I agree with Daphne here. Unfortunately, although statistics are very important to make important decisions, statistics are being published without prior research into the causality to give a proper background and context. Since one cannot expect everyone to be a statistician, the decision makers tend to rely on the numbers alone without requesting proper context.

With regards to single-parent issues, as Daphne said, the matter is more complicated. One cannot assume that the problems faced by children brought up in a single-parent environment are caused by the fact they’re in that environment. Most of the times, the reason that parents become a single parents IS the reason the children are having problems: poverty, neighbourhood, culture, stability of the parent/s.

This is a common problem with statistics anywhere you go. I work as a statistician for a private company, and I go to great lengths to outline the context and circumstances to give a solid background to the numbers I produce. I learned this the hard way. I have seen many bad decisions being made by the company based on the incorrect interpretation of reports I have done. When the recipients of statistics are governments, and the same lack of context is factored in, the results can be catastrophic.

B)I have been to a couple of countries where there is abject poverty and one thing that struck me is that poor children sometimes seem so much happier than ours. Obviously if children are dying of hunger then they are better off here but if they have just the bare necessities it does not mean they will be much better off here in Malta, who knows? My point is that we should avoid jumping to the conclusion that because a child is living in a poor family or in an orphanage they are badly treated or unloved it might be the case sometimes but not always.

C) The issue of same sex couples obviously complicates matters a lot. To a certain extent i would agree to a policy which would say that single men cannot adopt unless the child is a nephew, neice or grandchild. I think that it should also be the case for women. Whilst understanding the reasoning it is still discriminatory to assume that men are all child molesters and women are not. But now lets assume that Labour has its way and we will have same sex marriages in Malta and that the next step would be to allow them to adopt, how are you going to discriminate between two homosexual men and a single heterosexual man wanting to adopt? What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander maybe not the best choice of words in this case…

I did not copy and paste. In any case we are not British and for better or for worse we no longer are part of the British empire.

[Daphne – In Europe, we use British spelling, not American spelling. And in Malta, it is British English which is the OFFICIAL language, not American English. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with being British or part of an empire. In any case, why object to British ‘hegemony’ and think nothing of being colonised by American spelling and habits?]

On single parent familes I think you are mistaken as the absence of a father or a mother is liley to have negative effects on children.

[Daphne – You are quite incredible in your literalism, David. I almost enjoy it. I did not say that the absence of a parent does not have a negative effect on children. I said something else entirely: that the presence of two parents does not necessarily have a beneficial effect and that in some cases those parents cause harm. In other words, the simple presence of two parents is not enough. They must be good parents.]

The point is not what old texts say. It is a fact that a child has a better upbringing if he has both an adoptive father and a mother rather than one adoptive parent only. This is the best interest of the child, and adoption must always have as its goal the best interest of the child.

[Daphne – You need to qualify that statement. A child is better off with a father and a mother only if they’re both decent and good at their responsbilities. Otherwise, that child is better off with one decent parent.]

Studies show that children from single parent families have a greater tendency to suffer from academic, emotional and social problems. Besides adopted children also have a greater risk of suffering behavioral problems.

[Daphne – Ah, but those studies don’t factor in the specific circumstances. It is not single-parenthood itself which causes those problems, but the fact that single-parenthood is often associated with an affecting chaos, disruption and financial and emotional hardship. The children of single parents who grow up in stable homes with a degree of financial comfort have no such problems. Equally, there are children who grow up with two parents who have all manner of difficulties, because the presence of two parents does not necessarily make for stability. Also, when you copy and paste from the internet, be sure to change the spelling from American English to British Egnlish, so that we don’t realise that the words are not actually your own.]

The argument being made by the likes of Marco Cremona is that this is not the case…because the supply is so much smaller than the demand that most children will end up being adopted any ways (by couples).

But when orphans turn the age of 3 to 4, the tables turn and they become practically un-adoptable.

Whilst some might be OK with just disagreeing with The Church’s ‘unofficial’ decision but executed instruction, I prefer to make people aware of how hypocritical it really is.

Of course the discussion is going to get sidelined in every way possible but there’s nothing new there, it’s just part of the game.

For starters check your inbox for a clear example how a really ‘mature’ member of the clergy (Fr. Rene A Cilia) tried to discredit my argument.

He refers to the photo that I used in my blog http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120218/blogs/legal-but-not-possible.407382.

The kids in the photo are Tanzanian (not Ethiopian) and the photo was taken with their guardians’ permission, but because I didn’t clearly state that they are Tanzanian and not Ethiopian, Fr. Cilia asked : Are there any other facts that you adapted for the sake of an argument throughout your blogging history? Just a harmless question ;)

How desperate can one get ?

I don’t think anyone is saying “my way or no way”.

Damage?

If no child suffered under the care of a “normal” family with his biological father and his biological mother, then I would have to agree with your comment.

However, it is deeply depressing to conclude that we are morally bound to accept behaviours and doctrines which are based on blind acceptance of ancient texts rather than on the best available science and philosophy of our times.

It is encouraging to see that people are increasingly outraged by these attitudes, legitimate though religion’s entitlement to them may be.

While I do (and did) criticise the adoption agency’s policy, at the end of the day, if the agency is a charity and not a profit-making business, it should be allowed to choose its own charity work (provided it conforms to the law).

How so? The Civil Code categorically allows single people of either sex to adopt.

[Daphne – There is an approvals system. Single men are allowed to adopt only in rare circumstances – and generally if they are biologically related to the child already. Girls are never approved for adoption by single men. And I would say that given the current climate and new insight into such situations, the same thinking now applies to boys. It’s not a matter of finding a child and being allowed to adopt it automatically. Even with these legal safeguards in place, children are unsafe: remember the case of the married Maltese couple who adopted two small girls from Romania so that the husband could abuse them.]