Woman awarded six figure payout for failed adoption

[inadequatepillow]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c623we048yzo

AIBU to feel a bit uncomfortable by the tone of this article?

I agree that the council should’ve been clearer about the child’s needs. But, if she’d birthed this child, he could’ve still had the same difficulties. It’s likely she’d have had no support with this if the child was hers biologically. The waits for paeds are shocking.

It says in the article he threw a heavy paperweight at her. How did he get hold of this? Why is she blaming the child?

I feel as though she’s wanted to adopt for selfish reasons and she was disappointed that she didn’t have a perfect, meek, easy kid.

When you give birth to a child, it’s luck of the draw. My son has SEND similar to the child in the article. On days when it gets a bit much for me am I supposed to just give him up for adoption? No, because I am his mother and my job is to raise him regardless of how hard it is.

I don’t think when adopting you should be able to be so picky. The child needed a home, she wanted a kid. It’s not like going to the RSPCA and ignoring all the three legged cats…

Exactly. YABU OP. It's ridiculous to compare this to having given birth to a child with additional needs, and one of mine gets DLA fwiw. The reason for that is that in your example, there wouldn't be a statutory body who'd withheld information either deliberately or through negligence.

Why Foster care ?
Absolutely the council should have been honest and provided support
Do you not think disabled children deserve to be adopted if at all possible?

I don’t blame the woman for not proceeding with the formal adoption. The child’s needs were not fully disclosed and she was a single parent struggling to cope. There is a lot of stigma around this, I know someone who didn’t proceed with the formal adoption after 4 months, but she just decided a second child wasn’t what she wanted after all, much to the upset of her DH and DS. She said some very unpleasant things about the child whilst waiting for social services to arrange a temp foster place (as the foster carer who had him from birth - 2yrs had another child in her care by then and couldn’t take him back. She later told people that there was a medical condition that hadn’t been disclosed but I know for a fact (as she told me) this wasn’t true. Many people did rightly judge her and she’s had nothing but bad things happen to her since then.

It later transpired he had a serious underlying medical condition which she was not told about.

"I got absolutely no support whatsoever," she said.
"They kept insisting there was absolutely nothing wrong and that it was me, imagining it. I needed immediate help."

How could they do that to the child?? Give him to a parent and then remove the support he must have needed?

There’s no excuse for misleading her and being untruthful or economic with the truth. If it was “about the child” they wouldn’t have risked a failed placement. But they sent the child there to fail.

If it’s a case of get what you’re given they shouldn’t have approved her for adoption as she was honest in her abilities.

I know a couple who foster two disabled twins (amongst other children who come and go), they know the twins will be with them permanently but told me they won’t adopt as their support network is withdrawn. Whilst fostering they get whatever therapeutic and respite support they need, adaptions to the home etc. They told me they know nobody else with adopt them so there’s no risk in that approach.

I know you have a disabled child too, as does someone close to me and it makes perfect sense to stay a foster carer in that context.

Op you do realise how the process works.
Parents are matched to the child. From the point of meeting the child the child moves in in less than a week.

It's not like going to the cat and dog home where the family get to meet the animals before they decide if that's a suitable dog for them.

The parents are 100% relying on the information given to them by the Social Work department.
She was told the child didn't have special needs yet the child turned up wearing a helmet which indicate serious issues.

Unfortunately there is huge pressure on SW to get kids adopted, so making them someone else's problem. And it's also well known if it doesn't happen by the age of 4 it's unlikely to happen.

If she birthed this child he most likely wouldn’t have had the same difficulties, that’s silly. A bio baby would be a completely different person.

Anyway, whilst this is a hard topic and there’s a lot of stigma around it, even if he was her bio child, maybe she still would have had to put him into care?

Lastly, she wasn’t given all the information to make an informed choice as to whether to take a SEN child. This may be controversial on here, but I would say no if I was given that background information. Just being honest.

Because foster parents get more support, both practically as well as financially.

I’m most uncomfortable with the fact that for her to get that money the council will now need to pull back on its spending which will hurt children like the one placed with her; does she need that money more than them?
I do think the council acted badly and need to be held accountable based on what she said and obviously the court agreed she was correct but does she really miss him every day all this time on….. or does she just want it proved that she didn’t fail, the council failed her

Why are you all saying birthed?

js this jargon? It’s so odd

No. They’ll have insurance.
premiums etc but still

Just wanna say this isn't always true. I've heard this a lot. One of my friends mum was oh so proud of me because I went to uni and got a masters etc because normally adopted kids don't as we have so many difficulties. Lots us are the same to parents as biological children too. Not having go. Just chipping in with my 2 pence

TBH most people who adopt a child expect some issues ,however the level is the deciding factor.Many articles of adoption, paint a pretty picture of children settling into their new homes and families, with few issues .In reality most will have a certain amount of trauma and distress . Councils /social workers are often shy about the truth ,and dont let on to prospective parents the level of care needed.

It’s a common enough way of saying ‘gave birth to’ more usually used in US English— have you not come across it before?

Of course they fucked up, they lied and didn't give her all the info they should have.

I think your comments towards her are pretty unpleasant, tbh.

When you birth a child with severe needs you are as able and have as much right to give it up for adoption as any is.

There are people who foster and adopt children with send specifically.

If you are adopting and specifically say no child with needs whether we agree or not with people doing this she was lied to.

@x2boys because more continuing support is offered to foster parents than adoptive parents. No one is saying kids with SEN don’t deserve to be adopted.

I agree that the local authority got it wrong and she deserved a sincere apology, beyond that I hugely disagree with seeking and receiving such a large financial payout, our public services are on their knees and I'm not sure how she can happily walk away with that money and see it as the right outcome.

Very sad for all involved. I don't think the woman did anything wrong and it sounds like the council grossly underplayed this child's additional needs and honestly were just trying to off-load him, especially considering the OTT comments about how she'd essentially won the jackpot etc, almost gaslighting her. They knew full well what they were doing.

I also think there's quite a difference between giving birth to a baby who ends up having additional needs and adopting a toddler who is already showing very significant behavioural issues as a result of additional needs. I don't think it's selfish for a prospective adoptive parent not to want a child with significant needs that are more than they feel equipped to deal with from the outset, particularly as it sounds like it was just her, no partner. Birth parents don't get that choice of course but that doesn't mean adoptive parents shouldn't. They're not an easy target for the council to hoodwink into taking on children with severe needs that they were quite clear they couldn't manage and subsequently receive no support with.

As the article doesn't mention the basis for the compensation or what any losses might be, none of us can actually know why she'd see it as the right outcome. There's not enough information.

@Gorgonemilezola it's v unusual for birth parents to voluntarily give up a child for adoption. Far more likely, child was removed against birth parents' wishes

It's not the first time I've heard of social services hiding the truth about a child's needs and then being totally unsupportive when issues have arisen .

This woman has held a broken system to account.

Good for her. I wish her well.

Where's OP btw?