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

Absolutely, Footie. If there is one thing I would like non-adoptive parents to understand (and schools and doctors and health visitors) it is that early life trauma does not just go away. A child does not consciously remember certain events because, pre-language, they don't have a way of coding it - not because it is too insignificant to retain. My daughter was adopted in her first year and I see the continuing impact of that every single day. I honestly don't know she would have managed it if she had had to endure further disruption and trauma in her second year.

I don't know whether the judge got it right or wrong in this case - it clearly is a complex and unusual situation. But generally, I would think that the option of continuing the adoption combined with regular direct contact with the birth father might work better.

It will be interesting to see where the ripples from this case reach. At the moment, there is a significant incentive for adopters, particularly those of older children, to delay the final adoption order in order to secure the right package of post-adoption support (once the order is final you have very little leverage in the system). Although we didn't ask for post-adoption support at that time, we certainly didn't hurry for the final adoption order - we waited a year, simply because we were busy and so far as we were concerned she was now family and we were in no rush for the paperwork. But I think this ruling would make that attitude seem high risk.

I'm not sure how much point there is in debating this, because the debate if very fully set out in the judgment and essentially all the points being made here are answered. The judge clearly thought long and hard about this, and he particularly thought very carefully indeed about the effects on the child of being removed from the prospective adopters.

This isn't a case where the father didn't want to know. The finding is that as soon as he found out that the child was in care he immediately took action to seek to care for him. The judge made no finding that the African side of the child's genetic heritage would take priority: in fact he expressly recognised that the adoptive parents were essentially in the same position as the father and his sister, inasmuch as each of them were of the same ethnicity as half of the child's genetic heritage.

As an aside, the case really does highlight the appalling effects of the withdrawal of legal aid. Two of the most closely concerned parties were only represented because their respective lawyers acted pro bono. The case was also muddied by the fact that there was a paper-based psychological report (i.e. the psychologist did not see the child or anyone else involved) which was largely worthless, and the judge commented: "An actual assessment (seeing all concerned) by a psychologist might be enormously helpful in many cases, but that is now a mere pipe dream in our under-resourced family justice system." When the entire future of a child is concerned, can we really afford this sort of penny-pinching absurdity?

I was totally outraged at first, on behalf of the poor prospective adopters.

But then I read the judgement and there was a bit about the future. That many adopted children (and bio children!) have a fantasy that out there are their mum and dad and if they only knew about them they would race to get them and bring them up. Only for this child, that's reality, and how would you explain to your 8 year old "yes, your father does want to bring you up within your large extended family of countless cousins, aunts, uncles, your grandparents...in fact he took us to court for it....but we wanted you to stay with us". That bit just doesn't sit right. He has a large family that want him and he is a baby. I think leaving him with the adopters would be about them, in the long term anyway.

Boysclothes, I'm sure we all agree that the interests of the child come first. There are arguments on both sides on what the child needs. The problem is in how we weight the child's different - sometimes competing - interests, not how we balance the needs of the child with the needs of the parents.

I just can't imagine telling a child in the future that all this had happened and they didn't get to go back with their fathers family. It would be wrong. I think this decision was in the child's best interests really, medium term.

This aunt--who is she? Has she shown interest in this child before? Obviously the father sounds like a loser, but what about her?

Ah--looks like she contacted the authorities herself after adoption procedures had started.

I think it all hinges on whether she is fit to raise the child and on what degree of interest she has shown in him.

Difficult case.

"In fact he took us to court for it...but we wanted you to stay with us"

Boys, my adopted son's birth family are fighting the adoption order but the act of wanting him and fighting through the courts isn't going to be something I worry about explaining to him when he is older. Yes he has family out there who want him desperately. Are they a safe environment - absolutely not. His bm continues to live a chaotic life with multiple addictions and dangerous men involved in her life as she moves between violent relationships, prison, homelessness. She is reliant on others for basic comforts - housing, food etc. She continues to be unable to put his needs ahead of her own addictions and traumas and has yet to keep any appointments for drug rehabilitation preferring to self medicate.
Like all adopters, we will talk regularly about his birth family so there won't be a fantasy created by a dream of what might have been but a clear view hopefully of what her reality is.

I appreciate this is different to this case where the aunt is a suitable carer and would have been placed originally if parentage had been explored. But I wanted to address your point that fighting for a child or the imagined dream of a birth family is on its own a reason to allow a child back into their birth family.

I think it is important to read the judgement, rather than the daily mail, because comments like this I think it all hinges on whether she is fit to raise the child and on what degree of interest she has shown in him are made without knowing the full facts of the case.

They would not remove a child from a perfectly good home without assessing the child's aunts abilities to care for him.

A baby was, for good reasons, removed from his mother at the hospital of his birth, and fostered. The identity of the birth mother was, of course, known. Social workers, the guardian, and later apparently the court, all accepted the mother's assertion that her then partner was the genetic father. Soon there was an unopposed care order and placement order. When he was aged 7 months, the baby was placed for adoption with A and B who have been described as "perfect adopters". Three months later, A and B issued the present application to adopt him. Another man then came forward claiming that he might be the true genetic father and it was quickly proved that he is. Although he could not care full time for a small child himself, he strongly seeks that his son should now move to live with his sister (the child's aunt) so that the child can grow up within his birth family and have the opportunity to enjoy a normal legal and psychological relationship with his father, paternal half sibling, and other members of his extended, genetic paternal family, throughout his life. The father and the aunt also emphasise that they and their family are black African (the father's choice of ethnic description); the child is of mixed race (the father's choice of description) and clearly has dark (although not black) skin and negroid features; but A and B are both white. The aunt has been assessed as a good parent to her own son, who is only a little older than the child, and as a suitable carer for the child. The child is now aged 20 months. He has lived with A and B for 13 months and is very well attached to them. The essential question (but at this stage simplifying the issues and analysis) is whether his welfare throughout his life is better safeguarded and promoted by now leaving him with A and B, to whom he is so well attached, and making the adoption order; or by declining to make the adoption order and promoting the move of the child from A and B to live with the aunt.

Greengrow if you read the document you will see the birth father was given many inductors that the child was his but chose to ignore these because it would have meant admitting to his partner that he had an affair. He seems to have been perfectly happy for the child to be raised by the birth mum, who was white and used drugs, had had other children removed etc and rather than being "kept away from the child by social workers" had kept himself away by not admitting that the baby was biologically his.

Icimoi I think it is absolutely right to debate these things since judges, like everyone else, can make mistakes! My firm belief is the judge in this case has and I feel it is totally wrong.

The father found out the child was in care and then found out he had been placed with 'perfect adopters' and yet still wished to disrupt this, not to care for the child himself but for his sister to do so.

However, Icimoi I will agree with you that a paper-based report is ridiculous and a proper assessment should have been done.

Boysclothes this father does not want to bring up this child. He wants his sister to do it for him. And he spent a lot of time denying the child was his when even his partner felt it was his child (because he did not want to admit to having an affair with the child's mother). And the child is not a baby, he is a toddler who has grown to know and love the new parents. It is not about them it is about him. How will his father, who will effectively be his uncle (in that he is brother to the woman who cares for the child) feel if the child wishes he could have stayed put!

I think you are assuming, Boysclothes, a adoptive family is second best, it is not. Of course a birth family is preferable all things being equal but they are not here. The birth mum was unable to parent and the birth father was unwilling to parent (or even to admit he was the father).

Sorry, a paper-based report from the psychologist.

and

...who will effectively be his uncle (in that he is brother to the woman who will care for the child)

When both parents cannot or will not bring up their child and suitable relatives are out there such a various aunts and uncles and grandparents then that is where the child should go and indeed what the court decided here.

I admire your absolute certainty greengrow. Nice to be so absolutely sure about such things. How long should a child remain in care waiting for family?

Normally family would be assessed before considering outside adopters. This is not a normal case.

I'm guessing you haven't lived with a child with attachment issues - I'm not sure you would be so very convinced if you had.

I agree with Ici and greyhound that a paper based psychologists report was ridiculous. Either commission a proper report or don't - in a case as difficult as this generalisations are pointless.

I'm repeating myself - and others - here, but I went into adoption well-informed and well-read, but I still couldn't really understand how a child adopted in infancy could have attachment issues years later. Most people I know don't get it. My dd's teachers don't get it. Nor does our GP. Nor do our friends. But I am now convinced that the disruption and trauma of my dd's first year of life will be with her forever. Good parenting can make a big difference to how well she manages this, but I don't believe she will ever truly get over it.

Italian, I didn't say that cases like this can never be debated. However, what we are already seeing on this thread are people raising issues which are fully answered in the judgment, which is what makes many elements of the debate irrelevant. Given that the judge is the person who has read all the reports and seen all the witnesses, on what basis can anyone claim to know better?

There is an interesting point raised upthread. Would leaving this child with the adopters necessarily be in the adopters' interests? If he grows up and discovers that his father and the paternal family not only wanted to care for him but were deemed perfectly capable of doing so and were in effect prevented because the adoptive parents (admittedly along with others) opposed it because they were so desperate for him to stay with them - what sort of relationship is he going to have with the adoptive parents afterwards? And what sort of damage would that do to the child?

It wouldn't be like that, though, would it Icimoi? The child would never stay with the adoptive family because the parents were desperate - the child would stay if it was ruled that was in the child's best interests. And that is what the parents would tell the child. And the child may well turn round and say, "Well, I hate you and I want to live with my birth family". Which, frankly, all adopted children may do. We all live with that risk.

on what basis can anyone claim to know better?

I think I have openly said that I feel he (like many people) severely underplay the degree to which attachment issues affects a child. I really don't think you can understand this until you've lived with it. I am in a similar position to Devora.

I do not say that the judge has made the wrong decision - how on earth would anyone know at this stage- in fact how will anyone ever/ know. I do think he was very dismissive of the potential problems with attachment going forward and as I think a fair bit of his decision seems to hinge on the potential benefits/risks of the move, I think it is very* pertinent to hear peoples real experiences of attachment issues in adopted children.

Icimoi may I also comment on what you said, (I am really not wanting to argumentative, honest)... but you said

There is an interesting point raised upthread. Would leaving this child with the adopters necessarily be in the adopters' interests?

Nothing is done here for the adoptive parents benefit, honestly it is not.

But just for a moment are you suggesting that taking their child from them would be in their best interests?

Just imagine that, a child they have loved and cared for for a long time?

If he grows up and discovers that his father and the paternal family not only wanted to care for him but were deemed perfectly capable of doing so and were in effect prevented because the adoptive parents (admittedly along with others) opposed it because they were so desperate for him to stay with them - what sort of relationship is he going to have with the adoptive parents afterwards? And what sort of damage would that do to the child?

Well of course good adoptive parents would tell a child everything in an age appropriate way all along, that is what we are all told to do, as far as I am aware. Of course not all adoptive parents would but these parents were described as 'perfect' so I would hope there would be no horrible surprises for this child when he got older.

Secondly,as far as I can see in no way does this father 'want to care for him', he wants his sister to do it, who lives some distance from him, and presumably he is going to pop into and out of this child's life as he feels able to/wishes to or whatever. He does not live his partner and their child. I am not being critical of his choices here, simply stating that he does not want to provide what this child needs, day to day care in a loving home. How could that be outweighed by a rather on-off relationship with a man who denied any involvement in his birth!

This 'desperation' sounds like the adoptive parents are only thinking of themselves, I would very much doubt that 'perfect parents' would be doing that!

Presumably, the child could maintain a relationship with his birth father and the birth father's sister, his aunt, and I would imagine if this were offered the adoptive parents would be willing for this to happen. If I had to allow this to happen in order to keep the child I had raised for so long, I would. They may even feel it would be beneficial for the child.

I agree with Kew as usual.

And I agree with Devora (the child may turn round etc) and actually some contact with birth father may mean that the child grows up with a realistic view of the birth father, which would include the fact birth father was himself (IMHO)'desperate' to deny that he was the father.