When there is a problem in the home of a child, the courts tend to find someone else functional within the same family to care for the youth. This is both common and logical unless of course there is a PC agenda tied to gay rights nonsense in play. In that case, the rights of the family are unwelcomed and it may even lead to the death of the child in question, as the Christian Science Monitor reports today.
They confirm that “gay fitness instructor Matthew Scully-Hicks” and his husband, Craig, “adopted a baby girl they named Elsie.” They were fast-tracked over the capable grandparents and now have “been found guilty of her murder in the UK and jailed for a minimum of 18 years.”
This is not to assert that gay men are more prone to killing a child than anyone else, but rather, that because they were gay, they were given the green light with great haste. Others would have been screened more completely or simply been denied in favor of the family, gay or not.
Cornwall Live reports that “the toddler sustained fractures, bruising to her forehead, other injuries and a squint in her left eye.” This was a serious case of abuse and little is being done regarding it.
A Serious Case Review is already working to get those that allowed the adoption to take place a way out. They are calling the event “rogue” case and attest that “what happened was completely abnormal, unexpected and could not have been predicted.” This is according to David Niven, former head of the British Association of Social Workers and chairman of two safeguarding boards in England.
First of all, we have no data to show that his assessment is factual and second of all, it could have been prevented by allowing the maternal family to raise the child when drug addiction consumed the mother, as was the case.
It is thought that liberal social workers made the screening much easier on this couple because they were gay and it fit into the mold that is championed by those on the left. Babies as young as Elsie are hard to adopt because everyone wants a child that young, too, yet this couple managed to get approved easily.
The Monitor asks, “Could this be because he was fast-tracked and, if so, why? What made these two men more suitable than a mother and father?” They also ask, “why did the social workers believe that Elsie somehow didn’t need” a stable family and an environment that consisted of others in her family unit?
The gay parent called the child “Satan in a Babygro” and spoke about her as if she was possessed by an evil spirit. Would the grandmother have ever done so?
Beyond even that, it is asked, “Why was Elsie’s birth grandmother, who was already caring for two siblings and was desperate to adopt her, denied the opportunity?” Anyone who knows a bit about social work knows that when a mother is an addict, the grandparents often raise the child, yet for the good of a PC agenda, this seems to have been negated.
Basically, once all rhetorical questions have been exhausted, the bottom line is that this gay couple was moved to the front of the line in order to place a baby with a homosexual pair that fit the leftist mindset of the agency. This led to a poor choice of parents being chosen and that led to the child’s death.
As much as the left wishes not to hear it, those are the facts as they appear to be. Sometimes, facts are just not politically correct.