Toddler removed from"Perfect adoptive parents"

[SoonToBeSix]

Apologises for Daily Mail link. Thus article has made me so angry and upset for this poor child. The 20 month old had been with their prospective adoptive parents for over a year. Now due to be removed because the birth father who initially showed no interest wants a relationship with him. Has the judge no common sense? The trauma this child will no suffer will most likely be impossible to recover from.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2862452/Judge-rules-toddler-taken-away-perfect-adoptive-couple-sent-live-family-father-initially-showed-no-him.html

If a natural parent is putting themselves forward, the authorities have got to give them priority. Emphasis is always on keeping families together and whilst the fostering/adoptive family will be heartbroken, a 20 month old child is probably young enough to forget them in time.

No I totally disagree, the child will have severe attachment issues , they lived with the parents from age 7 to 20 months.

Ffs, seriously the father didn't want to know. This child is being set up for a life time of let down.

I started a thread in adoption also, and I put a link to the full court judgement there, which is much better than the articles obviously

I'm very conflicted about it

Cogit I think it's important to say that it's not about 'remembering' or 'forgetting', it's about the fact that moving a child to new carers is always traumatic, even if the move is ultimately a positive one. Trauma can and does affect brain development and the way a child relates to the world whether or not it can be remembered, and indeed pre-verbal trauma can often cause significant long term problems. My 9 year old son remembers nothing of his first 23 months, yet it affects him to this day in many ways, and will continue to do so. The judge acknowledged that there is no way of knowing whether this additional move will cause long term issues of this kind. If only we had crystal balls.

I don't believe it is a birth (adoptive parents aren't un-natural!) parent. I understand that it is birth fathers sister.

Very unusual situation. Without knowing all parties it's impossible to know whats best for the child. But generally I would have thought the time to try all possible options with respect to extended birth family is prior to placing with an adoptive family.

Its not about whether the child will "forget" but as soontobesix says how it will affect their attachment. Imagine you 20 month old is removed from you, thier home, their room, pets, siblings, friends, grandparents etc and given to a strange family in a strange house in a strange room etc.

Most of us adoptive parents have been in exactly in this position and its really not easy on a child. And they don't "forget". DS was placed with me at 1yr and at 9 he is considered to have an "insecure" attachment. He is well attached to me but is often anxious about it being removed from him.

How attachment is affected is partly dependent on the childs perspnality and partly on how good the new guardians deal with it (very simplistically).

Very sad and not an ideal situation for anyone.

This is the actual court judgement - www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/47.html

Thanks Lilka

Just read briefly the court judgement . I now even more angry that the fact that the adoptive parents were white and the baby was mixed race was a factor.

So the kid could have had a wonderful life with loving parents and instead he's removed from that to go live with an aunt with his previously uninterested father floating around as it suits him, people who care so little about him that they didn't want him initially and are now prepared to remove him from the only family he knows.

The fact that he is being removed only because he is mixed race is disturbing. The child's needs should come first, race should never make the child's needs secondary to adult wants. He should have the same right to have his case determined by what is in his best interest just as a white child would. I don't understand how having fewer rights because of his racial status isn't illegal?

This case is a disgrace. I feel so sorry for this child and his adoptive (real) parents, I can't believe how selfish his father and aunt are to do this to an innocent child. It's not supposed to be all about them but the court took only their interests to account. The judge even admits that it will definitely cause short term and probable long term damage to the child but the extent won't be known until he's grown, why did he make such a bad decision knowing the definite negative consequences?

If the child is mixed race how come the african side takes priority?, which it clearly does as otherwise there is no way life with a single mother (aunt) he has never met would be chosen as in the child's best interests over the stable home already in place. Isn't his 'white heritage' equally as important?
(And yes I know plenty of single mothers who do a fantastic job and have geat kids but still, the statistics show their children are at a disadvantage, especially with a feckless father in the mix).
I think the fact that race even comes in to it is wrong. If we are all supposed to be multicultural it really shouldn't matter. A child can easily find out about all aspects of their 'heritage' if and when they want to, and the most important thing is that they feel safe and loved (not saying the aunt wouldn't be loving btw, but she and the child's father have had almost two years, even more if you count the pregnancy which he presumably knew about, to do something about this situation).

I am pleased. I think we take children away when there are plenty of relatives happy to take the child on. It has to stop. All this rushing to adopt has got out of hand.

Greengrow, I disagree wholeheartedly. I don't think anyone is 'rushing to adopt' - there's a well thought out and lengthy process that is gone through before any adoption is finalised. The availability/ willingness of any biological relatives who could care for the child is taken into consideration. The needs of the child are behind every part of this process.

To remove an adopted child once they have settled into their new life with their adoptive parents is unbelievable, and simply cannot be in the best interests of the child.

Where were the relatives during these past 20 months I would like to know,and good for the child ? I don't think so,adoptive parents would have made sure this little man was made aware of his heritage I'm sure my heart goes out to them,I wonder if the Aunt is fostering or legally adopting the baby?

This makes me feel physically sick. I'm so upset for the baby and his adoptive family.

Surely once the adoption has taken place there can't be any going back?! It's not in the child's best interests, unless the adoptive parents are unfit?

Where the relatives in the 20 months? Presumably kept away from the child by social workers. The judge say it was a difficult decision. I still think he reached the right decision here and am glad.

Also the mother said the father was her partner. That was not the case. It was only when a DNA test proved her partner was not the father that the real father and his family got involved. I think we should DNA test all babies at birth.

Greengrow, your posts are disturbing.

Thanks for that Jameme.

Alpaca - greengrows posts are informed by absolutely no experience whatsoever so don't be disturbed. Anyone is entitled to their opinion but we're not obliged to give every opinion equal weight.

Anyone who talks about "all this rushing to adopt" shows how little they know.