To be horrified by what I just saw on tv

[Mammajay]

I just watched Panorama I Want My Baby back on 8 London live. I know how vital it is that endangered children are taken into care but these poor parents have been the victims of gross injustice. Mums with vitamin d deficiency have given birth to children with vitamin d deficiency. The babies then suffered rickets and bone fractures. Doctors thought the babies had been abused and the children were taken into care. There were four families and only one got their child back. When a child died ( not one of the 4 families) the parents were charged with causing the death due to the fractures. The pathologist who did the post mortem found the babies bones broke as she handled the body and concluded the child had rickets and vitamin d deficiency so the charges were dropped. Watching the couple and the grandparents whose child had been taken into care going for the final visit before their much loved son / grandson was to be adopted was heart breaking. So, aibu, to think there should be some sort of official inquiry into such cases.

That’s not really the point though duck

Adoption is hardly an easy process. If people are put off it then I would say that is a shame but I still don’t think it’s justification for not returning children to their birth parents in such scenarios.

I’ve got no skin in this game, but why wouldn’t you take age and likelihood of successful adoption into account when making these decisions? Surely if you’re weighing up the upsides and downsides of removing a child from their birth family then their age and likeliest future home is very relevant?

@berlinbabylon

I agree that Roy Meadow used the concept of FII to further his own career and did immense damage, especially around the SIDS issue. I hold him directly responsible for the death of sally Clarke.

I was on a popular forum since shut down for legal reasons, where there were terrible cases of mothers being persecuted wrongly. But there is a big case in America about a girl called Gypsy whose mother did fake her illnesses to gain financially and for attention, so it does happen - I do agree it is very very rare.

It was floated as a possible motive for my sons "injuries". Part of the diagnosis was that I enjoyed drama - evidenced by my having qualified at theatre school - in backstage arts, because I'm really not a limelight person, and was even less so then. My "obsession" with medical matters was also used as a possible red flag - as I didn't do any research prior to being falsely accused of child abuse, this was a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

So I agree that FII is a dangerous area when a child has unexplained symptoms or injuries and it can be used by less scrupulous practitioners to avoid culpability in potential medical negligence situations.

I’m an adopter and I’m finding some of the comments on here deeply upsetting.

Of course these cases are terrible and should never have happened, but to attack adopters for not returning their children to their birth families is awful. When I adopted my daughter, she became my daughter and I love her just as much as you love your children. It’s simply not a case of just handing her back any more that any of you could just give your children away.

This should never have happened but please don’t attack parents for adopting their children in good faith.

That’s not really the point though duck

Adoption is hardly an easy process. If people are put off it then I would say that is a shame but I still don’t think it’s justification for not returning children to their birth parents in such scenarios.

It’s absolutely the point @Sunflowerdaisysummer if you are looking a5 this from a child centred... not birth parent centred view.

When is it right for it to become ‘too late’ for children to be returned, no matter what is discovered?

IHad, because forced adoption is only supposed to take place if severe neglect or abuse or both are present. Removing one child and not another suggests that this isn’t the case.

I think that can only be considered on a case by case basis peaking

Not seen the programme but NHS guidance is that all babies receive vit D supplementation. Vit D deficiency to the point of malnourishment and bone fracture is neglect - though I agree that dietary advice and support should be the first step

I don’t think anyone is happy, the adoptive parents are the third set of victims as far as I’m concerned

These kinds of cases are not unheard of. My DD has a rare bone disease that has been really difficult to diagnose, think three countries, multiple experts and the diagnosis is still ‘maybe this but could also be that’. When she had her first two fractures the doctors quizzed both me in case DH had abused her and DH in case I had neglected her. It was awful having to convince them we had no harmed her right in the middle of dealing with bad medical news. I then met a lot of families with Osteogenesis Imperfecta and they deal with this constantly. A lot of them were accused of abusing their children because many doctors are not familiar with this rare condition and they travel with letters explaining the situation in case of emergency treatment ( which happens often with OI).

Of course babies can be removed while older children remain in the same house. Babies and toddlers need a lot of physical care. So say parents have food in the house but parents are pretty awful at feeding their kids. Babies and toddlers will lose weight and could die. Older kids will eat the food in the cupboards.

Or say a house that is unsafe with cleaning products, knives etc left in easy reach of children even though parents have been constantly told not to do this. That could kill a toddler. A 10=year old will be fine.

That is why some children will be removed and others won't. You have to look at the risks and the risks are different for different children.

Perhaps the NHS vitamin d supplement advice is recent??

That’s not good enough karen

Child abuse and neglect is child abuse and neglect. In those instances the child should be removed too.

**A social worker doesn't choose to remove a child. The court does.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.**

^This.

but why wouldn’t you take age and likelihood of successful adoption into account when making these decisions?

Because you're playing with children's lives here? In many cases literally. You cannot assess a child's risk based on their likelihood of being adopted.This is really batshit.

Personally, I feel that if a child is settled and well cared for with adopters, their needs must be put first, and believe me, I have agonised over that as it was a real possibility that my DC would be adopted. That said, if it is discovered that a child was not at risk from its birth family after all, then some sort of contact should be phased in appropriate for all parties, so that the child in question has their full story, and even, perhaps an even better support network.

If a child discovers as an adult that they were adopted due to a medical error, I could imagine the sense of betrayal against the system could be huge. It could also impact their future children if transparency meant potentially inherited conditions were over-looked.

It is the most emotive and emotionally charged subject imaginable, for all concerned, and adopters should not be attacked for bad decisions made way before they come into the picture.

@Veterinari Yes I think it is neglect as well. Surely their would have been obvious symptoms before that as well?

@Sunflowerdaisysummer Children do not do as well when removed from their birth families. So risks need to be balanced. It is about assessing whether they will be better off being taken into care or remaining where they are. And that will differ depending on the age of the child.

I have a friend who went through similar.

SS would only use a certain doctor who would agree with what SW were saying

It is a money making exercise

The doctor isn’t going to disagree with the SW report otherwise they won’t be used again.

I saw the report SS did on my friend. As you were reading it you were flipping back pages because SS were saying one thing then saying the opposite later on in the report.

Not just once but multiple times.

They even got my friends heritage wrong and queried why she was raising her Dd in a particular culture/religion.

Friend managed to keep her children but only because she sat down and educated herself on family law. In the end her solicitor was useless and knew less than she did.

I agree completely OldQueen and would be open to ongoing contact if it was in my daughters best interests, which at the moment is sadly not the case.

I haven't seen the programme, but how old were the cases? When DS (nearly 4) was born I was told I didn't need to give him Vit D while breastfeeding as long as I took Vit D myself. I'm pg again and have been told both to take a Vit D tablet myself and to give the baby vitamin drops if I bf again.

Were the families BAME? DH (Asian) had blood tests a few years ago when he had bad flu and he was massively vitamin D deficient and had no idea. He got prescribed vitamin D which I'm guessing was stronger than the stuff you buy over the counter at the chemist.

I know that karen, which is why caution has to be exercised. No easy answers however likelihood of adoption is a factor when considering removal of children from birth families and that isn’t right.

I agree with @PeakingDuck - it is very problematic to talk of reversing adoption. There would be little certainty for either adoptive parents or the child, and it also implies that the adoptive parents are of a lesser status than birth parents.

likelihood of adoption is a factor when considering removal of children from birth families and that isn’t right

Really?

Personally, I feel that if a child is settled and well cared for with adopters, their needs must be put first, and believe me, I have agonised over that as it was a real possibility that my DC would be adopted

Having been through the care system I can say that I never felt at ease in foster care no matter how nice the family was.

The idea of adoption filled me with dread.

Absolutely not lesser but the fact is that the child staying with adoptive parents in such instances is likely to lead to much distress and confused sense of identity and sense of belonging.