Gay couple left free to abuse boys - because social workers feared being branded homophobic


September 5, 2007
Paul Sims

A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.

Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.

They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.

With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.

In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.

Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men's explanations and did nothing.

Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.

In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as "trophy carers".

The children's charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.

The report, following an independent review of the case, said: "One manager described the couple as 'trophy carers' which led to 'slack arrangements' over placement.

"Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a 'badge' which made things less questionable.

"The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not 'thinking the unthinkable'.

"It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.

"The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive."

The report also accused the council of failing to carry out proper assessments before and after the children were placed with Faunch and Wathey.

"Issues arose in the first longer-term placement of two children, including potential indicators of child sexual abuse, which were inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon," it said.

"More children were then placed with Faunch and Wathey, some successfully, some with concerns which were again inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon.

"The practice of some social workers in this case was deficient."

The report's authors, led by former Surrey social services chief Brian Parrott, said they could not be sure that Faunch and Wathey were "predatory paedophiles" who became foster carers in order to have access to children.

They added: "Our criticisms are much more of those in middle management whose job it was to piece together what was really happening, to ask the right questions and to be critical and probing."

Wathey, 42, was jailed for five years in June last year after being convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child and one offence of causing a child to watch sexual activity.

Faunch, 33, received a six-year jail sentence after he was found guilty of five charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child and two of taking indecent photographs of a child.

The couple, who lived together in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, were approved as foster carers by the council in August 2003.

Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism,who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch gay pornography.

Another youngster with a "very troubled background" was only in their care for a few weeks before being abused by Faunch.

But social workers had been aware of "inappropriate" behaviour long before then.

Just eight months after they started as professional foster carers a mother of eight-year-old twins, who couldn't cope with raising them on her own, voiced concerns about them with social services.

While visiting the twins, the 34-yearold single mother was shown a picture taken by Faunch showing one of the boys going to the lavatory during a visit to Butlin's holiday camp in Skegness and discovered a similar snap had been taken of the other twin.

A social worker took the photograph and promised a full investigation.

But the court heard that not only did social services staff lose the photo, they decided against contacting police after accepting Faunch's explanation that he was trying to embarrass the boys into shutting the lavatory door.

Police later discovered that, days after the photos were taken, Faunch recorded an indecent video of the twins taking a shower. They began abusing the boys three months later.

Undetected, the offences continued over an 11-month period, Leeds Crown Court was told last year.

Police were called in to investigate the couple only after one of the abused boys told a woman he had been touched by one of the men.

Faunch abused all four boys and Wathey targeted one of them.

Judge Sally Cahill, QC, said neither had shown "empathy, remorse or any responsibility for their actions".

Yesterday's report said that the fostering panel which approved Faunch and Wathey accepted without hesitation their request to look after only boys on the basis that they didn't feel equipped to look after girls.

The report made 41 recommendations for overhauling the council's fostering process.

Last night, Michelle Elliott, a director of Kidscape, said: "Common sense went out of the window when they allowed political correctness to take over in this case.

"I don't care if you are homosexual or bisexual - if you are taking care of children you need to be vetted and subjected to the same investigation as anyone else.

"Child abuse knows no gender boundaries."

Elaine McHale, the council's corporate director of family services, said it would be "inappropriate" to comment on the report until after a meeting of the full council on September 12.


Down Under

A telling-sign-of-the-times article on adoption reform in Australia reads:

The committee also recommended faith-based adoption agencies be allowed to refuse same-sex couples, but be obliged to refer them to services that could assist them.

Endorsed by a narrow margin of four votes to three, the Committee remained divided over the issue even as they announced its release.

The Coalition’s David Clarke and Labor’s Greg Donnelly, who sat on the committee, have indicated they would be advising their parties to block any reforms.

“I don’t think there is any mandate for the Government to act in this report and I don’t think it is in the best interest of the children,” Clarke said.

He said he was concerned about forcing religious organisations to “go against their beliefs” and refer same-sex couples to other agencies.   [From:  "Pollies, to fight adoption reform", Ani Lamont, July 14, 2009,]

Let's forget the religious notion that a child's best interests can be served by/through a married couple, (suggesting married people NEVER have secret identities and sexual secrets...and married people NEVER break, separate, and divorce). If one agency can refuse an adopting candidate, yet refer that "less than desirable parent for a child" to another agency (where workers are getting paid to provide a service for those in want and need), who is to say there will not be more agency approved adoptive parents like those found HERE?

Wouldn't the increase in private so-called non-profit adoption agencies give rise to even MORE corruption and unethical practices within the child placement system?

If you ask me, I tend to think Political Correctness (and the fear of discrimination lawsuits) often times gets in the way of child-safety.


You raise an interesting question, which goes to the core of what is wrong about adoption practices, a complete lack of standards when it comes to the best interest of the child.

It's an absurd situation that an adoption agency would refer "less desirable" prospective adoptive parents to another adoption agency that may be willing to accept their application. It's already a disgrace prospective adoptive parents can shop for the most lenient adoption agency, or move to a more lenient jurisdiction when things in their back ground doesn't add up, but it's another thing to ask an adoption agency to make that referral.

In whose interest is this happening? Are religious organizations acting on behalf of the child's best interest. Probably not. The Catholic church has had a tense relationship with homosexuality for a long time and it directly translates to their adoption policies. Some of the gay-friendly adoption agencies are on the other end of the spectrum, being advocates of the gay-rights movement. Again, the best interest of the child is not the prime, let alone the sole motivation.

Betwixt and between these two camps, are social workers, policy makers and child's right activists, who are often afraid to come off as homophobic. The case, the article above relates to, is a prime example how political correctness can lead to a lack of investigation of prospective adoptive parents. The Frank Lombard case is still too early to discuss in that light, but we will learn in the near future if similar attitudes plagued that case.

The entire subject of gay adoption still has to focus on the best interest of the child. It shouldn't be about religion, nor should it be about gay-rights. If it's in the best interest of the child to have the additional demand for children from gay couples, then all agencies should act in the best interest of the child and place children with gay couples as well as hetero-sexual couples and singles. If it's not in the best interest of children to be placed with gay couples, no agencies should do that. It would be an absurd idea to have different sets of ethical standards for the placement of children.

Pound Pup Legacy