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

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.

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.

Has it come out what school this man worked at? Were there any concerns raised about him there?

The majority of babies removed from birth parents and freed for adoption by the courts have been exposed to drugs, alcohol, domestic abuse, poor nutrition and chaotic lifestyles while in utero. Many will be affected for the rest of their lives by neurodevelopmental conditions such as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Yes, they absolutely do.

I think I may have finally found a point where we can agree! As an experienced adopter, I utterly loathe the mantra of ‘fake it till you make it’. It’s reckless advice that can prevent adopters from reaching out for help if they are struggling. The reality is that some children are so traumatised from their prenatal and early life experiences, they may never be able to live happily in safe and loving homes.

Read my post again.

Each year gay couples and single men adopt hundreds of children. So what is your plan for those children in the future? Just longer time in foster care?

There is no evidence that those children are at any greater risk compared to children raised by straight adopters, lesbian couples or single women.

In fact, what evidence there is tells us that children adopted by gay (and lesbian) couples tend to have marginally better outcomes than those adopted by straight couples.

So those who advocate for removing hundreds of adopters each year from the pool should tell us what plans they have for the children that would otherwise have been adopted.

JACOB LINDORFF, (birth name unknown) age 5, Gloucester Twp., New Jersey. Died December 14, 2001 of blunt force trauma to head. Also suffered from 2nd degree burns on feet, haemorrhaging in 1 eye; bruises, and seizures. Adoptive mother Heather Lindorff, 36, was found guilty of 2nd degree endangering, aggravated assault and sentenced to 6 years.

Adoptive father, James, 54, sentenced to 4 years probation and 400 hours of community service for child abuse. Couple also adopted 3 bio-sisters from Russia, Jacob was one of a fraternal twins; placed with the Lindorffs only 18 months after the sisters arrived.

That same month DYFS learned that children were back living with Lindorffs. Medical examinations found four children were malnourished, abused, and neglected.

In September 2007, James Lindorff and Mildred Cullinan were charged in a murder-for-hire plot to kill a witness.

There is already a massive shortfall of prospective adopters. There are in excess of three thousand babies and children waiting for forever homes currently.

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.

I think if we treat prospective adoptive parents like potential criminals we won’t have many prospective parents wanting to adopt.

That's horrendous. Of course, being a missionalry, he probably was seen as "god fearing" and bla bla bla, when in fact he probably became a missionary in the first place because that meant vulnerable children to abuse. 😡

No we don't do it because the state does not have that level of control over people's private lives. The state doesn't choose to place a child witha family, and by default it assumes that the biological parents are generally best placed to look after the child's interests.

Adoption is completely different: the parents are NOT the biological parents, and the state DOES choose to place the child there. The degree of responsibility for that child's wellbeing that the state assumes is doing so is therefore FAR higher.

ETA: your point about the "rights" of fathers is both concerning (because we shouldn't put a father's right over the child's interests, but also proves my point. It's because of the biological link that the father automatically has those rights.

When a child is adopted, the state undertakes to eliminate potential adopters who would be a danger to the child. This may not be foolproof, but when it goes so catastrophically wrong as it has this time, surely it's reasonable to query the selection process, instead of saying "Ah well, sure biological parents also abuse children too"? That's no excuse!

This is a case from 2000. An adoptive father had abused his twin adopted babies, and one was killed.

A report into the death of a Romanian baby boy who was legally adopted by a County Armagh man has strongly criticised a Northern Ireland health trust.

The boy, who suffered multiple fractures, was buried without the injuries ever being explained.
It is understood the couple who adopted the boy and his twin brother have been questioned by police in connection with the death.
Former overseas missionary Geoffrey Briggs from Portadown, the boy's adoptive father, was later jailed for fracturing the skull of the child's twin brother.
The 45-page Department of Heath report published on Thursday, is highly critical of the Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust, which oversaw the adoption.
One of the key findings said there was a failure to visit and support the children along with poor record-keeping.
Briggs adopted the nine-month-old twin boys under Romanian law in July 2000.
Less than four months later, one was dead and the other had a fractured skull.

Mr Briggs admitted having punched the child, and was later convicted of grievous bodily harm, and sentenced to two years in prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northernireland/3079348.stm

It is very true that men are more likely to abuse children, but then what do we do? Ban dads, stepdads, uncles, grandads, from family homes until the child is verbal? I know you’re not suggesting this but actually it would save a lot more children than the two named on this thread. We don’t do this because we recognise the rights of men to be fathers and that they bring positive things to the lives of children. I guess it’s similar here.

Whether there is an argument for men not being given non verbal children I cannot say, but the case of Elsie / Shayla wasn’t one with a sexual element AFAIK; he had a very nasty temper.

And that is absolutely the correct approach ONCE we're sure that the selection process has weeded out the unsuitable people.

It turns out that (assuming the procedures were followed in this and other cases where adopted babies were abused and/or murdered) that this isn't the case. So surely telling adoptive parents to "fake it till they make it" is reckless, and it would be a lot better to consider adoption as a more gradual process, and to advise parents to take their time before exposing the child to, eg, adult nudity.

That society has been over optimistic in the past about this is not a reason to consider doing it when the consequences for the child can be so disastrous.

What?? So if something turns out to have been a mistake, we should keep doing it in the future because we can't go back to the past and repair previous instances of this mistake?

And just to be clear, I haven't said that all single or gay men should be prevented from adopting. But I think there's a huge problem if, out of political correctness we can't even discuss the fact that men are more often abusers than women, and consider whether adopters with no female component may be more likely to abuse.

But do they actually ever see the child? When we adopted, the placing authority social workers visited every 6 weeks. We had gone through a local VA and our social worker visited too, I can't remember how often. The placing authority were disinterested tbh and we used to get a frantic call asking if they could come the next day, like they had forgotten about us and had suddenly realised their statutory duties. I hope it's changed.

By the way, no one advocating that we prevent gay couples and single men from adopting have explained what their plan is for the hundreds of children each year adopted by those men.

You obviously have knowledge about the set-up which I don’t. However, my instinct is that there should be an independent person assigned to a non-verbal child, placed for adoption, who can observe what is going on in the adoptive family home, especially in the early months, and liaise with other agencies. A little bit like a Health Visitor ++. Does this routinely happen?

Also factor in that at one time many young unmarried women who became pregnant, unless they married quickly, were forced to give up their babies for adoption to save the family from "shame" so more newborn were available for adoption 😒

The independent reviewing role is a statutory one.

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.

Of course it wasn't innocent in this situation. But more broadly I am making the point that treating a parent as showing red flags if they bathe with their young children is nonsense.

And I'm afraid your claim about bonding and attachment is also wrong. You are right that a child might not feel like 'your child' right away (but then that can also happen with biological parents) but the advice tends to be to build attachment, you fake it until you make it.

You don't shy away from intimate care, skin to skin contact etc. An adopted child will often have been denied that nurture (for good reasons) when in care. The aim of attachment to adoptive parents is to build that secure and long term attachment. Which means parents acting like any other parents, being the primary caregiver with all that entails, right from the start. It is about sending a clear message to a child that these are your parents - their role in your life is different to anyone else.

Ok. Where were they, then?