IM NOT against gays...if you don't believe take a hop over the spirituality boards im sure you see how I feel on how people like to judge the gay community I looked at this story in a personal way...for I would give anything if my own mom and dad would at least acknowledge my lil girls existence....so when I read a story where grandparents are actually looking to raise their own grand child...I sit and wish that my parents would for once call and even ask about their grandchild..and tend to wonder if I were gone would they want to take her ect???.....so yeaaa I was touched by it all Now if you wish to judge me on that.......go for it Edited January 29, 2009 by Beckys_Mom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted January 29, 2009 #16 Share Posted January 29, 2009 IM not suggesting anything of the sort.......and IM NOT against gays...if you don't believe take a hop over the spirituality boards im sure you see how I feel on how people like to judge the gay community I looked at this story in a personal way...for I would give anything if my own mom and dad would at least acknowledge my lil girls existence....so when I read a story where grandparents are actually looking to raise their own grand child...I sit and wish that my parents would for once call and even ask about their grandchild..and tend to wonder if I were gone would they want to take her ect???.....so yeaaa I was touched by it all Now if you wish to judge me on that.......go for it *blinks You may notice I went to the trouble of asking so as I wouldn't have to prejudge you on anything. I'm quite willing to take you on your word, but there /was/ some ambiguity in the way you phrased your response (unlike, say, the OP's). Anyway, any response was kind of you. --Jaylemurph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted January 29, 2009 #17 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Anyway, any response was kind of you. --Jaylemurph don't mention it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mn001 Posted January 29, 2009 #18 Share Posted January 29, 2009 What is the world coming too! When does age suppose to matter. So then that means people shouldn't have children past 45. The government is all wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MsKatsipoulis Posted January 29, 2009 #19 Share Posted January 29, 2009 It's sad that the kids got taken away, but to complain that they were given to a gay couple? As long as the couple are good parents who cares!! There is a lot more to this story then what is being told... I dont think its cause the couple are gay, the article clearly stated.. they have nothing against gay couples but they feel that the children should have a mother figure I have to say this is just awful, 46 is very far from "to old"... my mum is 45 and my dad 55, does this mean they are "to old" to raise a child. That is down right sad and pathetic. How cruel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissMelsWell Posted January 29, 2009 #20 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Actually, the state won't stop older parents from having children obviously. BUT they do put restrictions on older people adopting children. My cousin was 36, her husband was 46... they BADLY wanted to adopt a child in the USA but because he was "too old" they couldn't do a state adoption and they were hesitatnt to do a private one because of the expense and legal issues that can go with that. They eventually adopted a beautiful son in Guatamala where there were no restrictions on the father's age. The adoption took a year, with many trips back and forth to Guatamala to bond with the child and well... frankly... bribe public officials to get the paperwork done, but their little guy is 7 now, and they've taken him back to Guatamala several times to see the nanny who cared for him in her home for his first year until he went home to Seattle. I think if grandparents are an option for children who need parents... they should always be given the chance. Diabetes and angina are no reason to keep kids from their grandparents care. For pete sake, know how many pregnant mom's develop gestational diabetes? Or how many woman who are diabetic have kids? And heck, both my grandparents lived with heart disease for FIFTY years and remained quite active! Provided there is no abuse or physical danger, these children should be returned to their grandparents, I believe that strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativechick1989 Posted January 30, 2009 #21 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Usually 40 is the cut off point for women to have children, though in some circumstances women older then 46 have had children, yet they are allowed to keep their children, I don't see why the grandparents cant keep them, its just wrong. That was my thought also...women in their 40s having babies..."too old" If there are other reasons as to why this couple can't keep their grandchildren, then thats what should be said..."Due to hardship, etc etc"...but to say "too old" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now