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.

@Greatoutdoors but if ultimately they were going to be his parents then that was their decision, not that of the LA.

It's absolutely horrific to think of what that poor little boy went through in his very short life. If they couldn't cope why not speak to their social worker.

Lots of couples can't have children, he would have been cherished by another family if they couldn't manage and had to end the placement.

The texts and pictures of her grinning in A&E make me sick. That's not just ' not coping' that's sadistic behaviour and I hope that evil cow never knows a moments piece in prison.

The husband should be inside too. I hope their older child has a supportive family as god knows what they've been through too.

The difficulty is that social services/the LA make all sorts of mad requests that adopters have to smile and nod to. Is every adopter who says "of course, we use contraception!" when they've been through premature ovarian failure showing disregard? Every adopter who has agreed to put in socket covers (even though they're a fire risk)? Every adopter who has been handed a risk assessment for their goldfish? No, they're smiling and nodding to get through.

Name changing provokes strong opinions- but plenty of good adopters name change. Almost universally children have their surnames changed. Changing to a middle name is small fry.

Lots of couples can't have children, he would have been cherished by another family if they couldn't manage and had to end the placement.

Actually, we don't know that. Babies of this age with additional needs can be "hard to place"- we don't know if that's why they found it so hard to disrupt? Until the serious case review, we just don't know. There actually aren't queues of people signing up for "hard to place" children.

And the infertile aren't obligated to become carers for the children no one wants.

Harsh, but needs saying.

Maybe this thread isn’t the place for it @rosiethefemaleone

Yep, when I adopted my son as a single gay man I had to confirm I was using contraception to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. As a married gay man me and my husband had to confirm we were using contraception to prevent pregnancy, we nodded and smiled and the insane request.

I changed my sons name, first and surname, to keep his first name would have been cruel. We also picked our daughters name as her birth mother chose not to name her, if she changes her mind we will use whatever name she picks as a middle name. Oddly enough I haven’t murdered my children, or hit them.

I didn't say that.

But I know from personal experience that people who are looking to adopt would often prefer a baby.

Who's to say no one wanted him either.

Absolutely nobody says this besides people struggling with infertility who are stressed and take everything to heart. This isn't related to the thread, but somebody clumsily suggesting adoption when someone confides in them, is not saying 'infertile couples have a duty to adopt'.

It's not just for infertile people (and definitely not an obligation) as most people know. I've had zero problems with fertility but would love to foster at some point (may not be possible, but worth a try).

I have never had fertility problems, so it's not true that no one says this other than those who have fertility issues.

I would suspect Leiland-James would have been "hard to place" even if the Castles had done the right thing and disrupted. It's a complete fallacy to assume that had the Castles only told SWs they were struggling, Leiland-James would have been moved to a lovely doting couple who couldn't wait to parent him perfectly. It's back to fairytale views of adoption.

This case leaves no space for fairytale views of adoption.

I don’t think people are saying that @rosiethefemaleone , but the chances of him being moved to a different couple who would beat him and kill him are fairly remote, aren’t they?

Yes, unlikely to be moved to another murderer as his carer. But I wonder if some of the pressure not to disrupt came from knowledge that he could be in for a life of moving from foster carer to foster carer. Obviously, that would have been better than being murdered, but it's not what people imagine when they say "it's so awful, I know an infertile couple that could have had him!" Like he could have been passed on to just anyone just fine, simply because they have fertility issues, and he looked cute.

He should have been placed elsewhere. But things are more complex than "I know a couple who want a baby!"

This case leaves no space for fairytale views of adoption

i agree. The birth mother had had 4-5 kids removed. None of them placed with immediate family. His background is complicated, why were the Castles deemed appropriate and were Social Services realistic and honest about his background?

Too much belief in nuture, not enough realism about nature

On a very different tack- I have been surprised they were approved on BMI grounds, unless that was all post placement gain?

I understand that name changing may or may not be relevant, but it was the agreement they signed with the local authority which placed Leiland James with them. It may be different in other areas.

I think the Castles did say they were struggling didn’t they? And the LA wouldn’t sign off the final stage of the adoption.

Can they refuse on BMI grounds? I didn’t know that.

Yes, BMI can be an issue affecting approval. Smokers would never be approved here.

There are plenty of overweight adopters. Not all LAs are the same.

It’s not that unheard of for social work not to sign off on the final adoption order, there are lots of reasons why they might do that not necessarily related to the quality of care.

Overweight, yes. Obese? Fewer- often people have to reduce their BMI to the overweight category for approval. It will vary by area, and even if approved, would likely be an issue at matching.

Someone with a lower BMI Vs a higher at matching is likely to be preferred, especially for a young baby. To me, this is another sign that there probably wasn't a large pool of adopters for Leiland-James. (But he should have been placed somewhere safe.) That shouldn't have influenced SWs keeping him in an unsuitable placement.

Loads of people say 'why don't you adopt?' when they know you're having difficulties. It's annoying 😒.

It is, but no one hears is, thinks they’ll adopt, and commits murder, do they?

I would be hugely surprised if Laura Castle applied to adopt in order to murder.

Everyone has different challenges when parenting. No one doubts adoptive placements are hugely challenging. But to think a birth parent can't have a hugely challenging situation on par shows minimising peoples struggles doesn't help anyone.

My point is that, despite the numerous very challenging circumstances adopters find themselves in, they on the whole and in general manage not to murder their children. But actually we hear with horrifying regularity of birth parents murdering their children. Why is that? Are they better prepared? Are they simply better parents (are the crappy ones filtered out - present case excluded?) We don't have a fairytale view of adoption, this is just a fact (unless lots of adoption murders are going unreported in the news but clearly this seems unlikely)

We just don't talk about miscarriage / infertility etc., enough in our society. People say clumsy or stupid things that they don't necessary mean or are unhelpful because we have no experience in it. People aren't faultless. It doesn't mean they think children in care should be hiding in the back of IVF clinics ready to roll out when a couple is unsuccessful in their treatment.

It's a horrible case, where a poor baby lost his life. Questions need to be asked how this person got through the net placed there to protect him, just like questions are asked when birth parents harm their children.

Loads of people say 'why don't you adopt?' when they know you're having difficulties. It's annoying

No doubt, I'm sure it really does grate, but they're saying it out of awkwardness, not that it's your duty. I'm sure some say it flippantly but nobody thinks it's infertile people's responsibility (expect a minuscule number of people. Unlikely to be your family and friends thinking they're helping).