Originally Posted by Chris

That kind of misses Daddy's point - the fewer foster caters there are, the more children will have to be cared for in Tracey Beaker style orphanages. Having several sets of foster carers is far from ideal, but growing up in a children's home is even less so.

Sadly we have a situation in this country where the branch of the State that is responsible for children's care has a deep-seated institutional belief that it knows best, to the exclusion of all other thoughts and opinions. In this case that belief now appears to have the backing of case law, which is very unfortunate indeed.

What has happened here is uncomfortably close to defining something as a thought crime IMO. Tolerance of a contrary view or lifestyle does not have to extend to approval of or agreement with that view. So far as we can see, this couple had nothing else against them as far as being foster parents goes. Smply the possibility that if asked, they would be unable to agree with the State's approved view on one aspect of morality. And because of that, there may now be other parents or carers who don't get badly-needed respite care due to there being too few short-term foster caters available.