This story is gob-smacking.
So, a straight couple who are drug fucked, the mother spent time in jail for the death of one her kids after the 7 month old boy was given morphine and benzodiazepine by the parents. Poor kid, was probably crying from neglect. The mother had a long history of being drug fucked.
The girl left was taken away by social services after the death of the boy, and has since been looked after by a lesbian couple since she was six months old. The lesbian couple now wish to adopt the girl as their own. The law was changed in New South Wales in 2010 allowing them to do so as a same sex couple.
Unbelievably, the fucked up straight parents objected to the daughter being bought up by a same sex couple. Why? Because the parents were "practicing Catholics" and didn't "feel comfortable" with same sex parents in charge of her daughter for religious reasons.
WTF? What sort of practicing Catholicism allows a parent to be drug fucked to the point of killing a seven month old baby boy with their own drugs? What sort of practicing Catholicism allows someone who's done that to feel they have any sort of moral authority over a same sex couple (who are both university graduates)? A straight birth parent who is demonstrably not capable of raising a cat let alone an offspring.
Thankfully the magistrate granted the same sex couple their wish in light of it all, but my heart goes out to those two women who were dragged through the courts for nothing more than religious bigotry.
The NSW Supreme Court heard the birth mother was "a practising Catholic and she is not comfortable with the placement of CJD with the proposed adoptive parents because of her upbringing and religious values".
The lesbian couple, who are both university educated, have been in a stable and loving relationship for almost a decade. However, they told the court they couldn't raise CJD as a Catholic given the religion's longstanding opposition to homosexual relationships.
The birth father told the court he was from a Catholic family and wanted his daughter to be raised in that faith.
He said if the birth mother wasn't granted care of the girl, he wanted to, because he was "deprived of the opportunity to be a father" when the child was taken away by social services.
Justice John Sackar found both the mother and father, who has significant mental health issues and learning difficulties, were incapable of caring for the girl, who has some behavioural challenges, likely caused by her mother's drug use in pregnancy.
He said while the law required cultural and religious ties to be preserved "as far as possible", those concerns should not predominate alongside the child's best interests.
"Religion of course is only one of a multitude of factors the court is to consider in determining CJD's best interests," he said.
"While the birth parents' religious beliefs must be respected, the proposed adoptive parents' attitude to the Catholic faith requires equal respect."
The adoption agency Barnardos, acting on behalf of the Department of Family and Community Services, submitted it wasn't in CJD's best interests to be baptised or christened because the adoptive parents "would not be able to facilitate her involvement and development with Catholicism due to their sexual orientation".
"They do not want to go to church, stand up and commit to raising CJD as a Catholic when they could not commit to doing so," the agency said.
Justice Sackar said most concerning was the birth mother's refusal to accept responsibility for her son's death. She was granted parole after 3½ years but returned to jail after failing drug tests. Furthermore, the birth father did not accept his former partner was a risk to their child. Sydney Morning Herald