My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

News

No legal aid = baby adopted

943 replies

CFSKate · 09/10/2015 07:54

I saw this on Channel 4 News yesterday, I only saw it part way through, but it went something like this, there was a couple who were accused of abusing their child, they couldn't get legal aid, the court had the child adopted, and then it went to court again and new evidence said there was a medical condition and the parents weren't guilty of abuse, but the adoption is final, they can't get their baby back.

OP posts:
AuntieStella · 09/10/2015 08:00

BBC article on the case

It doesn't mention legal aid, have you got a link to something that does? It all started in 2012 (which was after the coalition's Act was passed, but before it came into effect in 2013 so availability would have been old rules, wouldn't it?)

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 08:16

It does raise an issue, doesn't it?

The pro-adoption lobby won't want to hear about it and the baby-snatching tinfoil hat brigade won't hear of justifiable adoptions, BUT in the middle, there must be a debate to be had about the irreversible nature of adoption in such cases.

claig · 09/10/2015 08:16

"The couple had not been given legal aid to fight the adoption in the family court, and criticised the decision to finalise the adoption before the criminal court had made its ruling. Ms Cox's lawyers told ITV News the couple have been failed by every aspect of the state."

www.itv.com/news/london/2015-10-08/anguished-parents-wrongly-accused-of-child-abuse-unlikely-to-see-child-again/

Our country is going to the dogs. There is a politically correct blanket over it and nobody challenges it. Channel 4 News never even bothered interviewing any politicians about this to ask them what is going on. We need a new politics with people who have common sense rather than being in thrall to this creeping political correctness.

"Struggling to put into words the pain of the separation, they vowed to fight with "every breath they have" until their child is returned to them."

ConstanceMarkYaBitch · 09/10/2015 08:19

Adoption has to be irreversible at some point, it would be too hard on the children and adopters otherwise. Sounds like in this case they should have been fostered with visitation instead but I doubt it has much to do with legal aid.

claig · 09/10/2015 08:21

'It doesn't mention legal aid, have you got a link to something that does?'

I'm not surprised the BBC didn't mention that they didn't get legal aid. Also the BBC has the headline "charges dropped" which is not a good enough headline. At least the ITV article says "parents wrongly accused".

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 08:22

If this case is discussed on the adoption board claig the arguments will largely be that the adoption should stand in the interest of the child (I predict) because that factor is held by the pro-adoption lobby to be of overwhelming, over-riding importance.

That's more ideology than political correctness, isn't it?

Ledkr · 09/10/2015 08:22

This is scary.
I work in adoption and still have no idea how this mess is best sorted out.
Such a tragdy for everyone invokved.
The child will experience such strong and mixed emotions when his story is told to him, imagine yiur anger at not growing up in your birth family for no reason.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 08:22

X post with Constance

AnyoneButAndre · 09/10/2015 08:23

Hang on claig. Is removing babies from parents who are believed to be regularly injuring them "political correctness" now? In your right-thinking common sense world would the courts just say "it's your own child, treat them how you like"? The lessons of what went so horribly wrong for this family need to be learned and acted on, but I'm totally failing to get where political correctness is at fault.

Palomb · 09/10/2015 08:25

Nobody would adopt of if there was a a chance the child could be taken back at some unknown point in the future. Can you imagine living with that possibility hanging over your head?

claig · 09/10/2015 08:26

'That's more ideology than political correctness, isn't it?'

It is a politically correct ideology that no one dares challenge, that TV broadcasters don't even question or invite anyone on to discuss. How can it be right to deny a child to their own parents for life? What suffering are these politically correct ideologues capable of inflicting and who stands on the side of parents? Why is there no help for parents? Where are human rights?

fastdaytears · 09/10/2015 08:27

in the interest of the child (I predict) because that factor is held by the pro-adoption lobby to be of overwhelming, over-riding importance.

Genuine question because I only really come across anyone who's very pro-adoption and so know nothing about the other side of the fence, what is the alternative position to the children's needs being paramount?

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 08:27

They also reported on c4 news that they could have no contact at all with their child, even if you're of the opinion that moving the child from their adoptive parents would be unsettling surely he should be entitled to know his biological parents??!!

claig · 09/10/2015 08:28

'but I'm totally failing to get where political correctness is at fault.'

Of course you are. But wait until UKIP get in. I bet it will end then. There will then be legal aid and an end to secret family courts and a presumption of innocence instead of as these parents said that they were treated as guilty.

ConstanceMarkYaBitch · 09/10/2015 08:30

Is there something wrong with decisions being based on the best interests of the child? What else should it be based on?

Sansoora · 09/10/2015 08:30

A family lawyer just interviewed on GMB commented on the lack of legal aid aspect of things.

I dont know how they could possibly be given their child back now but surely there is a case to be argued for no child being placed for adoption till the parents have had their day in court.

Obs2015 · 09/10/2015 08:31

Failed by every area of the state?
So this is an injustice? Thus an injustice should be corrected, if at all possible.

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 08:31

Oh yeah ukip will solve everything... Wtf?!

Obs2015 · 09/10/2015 08:32

Wonders how old the child is?
I still think the child SHOULD be given back, if at all possible.
Why are the authorities at least not TRYING to work towards that objective?

fastdaytears · 09/10/2015 08:33

a presumption of innocence instead of as these parents said that they were treated as guilty. is that a legal argument or the parents' emotional reaction? Is there anything to show how the legal process would be changed? I imagine everyone who's essentially put on trial feels like people think they're guilty. Or do you mean to change the standard of proof?

Sansoora · 09/10/2015 08:33

The wee one is 3 now.

fastdaytears · 09/10/2015 08:36

I don't understand the Legal Aid thing. Having a child at risk of being taken into care is one of the criteria listed on the gov website and it seems obvious that help should be available for this. Have the rules changed?

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 08:37

Genuine question because I only really come across anyone who's very pro-adoption and so know nothing about the other side of the fence, what is the alternative position to the children's needs being paramount?

Naturally the bias on the adoption board is usually that adoptive or foster carers and continuation in that setting are 'best' for the needs of any child in question. Of course, there is a good argument for that in attachment terms, when the subject is a baby or toddler.

What is the alternative position?

Factoring in some recognition that a child's long term needs are worth balancing against their immediate bonding situation?

Recognising that when a family wrongly has their child removed despite no wrongdoing on their part, then some attempt at remedy is necessary in order to disincentive the repetitions?

There must be psychological expertise out there somewhere (e.g. such as is used when kidnapped children are recovered) which could be used to inform and temper the legal picture.

fastdaytears · 09/10/2015 08:39

Ok so when you say the pro-adoption lobby put children's needs as highest priority then you mean their short term needs rather than their long term wellbeing?

brokenvases · 09/10/2015 08:40

I read this yesterday and it was heartbreaking. I suspect they will end up with apologies, compensation and no child. :(

The child should never have been adopted while the case was open. I think the only way forward now would be like they have done with children who have been mixed up in birth and give access to the birth parents.

I don't know how it would work though.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.