English couple banned from adopting because the husband smokes

That's incredible. So if you smoke you can not adopt?

www.babynamepicker.com

Reply

It certainly does seem odd. I can't imagine that being a requirement. I guess; however unfair it seems, if he wants a baby bad enough, he'll have to quit.

Reply

Smoking around infants increases the risk of SIDS quite a bit. Smoking around young children increases the risk of allergies, lung problems, cancers, etc. etc. etc. It also makes for a crappy role model for the kids. Children of smokers are a lot more likely to become smokers when they get older.

So it seems pretty reasonable to ban smokers from adopting kids... If you can really know if someone's a smoker or not. And what's to stop them from starting up with the smoking again once the adoption's complete?

Reply

I think that's a great idea, myself. I think if anyone in the family smokes they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, even if they do it outside. Research is now being shown that third-hand smoke is also dangerous. (ie the kind that lingers on your clothes and skin). Here's an article from USA today about it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-08-06-thirdhand-smoke-usat_x.htm

I've heard of people not being allowed to adopt from China because one or both of the parents was too overweight, to me being a smoker is a much more direct risk to the child.

Reply

So it's better to leave these kids... where? In foster care? In a Chinese orphanage?

If they're not abusive, or likely to both die tomorrow, let them have the child! You wouldn't take a child away from their biological parents for this, so why keep parents from adopting for this?

Reply

I live in the UK, and I've always been under the impression that it's forbidden to adopt a child if you smoke. I am a smoker but I think it's brilliant - if you want a child that badly, why do you want to poison it?

Reply

I'd also like to add - couldn't you have chosen a more reputable source than the Sun? It is notorious for being useful only for toilet paper. The stories there are half exaggeration and half fabrication, and nobody with more than two brain cells to rub together takes their opinions seriously.

Looking back on what I've just written I realise it sounds like an attack - I'm not attacking you, but the Sun itself. Just to clarify. ;oP

Reply

But why not ban people for having children if they are smokers too? Why just infertiles or people wanting to adopt?. If this measures are going to be taken, they should apply to the general population or not at all.

Reply

Let's weigh the options here... Hmmm... A child being abused, neglected and/or crammed in an orphanage with tons of other kids, or being raised by a loving couple where the guy actually *gasp* smokes outside the home!!

Don't get me wrong. I'm a former smoker, and quit when we got married. I knew it would be a bad example to our future kids, and I knew I needed to take care of my body for future pregnancies. I think smoking is a horrible thing to do to one's own body, and even more so to do it around children.

But let's look at reality -- wouldn't a child be better off with this family than in a worse situation?

Reply

From the little I know adopting here in the UK is much more policed than in the US. There is a stringent screening service that all parents must undergo - wherever they are adopting from. (and when adopting within the country it is ALL done through social services, there are NO private adoptions here. Overseas adoptions also must go through a social services screening process before they are given the OK too. It is A LOT more complicated here.)

Under two's are really in high demand, so I am sure they have no problem placing kids under two with non-smokers (so to those of you who posted before - I doubt there are kids being left in abusive relationships, or orphanages over this. In fact, I don't think there are really any orphanages anymore). I think it is telling that they only have this rule for under two's (the easy ones to place) and not for the harder to place older kids.

Anyway, I agree with Anji that the "Sun" is a piece of crap, but I didn't think it sounded weird about the smoking thing. I have lived here in the UK for about 8 years and that does ring a bell about them not offering babies to couples with a smoker.

I personally don't have a problem with it at all. Babies are highly sought after and in high demand to adopt (and they don't allow people to privately adopt like in the US, it's all gotta go through the social services dept here) so why not say the parents have to be non-smokers) Smoking is very bad for babies (and children! And everyone for that matter...). This is not the only thing they do before people adopt - not having done it myself I have been told they have to have home visits and get their houses inspected and have psychological interviews and loads of stuff first. It takes a while to be approved (and some people are not.) the smoking thing is just part of all that...

Reply

One thing that caught my eye here was that he "says that his wife makes him smoke outside".

Um, doesn't he have the courtesy to just do that himself, if she's a non-smoker?

Does that mean he would smoke around a potential kid if the wife didn't rule with an iron fist?

Or what?

Reply

Just last week, I thanked Nadine for posting an article based on a Guardian link, so it's good to hear someone else objecting to BB (yet again) drawing sensationalised stories from the Sun and other UK tabloids.

Let's stick with the broadsheet newspapers and we'll get more objective and factually correct stories.

Reply