Dear Sir,
I was interested to read your report in the March issue of en about Richard Page, who was reprimanded for saying that the best outcome for a child who is to be adopted is to be with a mother and father.
I too have been a magistrate for 17 years and was on the Family Bench. I too said that I could not agree to placing a child with a gay couple and was immediately removed from the Family Bench. I suggested that evidence from research pointed to the fact that children thrive better in all areas of their life by being with a mum and dad, but I was also concerned to point out that many single parents, because of circumstances, e.g. death of a spouse, do an excellent job of bringing up children.
I had various discussions and the senior staff who questioned me had to agree that they had no evidence to suggest that I was prejudiced against any group of people. I asked if I could just not be on the rota on the day that a gay couples adoption came up but it was a categorical ‘no’. I could not sit on the Family Bench at all.
Two years later we were informed that the Family Bench were short of magistrates and so new people would be trained (at some cost to the tax payer). A colleague contacted the powers that be to ask if I could return to the Family Bench as I was experienced and it would save time and money. Again the answer was a definite ‘no’.
Sadly over the years there have been a number of Christians who have had to leave the Family Bench for the same reason.
Yours faithfully,
