Sara Sharif case - update - horrifying

[amIloud]

This case is just beyond the realms of horrifying,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl461xwg3do

This poor child.

Adoption may have been the right thing for Sara, or not. We don’t have all the evidence and the evidence we do have is very thin and problematic.

The one thing we know about this case is that it was profoundly wrong - the ultimate wrong- that she was placed in the care of her father. The learning to take from that is not that the UK system is too reluctant to forcibly remove children from their parents (it isn’t). The learning to take is that violent men are given far too much of the benefit of the doubt in the family courts and access to children- this is a systemic problem in the UK system.

I agree. @Tandora I get the sense that there seems to be a personal sore spot amongst this, which is fine. However your posts sometimes come across as combative to other posters when we all just really, really feel for Sara and want to discuss her and honour her collectively as opposed to other issues. No one here is wanting an argument with you.

I don't think forced adoption is unethical in the right circumstances. I think it should ALWAYS be about the best interests of the child, and not about the wishes of their abusive or inadequate parents. Put simply, the earlier a child is adopted, the easier the transition and the better the outcome will be for them, if not being able to return to their parents is inevitable. I'd not be wasting precious time giving useless feckless parents the benefit of the doubt, if it's EVER at the cost of the mental wellbeing of the child.

This isn’t personal for me, I’m asking others don’t make it personal. My posts have been no more combative than others.
you don’t have to agree with me about what is wrong with the UK system- that’s fine, but no need to make it personal.
thanks.

I think it's pretty bloody clear, actually, that it would have been a very, very good thing, a life saving thing for Sara.

And let's not forget that she was placed with her father because her mother was inadequate, incapable and abusive. That was a bizarre decision given what was already known about him, but the simple fact is that if Olga had been better, Sara would be alive. If Sara had been adopted at birth she'd be alive. The court's decision to send her to live with her father came because neither of the first two things happened.

So the learning you are taking from this is :

1. the uk system is too reluctant to forcibly remove children from parents.
2. the mother is to blame.

1. Yes
2. She's not directly responsible for her death, but she's certainly not entirely blameless either. Her earlier actions and behaviour formed part of a chain of events that ended in Sara being killed.

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting everything other posters have written @Tandora ?

It's not difficult to understand what everyone else is saying:

The mother was abusive and so was the father. Therefore, no child should have been living with either parent.

I agree

I’m not deliberately misrepresenting anything.

I just really , really disagree with some posters as to what the tragic facts of this case highlight about the serious flaws in the UK family court/ CP system. I’m really disturbed by the way this case has been read by many on this thread. And I consider it to be part of the problem that will make change so impossible 😢😞

I do know however there are many others on this thread who agree with me about what the issues are.

"Forced adoption" just means adoption that abusive or neglectful parents don't want but would be in the best interests of the child

Forced adoption refers to circumstances where adoption is compelled by the state when the parents are actively contesting it.

I saw a Reddit thread about Sara, someone in the comments posted that they know Sara’s sibling who felt their mother was just as awful as their father: www.reddit.com/r/uknews/s/7tHnP3JCIG

Interesting (if true)

“Just as awful”?

He tortured and murdered his child.

I directly quoted what was said in the link, you can see that for yourself.

It’s an absolutely outrageous claim.
(clearly driven by the same kind of misogyny that influenced the court).

Take it up with the Reddit poster.

Forced adoption refers to circumstances where adoption is compelled by the state when the parents are actively contesting it.

Yes, and we've all seen how the state is happy to leave children with extremely abusive parents and therefore the threshold for this to happen is very, very high. Much too high, if the system was centring the child's rights. And of course the abusive parents contest it!

One of my neighbours has an adopted child. She was 1.5 when she came to live with their family. Her birth family had been on SS radar for many years. She has 7 siblings/ half siblings. All of them living in foster care/ adopted now. Sadly, the oldest ones - who were left with their parents through much of their early childhood - are so traumatised now that they are highly unlikely to be adopted so are shunted around underfunded children's homes. My friend's daughter should have been removed at birth. Instead she was left there to suffer entirely predictable trauma for 1.5 years. The abusive parents then contested the adoption through court to the very end, so it wasn't finalised until she was 3, putting much stress on her new family. Despiite these people having demonstrated over and over again that they were incapable of caring for any child.

Your objections to "forced adoption" are extremely misplaced. In certain cases - and it is rare that it happens as your own figures show, compared to the thousands upon tjousands of abused children across the country - it is by far the best thing that could happen to a child and the earlier the better. Sara was one of these cases. It would have saved her life and she would have had a happy childhood instead of immense suffering, and an entire future still ahead of her.

Well most of us agree that this case highlights serious flaws in the UK family court system when an at risk child can be left in the care of a parent who is known to be abusive, irrespective of whether that parent is a mother or father.

Whereas you seem to think the only flaw in the system is that the courts take fathers' wishes into account at all. Forgive me if I am reading you all wrong, but you seem intent on arguing that the best place for every child is with its mother, regardless of how neglectful, inadequate or abusive that mother may be.

the threshold for this to happen is very, very high. Much too high, if the system was centring the child's rights.

I really disagree. Forced adoption is a real problem in the UK - often very unethical and not good for children- and not practiced to the same extent in most other European countries for good reasons.

the best place for every child is with its mother, regardless of how neglectful, inadequate or abusive that mother may be

No I’m not arguing this.

It’s an absolutely outrageous claim.

The publicly available reports include instances of Sara's mother beating her children, biting them and burning them, punching them and leaving bruises all over their body so that they were terrified to go home.

That you are arguing she is blameless simply because she is a woman is what is outrageous.

That you are arguing she is blameless simply because she is a woman

that would be outrageous if I ever said something of that sort.

@Tandora what is your motivation for attempting to derail this thread and continually go on and on about fathers' rights when in this case both of Sara's parents were known abusers?

What is your motivation to go on and on about "forced adoption" when Sara was never adopted and this was never even proposed as a solution, as far as we know from the information released?

Bizarre. You clearly have your own agenda that has nothing to do with this case or its implications.