Adoption order rejected, child returned to birth family

[Lilka]

In the news today

Basically, in a first as far as I've seen, a Judge has rejected an adoption order application and returned the child to their birth family - I say returned, actually the baby has never lived with this aunt. The child was placed at 7 months, and is 20 months old now, but it was 5 months into the adoptive placement until the birth fathers identity was fully established (wrong bf named initially) and although the actual bf is incapable of parenting right now, he fought the adoption so the baby could live with his sister, who has been positively assessed, and the judge ruled in their favour after the hearing in November. The LA and Child's Guardian supported the Aunt.

Daily Mail article

The full court judgement is here, obviously better than any news story, but much longer

I have many conflicted feelings about the case and Judge's decision, but of course my thoughts are mostly with the baby's [s]adoptive[/s] parents right now

I also wonder whether this decision will impact upon future cases or not. Professional views on the case? (Spero?)

Kewcumber, you may be interested in a bizarre case in America. I'll name them otherwise it's too confusing and the details are on Google anyway.

A little girl named Rebecca was born to a young couple named Whitney and Kevin. A day later, a lady called Paula had a baby girl she called Callie.

Three years later, Callie's Dad demanded a paternity test and it turned out she wasn't related to Paula either. After some hunting, it was discovered Callie was the biological child of Whitney and Kevin, and they had been raising Paula's child. However, Whitney and Kevin had both been killed in a traffic fatality and Rebecca (Paula's biological daughter) was being raised by grandparents.

Both girls were 3 and the judge decreed they were to stay in the homes they had raised in as according to a child psychologist removing Rebecca would be akin to losing her parents all over again. Both girls are now adults and very attached to the families that raise them but have strong links with the 'other' family - I think Callie more so with her biological sister.

I still feel I shock by this judgement tbh. Completely agree that this decision makes a mockery of adoption becoming a family by law rather than biology. This now presents as adoptive parents effectively being unpaid, unprepared foster carers with a huge degree of uncertainty over whether the adoption order will be granted. How can that be good for our children? At least before this judgement we were able to reassure our kids that we are their forever family and will always be here.

On a separate note this is extremely worrying for our LO's very complex case. Is there anyone with a legal background on here who I could pm for advice please?

italian Adventuring has it right, I was indeed talking about both sets of prospective parents. Both birth parents have prime culpability here with a bit of social services thrown in for good measure just to make sure things got really messy.

Oh Kew my apologies. I am so sorry I misread that. Yes, you are right. Although I am not sure about the aunt and her motivation. Can I say on here what I really think or do I need to be nice to everyone!

Dibly, agree completely. Feels very much today that we are out on a limb, as unpaid carers and all the certainty of matching, placement etc is worthless. And the fact that in a case of such importance they didn't get a psychologist to actually meet the key people is just breathtakingly wrong.
Can't even begin to fathom how the adopters involved are coping.

I guess I have to say what I am thinking or readers might jump to a negative conclusion about my thoughts of the aunt. I don't feel negative about her I just worry that the aunt (as she was raised by her own aunt for part of her childhood and as the raising of children by extended family is a cultural thing where she is from) may be doing this in some way as a favour to her brother. How do we know what pressure he has put on her to help him out!

I am not sure I understand here thinking either when she says... The aunt said frankly that she thought her brother could have done better towards C, but he is a very quiet person, just a very caring father and very caring brother.

Yet her brother does not live with his older child, even though he is in a relationship with the birth mum. And he won't live with this child.

Will the aunt remain single or will she have a new partner and the child will need to share her with a new partner and her existing child? In normal situations this is not an issue but for a troubled child this may be hard. Change, change and maybe more change. I don't think single adopters should need to stay single but for someone of only 29 it seems hard to see that she won't maybe meet someone else.

I am sure she has the best of intentions, I just feel sad everyone has glazed over the impact on this little lad. What if the aunt cannot cope with a new grieving child. Adopters came to adoption, usually, after a very long period of considering adoption and a process of preparing ourselves for the role of parent to a grieving and maybe troubled child.

I really, really hope she will cope well and I am sure she would be a good mother to the boy, I just feel he already had parents who love him.

Every thought you have had, I have had, IG.

Thanks Barbadosgirl, it's good to know I am not mentally making up problems that do not exist!

I am not saying single adopters should stay single! But often they might be encouraged to for a while to enable stability. Maybe a single adopter could tell me if this is the case?

This lady has said in her statements she will stay single for the foreseeable future but she is young, 29 is young to me!

She may meet someone and that could have a huge impact on this child.

Especially if she has another child.

It is a lot to ask people, possibly to not get in a relationship, possibly not have more kids soon, or ever!

Adopters are prepared for all this and many (not all I know) are older and some (like me!) well past any future child bearing and many (also like me and the majority in real life in my experience) have had fertility issues so more kids are not usually on the cards.

No staying single wasn't even mentioned to me. However with quite a few years as a single adopter under my belt I can say that I would have struggled with the emotional pull between a new relationship and DS. He does at times absorb a lot of emotional energy and I'm not sure that there would have been enough energy left over to make a new relationship work as well.

I'm not saying its impossible but certainly in my case it wouldn't.

Btw I'm not commenting on the birth Aunts motives. I have a suspicion like you that its purely to keep the father in touch with the child but that might be very unfair and even if thats so, it doesn't mean that she won''t bond very successfully to the child and become a mother to him. I meant that she wasn't responsible for any part of the sorry mess as far as I can see.

I just feel sad everyone has glazed over the impact on this little lad this has been my concern all the way through.

Yes Kew I am not judging the aunt. I just know that having been through a very long process (like you and all the other regular posters who have shared their stories on the mumsnet adoption threads) bringing a new child into your family or creating a family is something that takes a huge amount of emotional and physical energy. It is not like looking after a child or adult for a short time, it is a lifetime commitment. I am hopeful this aunt will rise to this challenge but I feel she did not need to.

She and the dad could have maintained a relationship with this boy and he could have kept the parents he has grown to know and love.

I am now wondering how/where I can register my feelings about this case because I feel so strongly that this is a travesty of justice for this child and that it may impact negatively on future adoptions.

Our own adoption of ds was thankfully uneventful but this kind of thing is not an isolated incident, although, again, thankfully, things do not always turn out this way.

I can't stop thinking about it because it seems to call into question what it means to make family where you have biological connection.

Email Martin Narey, I have and he has already responded. X

I agree with all that has been said. If this child had been FC then I could understand the judgement....but this...? We as adopters are not 'the next best thing' or 'the last resort' to birth family....we are just parents, who should be treated as such. I hope they are offering the AP's and birth aunt support.....and most importantly the child!

Barbadosgirl, are you able to share what he said (if not private obviously). I also emailed but haven't had a response.

"Circumstances are wholly exceptional as the Judge made clear in his judgement.

Aunt, who will now raise the child, was patently a good proposition as a carer but her potential as a carer was unknown because the parentage of her brother, the father, was concealed.

The parentage of the father in cases where children are in care is not at all uncommon. What is unusual here is that the father came forward and his sister was able to offer adequate care within the family.

He believes the decision is wrong and the child's interests were best served by remaining with his adoptive parents. He thinks the action of the LA in opposing the adoption order to be bizarre and the emphasis given to ethnicity is unjustified.

He understands why I am worried (about this happening to me!) But he genuinely does not think I need to be. This case is unique and It does not set any new precedent unless all the wholly exceptional circumstances here were replicated."

Unfortunately I do not think he is correct. Surely there is a chance that if bf emerged and dragged a semi suitable relative out of the woodwork then our baby would be taken away? I imagine he and the govt are trying to put a lid on things but the more people who complain, hopefully they will realise that adopters are going to be massively put off.

Hmm, the other case note I read also said the facts were unique. However, in my (very) non legal brain, I don't really get why it's so unusual. Paternity is frequently a question mark - surely it's not that unusual to suggest birth fathers may pop up later on in the process. I really don't get what makes this happening so exceptional.
Thanks for sharing, much appreciated.

It really isn't unique, is it? MN is a good man, I think, but he also has an agenda to promote adoption plus I cannot change anything now so what is the point in telling me to lay awake worrying!? I think they are going to have to do something.

Barbadosgirl have pmed you. Thanks.

I thought it was not about ethnicity but I think it really was and I am concerned this might make white adopters 9who are in the majority - numbers wise) more reluctant to consider adopting mixed heritage babies and children. I really hope not.

Thanks for sharing that, Barbadosgirl.

I also fail to see how exactly this case is unique. And the judge, though stating that it was unique and specific and his judgement particular to only this case, did also fail to explain how exactly this case differs from the many, many (in other words - non-unique) cases of unknown paternity/paternity revealed later on in the process.

What I CAN imagine is that it is relatively rare for an 'unknown' father of a child who was removed by SS/subject to a placement order, to come forward. And if they do (come forward), it is probably rare for them to be assessed as suitable carers for the children in question. Because if they WERE suitable, then the mothers would probably have put their names forward for assessment before there was a placement order; or, you might argue, that if they did not have enough decency to be involved in their children's lives at all so far, then they won't be suitable carers for the child either. Also, as with all kinship placements, there is always the question regarding can the kinship carer keep the child away from the 'risks' posed by the BPs which lead to them being in care in the first place.

So maybe what makes the case 'unique' is the fact that it was the aunt. And that normally, a judge would hesitate to remove a child from an adoptive placement in favour of placing with birth father, but wouldn't even consider any other relatives at that stage. And only because this family lives a culture where being brought up by extended family is the norm, was this decision possible.
Don't know but it seemed to me again that this narrative of 'it is perfectly normal in our culture to be brought up by extended family' was woefully unexplored - it was basically just believed; and no-one wondered what effects being brought up by extended family can have when that is very much NOT the norm in the majority culture where they live.

Just popping on to thanks Barbados girl for suggesting we write to Martin narey. He's replied and will be taking our case up with our la's director of children's services directly. He said we're right to be concerned :-(. So annoyed that again we've been fobbed off by SS.

No worries, I do think he actually cares and although he is part of the gov's agenda to push through adoption (which I cannot believe has nothing to do with money saving) I think he is genuine.