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

No legal aid = baby adopted

943 replies

CFSKate · 09/10/2015 07:54

I saw this on Channel 4 News yesterday, I only saw it part way through, but it went something like this, there was a couple who were accused of abusing their child, they couldn't get legal aid, the court had the child adopted, and then it went to court again and new evidence said there was a medical condition and the parents weren't guilty of abuse, but the adoption is final, they can't get their baby back.

OP posts:
TheWildRumpyPumpus · 09/10/2015 15:54

I'll hazard a guess that all the people saying that the child would get to 16 and move straight back in with his/her birth parents aren't actually adopted themselves.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 15:54

X post. Perhaps we agree more than we disagree Kew?

BathtimeFunkster · 09/10/2015 16:00

The expert evidence that confirmed the child had not been abused was served to the criminal court "within moments" of the adoption order being issued.

It was an established fact that the justification for removing that child from its parents was false a matter of minutes after this supposedly irreversible in all circumstances document had been made.

It is fucking shameful that the people involved in this decision allowed a child to be taken from its rightful, legal parents when delaying the issuing of a document by an hour would have prevented this.

BathtimeFunkster · 09/10/2015 16:01

I'll hazard a guess that all the people saying that the child would get to 16 and move straight back in with his/her birth parents aren't actually adopted themselves.

At least two adoptees have said they would be furious with adopted parents who did this to them, one said she'd go no contact.

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 16:06

I think I said upthread Russian that if were me I would explore contact. I'm over-reacting because I think people really haven't seen the effect that change has on a child.

NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 16:06

Thank you tess

Kew

I know lots of people who were adopted in the 60's and have been to several support groups. I've never heard any say their parents were encouraged to lie, they all knew from a young age. The stigma was from the bio mum usually, not the child.
However, I do know that prior to 1975 the details of the bio parents were never to be given to the adoptee. But a change in law allowed access to records after this.

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 16:10

I think that it wasn't uncommon pre 70's for people to lie about it NewLife or at the very least acknowledge it in passing but be dismissive of it. Even bizarrely in situations where the child obviously isn;t biological (llike transracial adoptions) but yes I'm sure plenty of paretns were sensible enough even then to know it was an ideal way to raise a child.

NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 16:13

Thewild

I'm adopted and as I said upthread if these were my adopted parents and they neither returned me nor told me at an early age, not 18 or something, then I would never forgive them.
I'm not suggesting that these parents won't btw.
Also, having known several adopted children who were abused by adoptive parents, or neglected etc they aren't always the best to be parenting.
Also, not suggesting these parents are abusive.
Yes, I would go nc, because my upbringing would have been a complete lie. I'd want to know what my adoptive parents had done to encourage contact for example.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:15

Do the people saying this child needs to be 'given back' seriously think that being taken from its parents (yet again) and given to people who will be complete strangers to it won't be traumatising?

Seriously?

Or do you think the child will recognise its birth parents after all this time?

Or do you just maybe think the rights of the birth parents trump those of the child?

The only humane way to manage this is with contact. As I believe kew has said? repeatedly

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 16:17

Or do you just maybe think the rights of the birth parents trump those of the child? ha ha - nice try Jane but we've already established that most people do!

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:17

'adoptive parents aren't always the best to be parenting'.

Biscuit
Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 16:18

Oops sorry - msread that! no a few people have said that the rights of the child must be paramount but on the whole I think most people don;t see the problem with the child being returned.

To be fair they've never had to deal with it so why would they.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:18

They're only fucking kids kew - they'll get over it.

THEY WON'T EVEN REMEMBER

Lurkedforever1 · 09/10/2015 16:19

I don't think anyone has suggested just handing the child straight over with a cheery wave. Contact would be the first step towards that, I just disagree it should be the only step, as long as it progresses in a way that is best for that individual childs needs.

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 16:21

A few people have suggested if the child has moved from birthparents to foster care and foster care to adoption then it can happen again. ALso that children are adopted at 3 so it can happen the other way too.

Not exactly with a cheery wave but certainly with a hefty dose of dismissal of just how damaging the process is.

whydoicare · 09/10/2015 16:25

I just wanted to highlight a point - criminal courts rely on the evidence being proven beyond reasonable doubt. The family court look at the probability being greater than not. So it may be that the criminal court dropped this case because it couldn't guarantee it would get a conviction however the family court may well feel that the balance of probability is that abuse was a factor and their decision stands.
I appreciate this is partially in the news but until the court transcripts from the family court are published, we won't know the full story. Only the criminal court side of it.
To those suggesting the next step here is that adoptions can be reversed, can I ask where your lines in the sand are? Just miscarriages of justice? How long ago would it need to be proved and still have a child returned? Are you therefore advocating long term foster care rather than adoption? Genuine question.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:25

They're only fucking kids kew - they'll get over it

THEY WON'T EVEN REMEMBER

Seriously Jane?

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:27

I just can't understand how anyone thinks removing a child from a secure home with capable parents could be in that child's best interests.

However slowly and carefully you managed it and regardless of whether one of the people in the home it is going to squeezed it out of their fanjo in the first place.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:27

why

I don't think the defence team etc would be commenting as they have if this was all attributable to the discrepancy between the burden of proof between civil and criminal law.

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 16:28

That's what adopters are often told Russian that our children can't have any issues because they're too young to remember it - I think Jane was trying to be ironic and turning it around (do I mean ironic?)

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:28

No not seriously. Sarcastically. Obviously.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:29

Also why, the inevitability of some bystanders thinking 'A not guilty verdict doesn't mean they didn't do it' is part of the problem.

regardless of whether one of the people in the home it is going to squeezed it out of their fanjo in the first place.

You do realise how you sound Jane?

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:30

I wasn't trying to be ironic kew I was succeeding rather too well clearly.

:)

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:31

Do I sound irritated by the suggestion that birth parents trump adoptive parents Russian? That's what I was aiming for.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:33

If you don't think biological parenthood is of any more significance than 'squeezing [someone] out of your fanjo' and you think that is a reasonable way in which to discuss the (wronged) mother in this case, there's probably a bit of you missing, TBH.