Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt - CPS

You're reading of the law is wrong.

Regulation 25A governs the arrangements for early permanence/foster to adopt routes. 25A allows LAs to identify a prospective adopter for a child who will probably need to be adopted, but for whom a placement order has not yet been granted. This is most often newborn babies. The prospective adoptive parents are foster parent before the child is placed for adoption and are adoptive parents after the placement order is made. The idea is that a child gets continuity of care.

The more usual and traditional route of adoption takes place under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 25 of which says:

"25Parental responsibility
(1)This section applies while—
(a)a child is placed for adoption under section 19 or an adoption agency is authorised to place a child for adoption under that section, or
(b)a placement order is in force in respect of a child.
(2)Parental responsibility for the child is given to the agency concerned.
(3)While the child is placed with prospective adopters, parental responsibility is given to them.
(4)The agency may determine that the parental responsibility of any parent or guardian, or of prospective adopters, is to be restricted to the extent specified in the determination."

In other words - from the moment a child is placed with adoptive parents, those adoptive parents hold parental responsibility, shared with the local authority before the adoption order is made. Adoptive parents are not foster carers or subject to the same rules as foster carers in that scenario.

Actually in the Preston case the photo was put on a site for gay men to choose. And there was a perfect, and eager, adopter who knew and loved him dearly: His own grandmother: She was already happily bringing up his sister, and they both were counting the days till he could join them.

But an unfortunate coincidence meant that grandmother's masectomy and then her follow-up cancer treatment coincided with his birth, and his first months. Her surgeons would not permit her to lift a baby, until she got her 'all clear' and recovered her strength.

She was almost at that point, when social workers swooped on the foster mother, refusing to allow her to keep Preston for just another couple of months, which was all the surgeon had asked, before baby could join his sister in care of his grandmother.

Grandmother and foster mother did not live far apart and were in close contact, which they had agreed to continue, so the break from one carer to the next would be a gentle transition for him.

He was not a deep sleeper, (pre-natal damage?) but apart from that, was not at all a 'problem' for the foster mother. Nor likely to be a problem for his own grandmother and sister.

No, it's not nonsense at all, I'm afraid in this case. Two points.

• Status as adopted parents v foster carers. Under Regulation 25A of the Care Planning Regulations 2010, anyone who has a child placed with them for adoption is temporarily approved as what is known as a local authority foster carer until the final Adoption Order is granted in court, as per the below link. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/959/regulation/25A. As we have established, although Preston had been placed, the final adoption order had not yet been granted.The couple were effectively on probation still with Preston still in the care of the local authority.

• Safer Caring Rules At their stage in the adoption process, both JV and JMF were legally operating as foster carers under an interim care order. JV would therefore be bound by the exact same rules regarding nudity and bathing as any other foster parent. This includes no shared bathing, nudity etc and strict prohibition on naked photos.

Regardless, naked bathing of JV with Preston would not have been considered appropriate at this stage of the adoption process even though Preston had been placed with them, and in fact, as we know, absolutely did turn out to be a precursor to his sexual abuse by JV and ultimate murder. Both that and the naked photo-taking in fact would be safeguarding red flags at that point. As the jury found.

Your assumption that baby = high demand shows a really simplified understanding of the realities of the adoption process

I was talking about Preston, not the adoption process in general.

My assumption that a healthy, perfect, angelic looking little boy with huge eyes, a big smile, adorable curly hair and no record of abuse who had shown no issues in months with a foster placement would not be short of potential adoptive parents is correct, though, isn't it?

I'll eat my hat if a gay couple were the only people who could be found for Preston.

Despite what we are told prison is not the holiday camp you describe. Both perpetrators of this crime will need to be in solitary confinement for their protection. And rape in male prisons is endemic.
I am not sorry for them for they abused a small, helpless child. Basically they persuaded Social Services to given a living sex toy. But I do not want them harmed because that harms others.

Years ago, state schools were regularly visited by the 'nit-nurse'. Knowing the entire school would have their hair examined meant there was no shame, disgrace or difficulty in accepting it. If the entire school knows everyone gets a (discreet) weight and physical MOT, at intervals, and that even home-schooled and privately schooled children must have the same checks, it would seem likely to be accepted fairly readily, apart from those parents, step parents etc. who are already abusing, or intend to abuse, children over whom they have power.

The full MOT method would mean that if some children have questionable results, such as unusual bruising, it would be possible to recall the child for a follow -up, without anyone knowing why. It could be hinted that there was an unusual pulse rate, or an unusual increase, or lack of increase, in height: It could be anything. Parents, children and school-friends would not be 'identified' or marked out, just for needing a repeat of a medical MOT.

She wasn’t really perfect, was she? She was well into her sixties and suffering from cancer. My heart goes out to her, but I can quite see why it was felt adoption was in Preston’s best interests.

Actually in the Preston case the photo was put on a site for gay men to choose. And there was a perfect, and eager, adopter who knew and loved him dearly: His own grandmother: She was already happily bringing up his sister, and they both were counting the days till he could join them.

But an unfortunate coincidence meant that grandmother's masectomy and then her follow-up cancer treatment coincided with his birth, and his first months. Her surgeons would not permit her to lift a baby, until she got her 'all clear' and recovered her strength.

She was almost at that point, when social workers swooped on the foster mother, refusing to allow her to keep Preston for just another couple of months, which was all the surgeon had asked, before baby could join his sister in care of his grandmother.

Grandmother and foster mother did not live far apart and were in close contact, which they had agreed to continue, so the break from one carer to the next would be a gentle transition for him.

He was not a deep sleeper, (pre-natal damage?) but apart from that, was not at all a 'problem' for the foster mother. Nor likely to be a problem for his own grandmother and sister.

There's a site specifically for gay men to choose babies?

There's a site specifically for gay men to choose babies?

Actually in the Preston case the photo was put on a site for gay men to choose. And there was a perfect, and eager, adopter who knew and loved him dearly: His own grandmother: She was already happily bringing up his sister, and they both were counting the days till he could join them.

But an unfortunate coincidence meant that grandmother's masectomy and then her follow-up cancer treatment coincided with his birth, and his first months. Her surgeons would not permit her to lift a baby, until she got her 'all clear' and recovered her strength.

She was almost at that point, when social workers swooped on the foster mother, refusing to allow her to keep Preston for just another couple of months, which was all the surgeon had asked, before baby could join his sister in care of his grandmother.

Grandmother and foster mother did not live far apart and were in close contact, which they had agreed to continue, so the break from one carer to the next would be a gentle transition for him.

He was not a deep sleeper, (pre-natal damage?) but apart from that, was not at all a 'problem' for the foster mother. Nor likely to be a problem for his own grandmother and sister.

You don't necessarily see a photo first, you see a profile. These profiles do not make for easy reading. The profile will be full of information about the birth parents and what caused the child to gobinto care.

I only read 3 sets of profiles. One concerned a baby. His background was extremely traumatic. For a baby to be removed at birth, the profile will undoubtedly be very difficult. You have to get past that before you see the child. And actually, the one thing they did press home on our adoption course was to focus on the profile and not on photos. Traumatised children are often incredibly engaging - it is a survival trait and not how children normally behave. My younger daughter was almost the friendliest, happiest, most willing to speak to adults child in the class - it's not normal, it's a sign of disrupted attachment and is a big red flag.

It would seem sensible to let potential adopters first 'train' themselves by becoming foster parents: They would need to be very closely supported and supervised by other, more experienced, possibly retired foster parents, and some 'proxy grannies'. They would also need to be subject to frequent proper checks.

Technology could make this cheaper and easier. As well as visits to the home, and as well as an obligation to take the baby/child to medical check-ups, people could be asked to switch on a home camera, to record both the good and the bad interactions with the child. This would not be to find fault. It would show where they are doing well, and where there are difficulties, so they can be helped and advised by others who have experienced exactly the same problems: Foster parents and adopters have the necessary expertise: Social workers do not.

Home visits should not, or not only, be carried out by the peculiarly inept 'social workers', but always with cynical experienced knowledgeable experts, i.e. other existing or retired foster parents, (but not the ones already known to the novice foster parents, so with no personal bias or investment in 'approving' everything the potential parents do, because they are strangers, and not easily conned by manipulative or plausible 'friends').

Preston's foster mother, and his grandmother, were correctly alarmed, and incorrectly ignored. NHS professionals, and the unspeakably complacent, ideologically 'captured' social workers, were easily fobbed off.

Remember Baby P, whose mother smeared chocolate spread over his face to conceal injuries? Seven previous babies had been taken from her, but nothing made the social worker suspicious.

Nothing at present obliges a parent or prospective parent to attend a medical centre for the child to be stripped and checked and weighed, as well as vaccinated, at appropriate intervals. (And of course signs of venereal disease or penetration in anus or mouth or vagina should be routinely looked for, by an all female medical staff, as well as checking for 'female circumcision' i.e. female 'castration'.)

Knowing this will happen, at intervals, including to children of birth parents, would prevent a lot of abuse in the first place. Sarah Sharma and other children 'punished' by beating, and including 'home-schooled' children, would have been protected to some extent by knowing the law bans harming children, and knowing that parents are not, in Britain, slave-owners of their children, free to do as they like, to their own human 'property' regardless of injury.

Well, here is the job description for an independent reviewing officer. It looks like a desk job to me. It is all about managing case loads and knowing procedures. There is nothing in the skills section about being good with children, being able to identify harm, anything like that. https://support-for-social-workers.education.gov.uk/explore-roles/independent-reviewing-officer

It's in the Parenting section and entitled "Baby Preston Davey". Posters on there seem to think them just losing their liberty is punishment enough and I replied that I didn't want to hear about them passing their prison time taking educational courses, doing arts and crafts or whatever. I can't believe the excuses people are making for them, they were babies too once, they are sick and need help etc After reading about what they put poor little Preston through I could batter them myself and I am a peaceful, law abiding, middle aged woman. Who on earth gave these two men that beautiful little baby and who on earth didn't spot that he was being abused? I hope they live in fear every day of their lives and that prison "justice" is handed out to them on a daily basis!

Yes, they absolutely do.

Your assumption that baby = high demand shows a really simplified understanding of the realities of the adoption process

I was talking about Preston, not the adoption process in general.

My assumption that a healthy, perfect, angelic looking little boy with huge eyes, a big smile, adorable curly hair and no record of abuse who had shown no issues in months with a foster placement would not be short of potential adoptive parents is correct, though, isn't it?

I'll eat my hat if a gay couple were the only people who could be found for Preston.

It would seem sensible to let potential adopters first 'train' themselves by becoming foster parents: They would need to be very closely supported and supervised by other, more experienced, possibly retired foster parents, and some 'proxy grannies'. They would also need to be subject to frequent proper checks.

Technology could make this cheaper and easier. As well as visits to the home, and as well as an obligation to take the baby/child to medical check-ups, people could be asked to switch on a home camera, to record both the good and the bad interactions with the child. This would not be to find fault. It would show where they are doing well, and where there are difficulties, so they can be helped and advised by others who have experienced exactly the same problems: Foster parents and adopters have the necessary expertise: Social workers do not.

Home visits should not, or not only, be carried out by the peculiarly inept 'social workers', but always with cynical experienced knowledgeable experts, i.e. other existing or retired foster parents, (but not the ones already known to the novice foster parents, so with no personal bias or investment in 'approving' everything the potential parents do, because they are strangers, and not easily conned by manipulative or plausible 'friends').

Preston's foster mother, and his grandmother, were correctly alarmed, and incorrectly ignored. NHS professionals, and the unspeakably complacent, ideologically 'captured' social workers, were easily fobbed off.

Remember Baby P, whose mother smeared chocolate spread over his face to conceal injuries? Seven previous babies had been taken from her, but nothing made the social worker suspicious.

Nothing at present obliges a parent or prospective parent to attend a medical centre for the child to be stripped and checked and weighed, as well as vaccinated, at appropriate intervals. (And of course signs of venereal disease or penetration in anus or mouth or vagina should be routinely looked for, by an all female medical staff, as well as checking for 'female circumcision' i.e. female 'castration'.)

Knowing this will happen, at intervals, including to children of birth parents, would prevent a lot of abuse in the first place. Sarah Sharma and other children 'punished' by beating, and including 'home-schooled' children, would have been protected to some extent by knowing the law bans harming children, and knowing that parents are not, in Britain, slave-owners of their children, free to do as they like, to their own human 'property' regardless of injury.

You're right, and 'fake it til you make it' was a flippant way of saying that building a bond of attachment requires doing the things early on that feel unnatural because the bond doesn't yet exist.

Certainly not intended as a mantra that should deter people from seeking help.

Yes, Kathryn Joyce's book The Child Catchers is very disturbing about adoption within some sections of that subculture.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Child-Catchers-Rescue-Trafficking-Adoption/dp/1586489429

There is also a big problem with abuse within the American missionary/ Evangelical Christian adoption culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hana_Grace-Rose_Williams

To the point that many countries have banned international adoption, as so many adoptees ended up being abused or murdered.

International adoptees are very vulnerable as the adoptions are done through private agencies.

The autopsy also revealed that the boy had 80 total external injuries, 20 of which were injuries to his head.[6] The prosecution argued that a pattern of neglect and abuse was evident due to Nathaniel's low weight, failure to consistently access therapeutic care, and the injuries evident from his autopsy

According to Russian officials, it is one of many instances of Russian children's abuse and neglect at the hands of American adopters.[6][8] Russian authorities alleged that, at the time of Nathaniel's death, no fewer than 17 Russian children had died under the care of American adopters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Craver

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deceased_children_adopted_from_Russia_in_the_United_States

VIKTOR MATTHEY, born Viktor Sergeivich Tulimov age 6, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Died October 31, 2000 of cardiac arrest due to hypothermia after adoptive parents Robert and Brenda Matthey locked him overnight in a damp unheated pump room; also suffered over 40 cuts, scrapes, bruises and untreated fractures. Robert Matthey admitted beating Viktor with an aluminum baseball bat, a belt, 2 whips, and his open hand.

That is true.

What is not true is that it follows from that that every baby placed for adoption has multiple applicants wanting to adopt them.

A headline approach of 'baby = high demand' doesn't reflect the reality.

Lots of people go into adoption preferring babies. Then they hit up against the reality that the ideal image of the perfect baby, voluntarily relinquished by a healthy mum, largely doesn't exist.

For any given baby, there is a very high likelihood that they will have been exposed to drugs, alcohol, violence or all three in utero. And unlike with an older child, doctors will usually have no idea what the long term impacts might me.

For any given baby, there will be specific plans in place for direct or (more commonly still) indirect contact with birth family. The more extensive that can be the more offputting it can be to some adopters.

For any given baby there may be questions about inheritable genetic conditions, some with the potential to be life-limiting which can't be tested for at such a young age and which may or may not manifest later in life.

Your assumption that baby = high demand shows a really simplified understanding of the realities of the adoption process.