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…

I don’t think when adopting you should be able to be so picky. The child needed a home, she wanted a kid

If only if it was as simple as that.

Adoption isn’t about parents wanting kids, and then going to an orphanage to pick one out. It’s about finding a suitable home for a child

If this child needed considerable support for numerous needs, it was the LA’s job to find him a family who were able to cope with this. Not give him to someone who’d volunteered they couldn’t cope with this and then pretty much leave her to it

When you are assessed to adopt you actually go through a check list of what you can and can’t deal with. It’s not in order to pick out a perfect child, it’s so the children aren’t unsuitably placed

The monetary compensation is what will force this council and others to change. They can't afford a payout for every failed adoption, so they'll have to make changes. This woman's case will hopefully effect real change, and the financial compensation is part of that.

It's an awful, sad situation. That money ought to have been paying in the beginning for in depth family therapy to integrate traumatised adopted children into families able to cope with their needs. And all adopted children are going to come with some degree of trauma these days. Far too many are severely traumatised.

Being able to support a child with SEN is crucial in cases such as this. Prospective adoptive parents should receive thorough preparation and support from agencies. It's unfortunate that the parent was misled and received no support. It's doubtful that she could met the childs needs, and the woman was likely acting in the boy's best interest.
The council is paying out due to their failure to disclose the complexity of the child's SEN. The compensation is addressing this specific failure rather than just the overall experience: which appeared to be traumatic for everyone involved, including the child.
The boy should also receive a payout once he comes of age, IMO. If he never reaches capacity, the money should be put in a trust fund to support him throughout his life.

This sounds like a very sad situation all round and she has been very brave to bring the case.

Regarding the size of the compensation, the article says that this was an out of court settlement - so the council chose to settle with her before the case got to court. I think that the size of the award is party due to this - it sounds like the council were not confident that they would win in court and wanted to avoid the (significantly greater that £100k) costs of defending themselves, as well as the embarrassment of having their behavior towards this parent and child scrutinized. So £100k is probably more than would have been awarded if the case had been heard in court, but substantially less expensive for the council than the cost of fighting (and losing) the case.

@AtYourOwnRisk

I think 'adopters shouldn't be so picky'
Is one of the silliest things I ever heard on MN or anywhere

I meant to vote YABU

You sound like you’re judging her based on your own situation without looking at the facts. Just running off pure emotion.

This situation was volatile for the claimant, but also the child at the centre of this. The council in question fucked up. Withholding relevant information like medical history or records of self harm is extremely poor. I’ve never heard of a self harming toddler before. That sort of mixture of circumstances needs a suitable home - not just any home. They can’t throw a child like that into any household and discharge their duty of care. The claimant wasn’t suitable to take care of this child’s unique needs and may rightly be traumatised over this.

Just because you’re happy to endure that as a biological parent, it doesn’t mean that others should. Where’s your disdain for this child’s biological parents btw? They obviously didn’t maintain parental responsibility for him
either if he ended being adopted.

i dont think head banging is necessarily self harm

I’d agree with you. I think it’s a cost issue though. Fostering is expensive, cheaper to minimise or pretend difficulties don’t exist. I feel for the woman involved and the child I think they were both treated badly.

His behaviour is referred to as self harm in the article, he was dropped off with a helmet.

The naivety is off the charts.

I genuinely think some people aim to come across as stupid as possible.

They told her the child had a developmental delay but was otherwise fine. Repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with him. Then on the day she got him, they provided her with a helmet to protect his head from his headbanging, but of course there's "nothing wrong with him".

That is not a developmental delay and is atrocious that they clearly hid the child's true issues from her.

She was a single adopter and should never have had a child placed with her with such significant needs. A developmental delay would be on the more minor end of the scale and should have been manageable with support.

I have a disabled sibling that had similar issues and it nearly broke my mother. She ended up so severely depressed that she'd planned how she would take her own life so none of us would ever find her. This is a woman that I've always considered to be the strongest woman I know, who had a loving and supportive family around her and a husband who did what he could, when he wasn't working 50+ hour weeks to support the family, because my sibling's needs meant that my Mum couldn't work. This is someone that birthed the child and was there through every stage of their diagnoses and development, yet it still nearly finished her.

The adoptive Mum in this case should have been given all the information and known what the challenges would be BEFORE she went into it, to give her the option to say "no, I don't have the ability to be able to support this child". As a result, the system let her down terribly and the poor child even more so.

It is not a case of "well if you want to adopt, you get what you're given". FFS. No-one would ever adopt if that was the case. There are too many children in care and lots of people that can give them a good home. Of course they should assess whether a home is right for a child before they adopt them.

I'm glad she took it to court to highlight the atrocious nature of the council's behaviour and I hope the council have learnt from it. I don't think compensation is the appropriate outcome for her legal action, but I imagine it was the only way to bring a case against them.

Does it matter?! He was dropped off with a helmet, he was harming himself regardless of whether it fits the definition of "self harm" or had another cause.

There is a reason why the adopters board does not appear in active, this thread illustrates it perfectly.
So much sheer nonsense being spouted, ignorance being displayed and lack of understanding and knowledge.

Just because you haven't heard of toddlers self harming doesn't mean they don't.
It's a trauma response. My son was taken into care at 4, he was a head banger.
Unless you have experienced adoption, fostering or indeed have a birth child with severe or complex needs you really have no clue what you are talking about and should stop spouting ridiculous comments based on mis information

Do you know every single adopted child? If you don't how can you say that they ALL have attachment issues?

Not all adopted children have attachment issues, they just are at higher risk of developing them due to events that might of happened in the past. The child's age at adoption can influence attachment patterns. The earlier the child has stability, the risks are largely reduced.
Each child has an unique background, and an adopted child can develop secure attachments and not have SEN. Yes, I am aware that it's extremely rare but it isn't a certainty.

Same with the special needs board ,s.

The child will be in receipt of massive support.

I desperately hope so, but unfortunately it also wouldn't surprise me if they aren't.

It seems a postcode lottery. I was reading an article the other day about a mother of a disabled child that was getting no support from her local authority, yet a friend of mine with a disabled child has so much support that her child is excelling way beyond the expectations they were given when he was diagnosed (told he'll never walk, yet has just started, for example). Different areas, different budgets.

My sibling had very little support until my Mum had a breakdown over it. Only when she was suicidal did they decide to provide some help.

There are a few reasons why I am child free, but the most overwhelming one is fear of finding myself in the same situation.

I don't think there's any issue with the 'tone' of the story. They're reporting the agreed facts of the legal case that the woman won. The story itself is simply reporting what happened and the ruling of the judge in the case.

I completely understand why you feel uncomfortable about the situation itself. It's clearly an upsetting and very complicated case. But I certainly don't think she is 'blaming' the child here at all. She is simply explaining why she didn't feel able to meet that child's needs.

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 giving birth to a child yourself with 'the luck of the draw' is quite the same as entering into a legal agreement, with vetting and assessment on both sides, though. It's a different process entirely and the adopter should reasonably be able to expect that they are being given a true picture of the agreement they are entering into. If adopting a child was 'the luck of the draw' in the same way as giving birth to one, there wouldn't be any matching process and they'd just allocate you the first child available. It's simply not the same thing.

Moreover, some birth parents do give up their children for adoption sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, including being simply unable to cope with their needs. So I don't think the argument is as clear-cut as you are implying.

It is, for everyone involved, a really upsetting case.

@mumda

If only. I hope so but wouldn't be so sure.
My son's brother has been kicked round the system since he was 8, has received nothing.
The child I fostered ? Of course I cannot disclose information about him but there were things which were glaringly obvious to me from day 1. He got no assessments, no therapy, we had a family worker for 12 weeks who was great and made some progress but 12 weeks is a drop in the ocean. Not that we got 12 weeks because 2 weeks were over Christmas so we only really got 10 weeks and they wouldn't budge.
Children in the foster system are at the bottom of the heap and services are at breaking point.

I don’t think when adopting you should be able to be so picky. The child needed a home, she wanted a kid

But the child should be with the right person. No point the child being placed with someone who can’t cope with the challenges that the child’s additional needs bring. So yes I do think being “picky” is ok, for the child’s sake as well as the adult’s.

No. People who choose to adopt should absolutely be given the support & information that they need. It's not the same as giving birth to a child.
Adopted children are at a massive disadvantage & these children and their adoptive parents should be prioritized at every point - in healthcare, in health services & mental health & SEND support because this is the consequence when it fails.

My heart goes out to the child but also to this lady who wanted the best for a child that wasn't hers & it sounds like she tried her absolute hardest & made it clear to social services what she could/could not offer. How many of you could do this as a single parent?

Her motives were to highlight the failings & prevent this happening again. She's done her best & spoken out about it. She could have kept silent to prevent hate against her but felt strongly that it needed to be investigated.

I think the Council were wrong in trying to palm off the child to a woman who they knew would not be able to cope.
However, I can't see why she needed financial compensation - especially of that magnitude.

People keep saying they don't get why she needed compensation, but the reasoning hasn't actually been explained. So none of us are in a position to judge that, based on the information given.