Press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The buttons below expand or collapse all articles.
February 4, 2009 permalink
The adoption of three pubescent boys by two homosexual men has drawn commentary, some inflammatory. Below is a thoughtful analysis by Dr Marty McKay. Dr McKay has previously appeared here as critic of the megadoses of psychotropic drugs for CAS ward "J".
Why are pubescent boys being adopted by homosexual couple?
February 1, 2009
Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx may be stellar individuals and wonderful role models for all I know, but I still have to ask what was their motivation to adopt 3 pubescent boys, and why did the Children's Aid Society allow this to happen to these boys?
I was one of the busiest psychologist consultants for Catholic Children's Aid Society, starting in 1976. I saw hundreds of these unadoptable children. By the time that a foster child had reached 9 or 10, we knew that the child was not going to bond with a parent figure. They were not adoptable. The focus was on providing care and maintaining family relationships, even though those family relationships may have been problematic and the reason why the children were in care in the first place. They needed these primary attachments. In other words, they were Crown Wards with Access. They would grow up in care, but they would remain attached to their birth parents and kinship bonds. These children typically had many problems and did not fit into foster homes, so there were many moves. The growth in group homes came as a result of this population of children who needed basic care but who were not going to form parent-child bonds with anyone else, children who had "special needs," i.e. many emotional and behavioural issues. A Society lawyer was known to say that any kid growing up in Regent Park had been sexually abused before reaching age 12. This was his catchment area but could apply to many neighborhoods, given the large number of pedophiles which live amongst us.
So, back to Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx. Suddenly, 2 homosexuals with presumably no parental experience can deal with not one, not two, but 3 foster boys of the demographic that not even seasoned foster parents can manage in a family setting---pubescent foster boys who may have a history of abuse and expect it and need extra care, children who are vulnerable, distrustful and rebellious. I was especially troubled by the fact that this couple was able to hire their own social service worker to approve their parenting plan. What kind of oversight for vulnerable children is this? It has been demonstrated that the rate of pedophilia is high among homosexual men -- reference the existence and lobbying efforts of the National Man Boy Love Association. This is not to say that every homosexual is a pedophile, of course, or that Mustafa and Groulx are. I want to make it clear that I am not making this assertion about them.
However, given that the incidence of pedophilia is higher among homosexual men, the risk of placement of children, particularly boys, particularly pubescent boys with surging levels of hormones, is necessarily higher. Yet, this risk is not taken into account in adoption placement, and thus there is a dereliction of duty to protect these children. I cannot help but hypothesize that these children are being placed at higher risk in order to placate the homosexual community, but if the child welfare system loses its focus on its mandated priority -- the protection of children -- it loses the reason for its existence and becomes a danger in itself.
I was also concerned about the fact that these boys were moved far away from their community and away from their friends and sources of support and assistance if they run into trouble in their "adoptive family."
I also have other other admittedly dangerous and incendiary questions for the child welfare system. Given that the government provides funding for foster children, and that group homes reap benefits from youths growing up in care, and given that these benefits end when a child is adopted, what is their motivation in providing homes for pubescent boys who don't want to be adopted. Are these children essentially for sale? Is the CAS trying to reduce its liability given the amount of abuse that happens while children are in their care? It appears, that contrary to their legal rights, these children may have been used as property, put up to bidders, without having their legal rights to consent or refuse their placement. The law presumes capacity to make decisions about one's residence, irrespective of age, (Substitute Decisions Act, 1992) but there is nothing in the newspaper article that indicated that these children knew that they had these rights and were able to exercise them. If the Children's Aid Society were to go into the human trafficking business, they have a good supply and there is undoubtedly a high demand.
Dr Marty McKay
Source: email from Marty McKay