GUILTY - rest in peace dear Elsie

[bostonkremekrazy]

Adopter found Guilty today of the murder of little Elsie.
Eight months of abuse behind closed today - after his second daddy went to work, not knowing how her injuries were caused.
A broken leg, facial bruising, a catalog of injuries while in the care of SS - reported by the health visitor - and yet the adoption still went ahead - how on earth did this happen?
An inquiry will now begin with the relevant Social Services.

Sad beyond belief.

Disruption is such a funny thing isn't it.....obviously it is preferable to a child being harmed, I also think it should be preferable to a family being harmed emotionally, and therefore if it is what a family needs, then it should be easier to disrupt. The hoops people are made to go through to disrupt are terrible.

On the other hand, the hoops people are made to get help are awful.

We have a baby placed with us (SGO), from another LA, that LA referred to our LA for support. Our LA didn't even come to visit baby, emailed the placing LA back stating as experienced adopters we did not meet the threshold for support from them, and they passed our file to a local voluntary organisation....great. So no visit post placement from either LA, no SW has visited baby at all - we are a big family, as PP said disruption risk is probably higher due to number of children, but now child is legally ours no statutory visit has - or will take place. CRAZY

The case of Ellie Butler where the birth parents pushed so hard to get her placed back with them and the court found the poor child died at the hands of birth dad is a parallel in a way. Wanted her desperately and jumped through many hoops to do so but that didn't translate into any acceptable level of care.

It sounds as though the adopted father here and Butler are very different people and the cases aren't the same in terms of the factual events.

But the judgment on Butler pointed out he regarded his children "as trophies" and had "an infantile and sentimentalised fantasy of family life". I wonder if those comments apply to a lot of similar cases.

Saying gay men should be under more scrutiny is homophobic

I didnt t say that and I’m pretty sure no one else did. I said that MEN are more of a risk than women of committing violent crime in the home. It’s MEN who should be under more scrunity because they are more of a risk.

That’s hardly controversial and I note you offer no statistics to disprove it .

Therefore the more adult men in the household who will be caring for the child, the more risk.

The relationships between the men or their sexuality is immaterial. A single man adopting and living with his brother who would be the childminder would also be a two man household.

Is not being gay that makes them more likely to be violent, it’s being male. I’ve seen no evidence that gay men are more violent than straight men. There’s overwhelming evidence that men are more violent than women.

So it’s unfair to link this in any way to lesbians, single or coupled.

And It’s interesting to see that even talking about make violence is seen as distasteful . But if we don’t identify the problem, how can it be addressed ?

And saying that domestic violence is gendered is, I think, rather less distasteful than a murdered toddler.

I think always better to try to understand the causes and risks. Eg if talking about how you want a child to have certain qualities reflects an attitude that increases risks as it reflects an unrealistic expectation much better to have that flagged so social workers can see it.

Kr1st1na Read the whole of my post rather than misquoting me.

I was talking about Rainatnight's social worker's comment. It's not the gayness of any men that makes them more likely to be violent. It's the maleness. We agree, actually.

Just to be clear, my SW doesn't think gay people should be under more scrutiny as a result. He worries that colleagues with latent homophobic tendencies will use this, albeit unconsciously, to give gay adopters a harder time.

Anyway. The parallel discussion on this case over on the muggles' board has descended into calling adopters 'vultures', so let's enjoy some peace, love and solidarity here.

I'd leave that thread well alone rain. It's like they did an IQ test and everyone who failed got deported to there...

I just caught up with the "muggle" thread as you put it, seems like poor Elsie has almost been forgotten on there now while us "vultures" are being slated for our jealousy of BP's among other things. Definitely time to unwatch the thread.
I still keep thinking about Elsie's sibling, it's such a sad case.

Do not go there on the other thread!!!
I so hope the info re E's sibling stays out of the media. We all want to protect our adopted children especially...but this requires a complete media blackout doesnt it. You just hope all their friends etc keep the child's name out of it - these kind of websites etc...

I know i am massively offended by lots of the crap that has been spouted on there. I was firmly contradicted in the early stages on that thread for suggesting that shaylas name was changed to protect her anonymity as it is so identifying . Apparently it is a common name that does not justify that. I mean how many shaylas do you all know ?? Apparently the fact that the dads changed her name was indicative of their desire to portray the perfect middle class family and should have been a massive red flag that things would go so badly wrong.
I gave up at that point and left them to it !

Changing names is such a varied thing here on mn....different circles have different views. In their location shayla wouldnt be that unusual, but, used less for white girls, used more for mixed race or black girls.
It doesnt blend though with their family names does it? As a family of 4, to have common, well used names, then 'shayla'...it may have made her stand out in the future etc etc...so they may well have been advised to change it, or given the closeless of BF decided it was best for security - we dont really know. But it's an adopters choice whatever their reason...
I dont think its a red flag....i'm in trouble if it is - i've changed 3 of mine

Personal I feel there's some irony in the use of the word 'vultures' when they are all circling this story greedily picking at it for scraps.

I don't argue with people who can't or can't be arsed to paragraph though...

About changing names ( side issue I know but I just had to mention it ) .

I’ve seen several threads on the baby name boards where mums say that their child is a year old or so and they hate the first name they chose and want to change it and asks for opinions.

Every singe poster always says “ yes go for it, they are too young to know or care and will adapt very quickly “ .

No one EVER says “ you can’t change it , it’s the child’s identity “. Or suggests that the Op has issues or doesn’t have the moral right to change it .

Bizarre.

Yy kristina.

I also just think the idea of 'jealousy' is really weird and speaks of someone with a really limited emotional range. Do I wish I'd given birth to ds? Yes, it would mean he hadn't had to spend his first days alone and time in fc. I could have made sure his in utero experience was good - I'm not sure what it WAS like but possibly not great.

But am I jealous of his bm? Well, no, obviously not. She has a really sad existence poor woman and I just hope she's doing okay.

I wish I’d read this thread before I’d caught up on the muggle one - I was so upset over it last night - or rather the thought that maybe anyone I might know in real life might be harbouring beliefs like that. Shudder.

As far a name-changes go; I un-double-barrelled, and then mini vulture picked her own middle name, and was fully delighted with it.

Mini vulture

That’s the spirit!

YY one of mine picked their own middle name too. One less thing to blame me for when they are a teen

Going back to the statistics thing (I haven't had a chance to respond until now) kristina and certain statistics are a useful tool but they aren't used in isolation to shape policy. Legislation states that single sex couples have the same rights in relation to adoption as single people and hetero couples ie being considered on a level playing field. If anyone tried to make it about the male issue (in a male gay couple two males) it would be sex discrimination and therefore not permitted under law for similar reasons.

Certain situations in adoption are regarded generally as higher or lower risk but it is very unlikely that a blanket approach to men would be seen as reasonable, and there is also discretion when it comes to considering risk factors in any event. Individual are assessed.

I take your point.

I don’t think anyone is saying that families with one or more men shouldnt have the right to be considered for adoption.

But it’s about the needs of the child for a safe home, so risk has to be evaluated individually. Prospective adopting Families with a several existing children are already seen as higher risk and no one has alleged this is discriminatory.

Likewise those adopters who are over a certain weight. Statistics show they are at higher risk of becoming incapacitated or dying early so they are not accepted by some agencies.

Same with smokers.

Is this seen as discrimination against fat People / smokers / large families ? No it’s seen, rightly or wrongly , as reducing one major risk factor.

I know that acknowlegeing male violence is a very uncomfortable fact for some people and the policy implications are huge . But ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.

And I have to say that I find it very annoying that some people want to make this about sexuality and refer to “same sex couples”. It’s nothing to do with lesbians. Goodness knows they face enough discrimination without somehow being linked to male violence .

Some statistics are going to be easier to translate into policy than others. Something which affects health is seen differently from whether or not it is probably that other people from the same sex will act in the same way as one is measurable with some degree of accuracy and and the other is not.

But basically in relation to rain's sw I really am not sure the comment should be given much head space at all.

Re keeping stats v what 'is seen as higher risk'
Bigger families are 'seen as higher risk' but USA stats show that they are much less likely to disrupt than any other adoptive family. Our SW used those stats at approval panel for number 5 - no UK stats available and we are the only family our LA have approved for a 5th - so SW wanted good solid evidenced based research, hence looking to US rather than UK.
All is not always what it seems, but what stats the government keeps is very 😕
Similar with disruption stats - 1/3 is the given, though its closer to 1/4 say adoption charities.
Divorce stats after adoption are thought to be more than 80% 😲 no real figures exist
Its all very picky....believe what you will. Love your kids. Protect your marriage/relationship.....
Vultures indeed! 😴

I wonder what percentage is for divorce for dc with sn? I imagine quite high so I guess that is a factor in the impact of adoption on relationships.

I'm new here, could someone tell me what the Muggle board is please. I'm struggling to navigate my way around. Ta

Sorry, that was my attempt at a joke to describe the whole of the rest of Mumsnet . I meant non-adoptive parents in the way that in Harry Potter the word muggle is used to describe people who don't have magical boards. Specifically, I was referring to another thread on the same case, over on the main board somewhere.

Ah thank you. I did have a look at some other boards but I got scared and retreated back to safety..