To wonder what on earth happened with the Leiland James case?

[Grasscrowns]

Utterly horrific, but AIBU to wonder what on earth prompted a woman with no criminal history to ‘leather’ a baby? Even people who believe a good hiding won’t hurt them and other such stupid statements don’t apply it to babies.

Prior to order or after?
prior the child would have been looked after and subject to 6 weekly visits. After order they wouldn't necessarily have visited. You should have been able to access the SG support service, but they are often crap.

That’s what I can’t understand —- how the husband was found not guilty of anything yet he did nothing to protect the child.

They both actively believed in smacking as a strategy. The DH said do in court. That they believed it would work.

They deliberately lied to SS about the zero hitting policy.

He both believed in hitting AND knew that she was afraid of losing control. It was all in the texts.

He knew. He is the person who could have sought help and support by being honest with SS. Instead he just encouraged her to hit him more.

He should be in prison alongside her.

It doesn't feel right that he just gets to walk away and have his whole life ahead of him when he knew full well what was going on in that house.

Hopefully the stigma and shame will follow wherever he is, and people will ostracise him, and his life will be miserable. I wish he was in prison, too, not sure how that decision was made.

What the Castle's did is abhorrent.

@Jellycatspyjamas makes a good point, though. Adopters at this stage don't have parental responsibility- the local authority do. There are big questions for the local authority here.

Anyone who has been through early placement with a child of Leiland-James's age, who has dealt with the moaning 24/7, would have some empathy with the Castles. These weren't foster carers, this wasn't a paid job, they signed up to become parents, and it sounds like they were woefully unprepared for what adoptive parenting means. But "some empathy" does not excuse murder.

The local authority, the people legally responsible for this wee lad, need to take a long hard look at themselves. As do those who (under)fund them- ie. everyone. It's always easier to blame the monster than look at the society we create.

That’s true of any parent though @rosiethefemaleone

@Grasscrowns what's true of every parent?

I've had birth and adopted children- the early days of placement with a traumatised child is incomparable to birth parenting EVER. Even when a birth child is sick or has colic, etc. Unless you've done both, believe me on this. Early placement is really hard.

To add, though, of course I don't think "really hard" excuses murder.

I can imagine it’s incredibly hard, but there doesn’t seem to have been anything hugely out of the ordinary. If there was I imagine her defence team would have been on it immediately.

I was responding to this - they signed up to become parents, and it sounds like they were woefully unprepared for what adoptive parenting means

I fully take on board that birth parenting and adoptive parenting is different, but I’m not sure the blame entirely lies with the council either. I mean, if someone lies, what do you do? Even observing them with the child wouldn’t help because she wouldn’t ‘leather’ him in front of the social workers, I imagine.

Legally, the LA was his parent. The Castles weren't. Tbh, if any parent left their child with a carer they had concerns about, and it's documented the LA did, then that parent would be asking themselves questions.

Both the Castles described the moaning. Until you've been through it, you can't imagine what it's like having a small stranger in your life who utterly rejects you, who moans all the time, and you cannot comfort. That doesn't excuse murder. Or the abuse. Or the lying. But it gives me some empathy. It's nothing like having a birth child.

I have absolutely no doubt that adoptive parenting is totally different to birth child parenting and as I haven't done it, I wouldn't know the challenges adoptive parents face. Like as a parent of a child with ASD, no one is going to know what I face.

But she had a out? She didn't have to struggle on if she really couldn't cope. She could have given Leiland "back" and moved on with her life. Leiland would have been deeply traumatised but this would have given him a chance of life.

I am so angry when I hear she is called "mother" or "adoptive mother" or "foster mother". Nothing she did lived up to being entitled to those titles. I feel deeply sorry for Leiland's mother and his foster carers. They clearly loved him deeply (they each gave statements to the court) and they must feel horribly let down by everyone.

But she had a out? She didn't have to struggle on if she really couldn't cope. She could have given Leiland "back" and moved on with her life. Leiland would have been deeply traumatised but this would have given him a chance of life.

Yes, this is very odd. It's strange that it was the LA who stalled the adoption order application, it sounded like they wanted to apply. Which takes their actions beyond a 'normal' response. My empathy runs out there. If either adopter had posted on here for support, minus the abuse, they would have got it. But at the first mention of violence, disruption would appear to be the only option. There was something very wrong. The very first time she struck Leiland-James, she should have been alerting social workers, and looking to disrupt the placement.

There should be less shame/stigma attached to disruption.

You preempted me there a bit, @rosiethefemaleone , I imagine there is a lot of judgement attached to disruption.

I think it's still very taboo to talk about how adoptive parenting can be different to biological parenting to be honest. People struggling to conceive still get told to "just adopt" like it's an obvious and convenient substitute.

I think that is true up to a point, @WhatNoRaisins , but then conversely, you only have to glance at statements from adopters on here - or venture onto the adoption board - to see that the opposite is true. Even a brief look online (and it’s reasonable to assume that most people start there) is filled with info about how different adopted children are from their birth counterparts, that if you’re expecting anything close to normal, forget it, every adopted child will have some form of attachment disorder, etc.

Its difficult, because those who tend to be very pro-adoption will insist it’s down to a lack of post adoption support, which I’m not sure is true in this case, while the anti adoption groups will trumpet it as a reason adoption shouldn’t happen. I suspect the truth of the matter is somewhere between the two extremes.

I've not read the full case but to respond to the 'why didn't she just give him back' question, one thing that stood out to me was that the social worker was no longer going for the adoption but they still didn't remove him from their care.

It's not a case of simply ringing up social services and they'll come and collect the child that day.

I feel some sympathy for her. Over Christmas I was an overwhelmed foster carer with a suicidal spouse and it took 3 weeks for social services to find a new placement for the children. That was the fastest they could manage with multiple phone calls asking for immediate help.

That's where my sympathy stops of course because between 2 screaming children, a barking dog and a suicidal wife when it all got too much I didn't think about hurting anyone. But I can sympathise with the despair.

and it’s reasonable to assume that most people start there

No, most people don't start there. They start with Annie, or Anne of Green Gables, or Matilda, or Juno, or the many many adoption storylines in american TV, where adoption is a 'good thing', and almost incidental to the story, there's little about the trauma of adoption, it's more like adoption solves the trauma.

Most people aren't aware.

Every 'adoption awareness week' brings out those who are convinced the only thing holding them back from 'giving them all a home' is the number of spare rooms they have.

@showergel1 I hope you're doing a bit better now. Three weeks is far too long.

I do wish more of the people who think they could do adoptive parenting/fostering better than those who are doing it would sign up to foster/adopt. Obviously the Castles of this world need not apply.

I agree you can't compare bringing up a birth child to bringing up a child whose been removed from the foster carer they've developed an attachment to for months. I wonder if Laura Castle presented a face to the outside world of being a fantastic adoptive mum and didn't want to lose face by giving him back. It seems like they were talking about returning him in September when she was beating him but she killed him in January

The judgement part I get. Makes sense. But she seemed very good at lying. Her police interview was chilling and she obviously convinced the SS for long enough that, despite problems, Leiland should remain with them. I'm quite sure she could have spun it that it was the SS fault or they chose to disrupt, rather than due to their own complete and utter failure at being a human being.

Maybe the problem is, we are trying to make sense, find answers where you can't make sense and there is no answers?

@rosiethefemaleone no, come on. You are being a bit disingenuous

When you started the adoption process, along with most people, you’ll have searched online. Maybe before that process begins people have starry eyed disillusions, but once that process has started - even if only an open evening - that will have gone.

She knew she was being abusive as she said "it seems I've turned into a child abuser" He was then saying "Don't say that. You're a great mum. He's just too damaged. We'll give him back. I don't like seeing what this is doing to you" Paraphrased but that's what they said from memory.

I actually remember back when Juno came out reading posts from people often still in their teens talking about how they plan to have biological kids but are also called adopt some. I just thought wft? How can you know you are called to adopt when you're too young to know the first thing about it?

It's also glamourised by some of those vlogging families I think. I'm remembering Myka Stauffer who at least gave hers back when he wasn't providing the right image for them.

@Grasscrowns I did, yes. But you're saying it's not taboo to talk about how different it is- it is taboo. In general circles, outside those who understand, people romanticise adoption. Which is why we adopters have to make the point so often on here, for example, that it's different. People don't know that. They don't get it. They don't want to get it. They want to think adoption magics away trauma, and sorts everything out. I wasn't talking about those in the process, I'm talking about the general population who don't understand. If adopters try and talk to 'normal people' they get 'but all kids do that!' It's exhausting, so most of us give up talking to 'normal people' about how hard it is. Just because we can post here saying how hard it is, doesn't mean it's not taboo.