The disturbing questions raised by poor little Elsie
by Caroline Farrow, The Conservative Woman:
Gay fitness instructor Matthew Scully-Hicks, who with his husband Craig adopted a baby girl they named Elsie, has been found guilty of her murder and jailed for a minimum of 18 years.
[…] One of the first things which ought to be looked at is the screening of this couple and whether or not they were subject to any positive bias on account of their sexuality and domestic situation, which perhaps led social workers to overlook any potential problems flagged up in the screening process. Many friends of mine have gone through the necessarily invasive process involved in applying to be accepted as potential adoptive parents. It is far from straightforward, every aspect of your life and psyche is scrutinised, and often prospective parents are turned down for the most minor of points.
Most couples are warned that it is unlikely that they will be able to adopt a baby of Elsie’s age, as tends to be the preference. Adopting a baby is hard and yet Matthew Scully-Hicks managed it with ease. Could this be because he was fast-tracked and, if so, why? What made these two men more suitable than a mother and father? In the case of adoption one is always trying to replace that which has been lost, i.e. a stable family unit. Given that every child has a mother, why did the social workers believe that Elsie somehow didn’t need one?
Going by many of the court transcripts it seems that Scully-Hicks was after a well-trained, good-looking pet, rather than a human baby with a unique personality and needs, especially a baby who, thanks to her traumatic beginning in life, was likely to have difficulties with attachment and to need extra reassurance.
Should we really be surprised that a man with no biological attachment to this child exhibited a stunning lack of maternal instinct? Looking after a baby can be tough, and everyone can reach the end of their tether at some point. However I doubt if you’d see a woman, especially one who had been desperate for a child of her own, take the time to refer repeatedly to the baby as a ‘Satan in a Babygro’ in text messages or talk about her as though she was possessed. In fact for someone who professed to want children, Scully-Hicks seemed utterly unprepared to exercise the self-sacrificial love required of a parent, becoming infuriated every time Elsie required his time or attention, or caused him inconvenience. Even the way Scully-Hicks described his desire for children ought to have rung alarm bells – it was all about what he and his husband as a couple wanted, rather than whether they could give a child what she needed.
Read also: A thought for today: Cultural Marxism that cost Elsie her life by Otto Inglis
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
