Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

If a child had been adopted - unlawfully- they should be returned parents?

16 replies

xena · 08/11/2006 20:01

FOR DISCUSSION
Just watched real story, don't want to give an opinion on that particular case but........ if they are proved inocent why are the children not returned?

OP posts:
UCM · 08/11/2006 20:07

Not much to add, but I just watched the last 20 minutes of this programme and it was terribly disturbing if those children were taken away unecessarily.

cori · 08/11/2006 20:11

I think it is because the law states 'the childs interest is paramount' so a child who had been living with a new family for a few years would be emotionally damaged if they were then removed to live with the birth family. The children might not even know they were adopted etc.

Original poster
xena · 08/11/2006 20:11

DH and I were discussing and he said that adoption is final- but surely if they are allowed to keep the baby because they are innocent then the other children should go back to their parents.
If it was me I wouldn't rest until I had it over turned certainly 2 years down the line I would be still daily fighting it.... I certainly wouldn't have had time to have another baby

OP posts:
cori · 08/11/2006 20:13

I dont know if adoptions can be overturned.

Original poster
xena · 08/11/2006 20:13

THat is of course the other arguement cori but would they be long term affected when they found out when they were say 18? If there are 3 children then the eldest must remember her birth parents??

OP posts:
cori · 08/11/2006 20:15

How old were the children when adopted?

JustHumphrey · 08/11/2006 20:20

I found this programme very disturbing.

It is so difficult to know what is best for the first three children, ie: being returned to their birth parents if the parents are innocent.

It is terrifying that this could just have been down to the child having a bone disease which is also suffered by lots of his relatives.

hulababy · 08/11/2006 20:21

I'd definitely say you need a solicitor.

Look at the Law Society website - they can tell you local solicitors firms who can hep you. I would recommend a solicitor who speciliases in wills, probate, and tax/trusts (sometimes called private client as well) rather than a general practise lawyer.

hulababy · 08/11/2006 20:22

Sorry - wrong thread! How did that happen??? Sorry again.

hulababy · 08/11/2006 20:22

Sorry - wrong thread! How did that happen??? Sorry again.

Original poster
xena · 08/11/2006 20:28

It is terrifying that this could just have been down to the child having a bone disease which is also suffered by lots of his relatives.
They did say that he had 11 injuries whilst with his parents and none whilst in care.

OP posts:
JustHumphrey · 08/11/2006 21:07

It is still terrifying that this could have been down to the child having a bone disease which is also suffered by lots of his relatives.

SofiaAmes · 08/11/2006 21:32

Maybe the child lived a normal life with his parents and did things like climb trees or crawl around unhampered or whatever is normal for the age of the child. In care, the child could have been abnormally protected...kept in a playpen all day or not allowed to do things that were the least bit risky. Perhaps, the parents should have been counselled that they needed to be more cautious with their child than they would be with a normal child that didn't have brittle bones.
Surely they could work out some sort of transfer or temporary joint custody with both families to make the return of the children an less traumatic experience.

Original poster
xena · 09/11/2006 08:02

JustHumphrey I'm no way in disagreeing with your statement - it is such a scary and important case that SS are investigating (valid points that SofiaAmes made about the differences in lifestyle) to see whether they can keep the 4th child - I still think that if they are allowed to keep the baby because they are innocent then they should have the other children back

OP posts:
Freckle · 09/11/2006 08:07

If adoptions cannot be overturned, how come some adoptive parents can hand the children back when they find it too hard? If it can happen that way, then the reverse should allowed too.

I can understand that it might be unsettling for the children, but what about further down the line, when they discover they are adopted and want to seek out their birth family. They discover that they were removed in error and that their parents have another (or more) children that they were allowed to keep. What effect is that going to have on them?

As long as they haven't been adopted for 10 years or more, then I think being reunited with their birth family should at least be considered. How on earth those parents coped with the loss of all 3 of their children at once, I have no idea.

Original poster
xena · 09/11/2006 08:28

I agree freckle if my 4 were taken away from me it would be worse than life in prison.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page