Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 16:34

Jane

Yes, I do think the child should returned, but believe it needs to be done quickly.
Most adopted people I have come in contact with have some sort of issues even if they were adopted as babies and experienced no cruelty during this time, so pretty similar to the child in question.
I don't think it's the right of the parents to parent their child, but the right of the child to be parented by their biological parents. The right of the child should come first, of course.

Inthelookingglass · 09/10/2015 16:36

The child was not abused and id say it's best interests were back with its bio family and extended family.

Can you imagine the injustice and robbed feeling the child will have when it discovers the truth? it was taken under a false motive and left there because the authorities thought the fuck up was too big.

If I was the adoptive parents I honestly wouldn't be able to look at myself in the face every morning knowing if more or less stolen another women's child. She should be opening the door of contact to the real mother.

I think they authorities do not want to rectify this as it will open a can of worms.

whydoicare · 09/10/2015 16:36

Russian, I don't believe not guilty verdicts doesn't mean they didn't do it - I'm just pointing out the differences in burdens of proof required. In many cases, criminal convictions aren't sought or secured but the family court deem abuse or neglect probably happened. Without any information yet from the family court, we don't know what their decision was based around. I very much hope they publish the transcript so all sides are clear.

Lagoonablue · 09/10/2015 16:37

May have been mentioned but with the burden of proof in criminal cases the bar is set high. Not the case in civil law.

To saying this couple did hurt their child. However just because there isn't a prosecution criminally doesn't mean that family courts don't have the full version of the facts to aid their decision making.

tldr · 09/10/2015 16:37

They did not steal another woman's child.

whydoicare · 09/10/2015 16:39

Russian, hope my post makes sense - lots of double negatives in my post!

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:39

If I was the adoptive parents I honestly wouldn't be able to look at myself in the face every morning knowing if more or less stolen another women's child.

If we are going to use the language of property ownership ( Hmm ) , it's more that the adopters were given a 'stolen' child and were completely innocent themselves. So there is no reason for them to feel anything other than pain about anything that has happened up to this point.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:40

Yes I see what you are saying why. Transparency and clarity would be good.

babybarrister · 09/10/2015 16:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 16:42

Jane

Are you an adoptive parent, because considering a bm to be somebody who has squeezed a child out is pretty appalling.
Totally agree with Russian

F0rmerlyKnownAsXenia · 09/10/2015 16:42

That's because most people don't think of them as REAL parents , they are just unpaid babysitters. Who should be happy to give away their child because someone else has made a mistake .

I wonder what some of the posters on this thread would do if it was discovered that there had been a mix up in the hospital where their child was born and it wasn't actually their biological child?

I'm sure they would see it as " 100% their fault" and " conspire to keep them away from their biological family " . Of course they would hand over the child or teenager " to its parents " without a backward glance Hmm

Because you can't actually love a child unless you've squeezed it out your vulva, dontcha know ?

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 16:43

There is a birth parent on MN who despite believing that she is probably now competent to parent her child agrees that it is his best interest that he stays where he is.

But in this case the birth parents were never INcompetent, they've always been competent.

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 16:45

I haven't seen anyone on this thread claim adoptive parents can't love a child as much as biological parents, there is a lot of defensiveness here.

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 16:47

Formerly - you are looking at things from the parents' perspective, what about the child? Someone who had been adopted up thread said they would be devastated to learn their biological parents had wanted a relationship with them but that that hadn't been granted. Do you not think this could end up being the case here?

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:50

I don't think that. But I do resent being told there is someone waiting in the wings with a greater claim to my child than I have just because of that.

Mostly because it's bollocks.

If you took my child away now. If you did it sensitively and carefully and took great pains to manage it you would damage her. And yet people on this thread blithely think that's ok.

And not just this thread. Every thread about this issue.

And dd will read this kind of thing when she's older and she might wonder if it's true. So I really really just want to clarify that it's not. There isn't some mystical significance to being a birth parent. Just to being a parent.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:51

That's interesting barrister.

5. there is as a matter of law no realistic possibility of the adoption order being set aside under the law as it currently stands

What are the precedents? I thought I could remember two cases reported in the past few years. One the recent case of the teenager and another an adoption over-turned because a BF hadn't been correctly identified and contacted before adoption went ahead. Am I wrong?

tldr · 09/10/2015 16:52

There is a lot of defensiveness here, lemon.

It's what happens when a bunch of people start telling another bunch of people that they are not real parents/should be willing to hand over their child/are baby stealers/that their children only got placed for adoption because they were so darn cute/that the struggles they live with every day caused by early years trauma aren't real because children 'don't remember'.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:53

I haven't seen anyone on this thread claim adoptive parents can't love a child as much as biological parents, there is a lot of defensiveness here.

Agreed Lemon. Maybe that explains Jane's posting.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:54

Lemonfizzypop did you see 'stolen another woman's child'? 'Natural mother'? I could trawl for more if I cba.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 16:56

Jane

'Natural mother' is a legal term. To use 'birth mother' in a case of wrongful removal of a child would be rather crass and insensitive.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 16:57

It's a shit legal term. Let's put that on the list for the pro-adoption lobby's first meeting.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 17:01

But this is WRONGFUL adoption Jane. Why would anyone be so unkind as to rub salt in the parents' wounds by insisting on the usual adoption terms for them?

NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 17:02

Lemon
I agree, so much defensiveness here.

FWIW I had a far better childhood with my loving, fantastic, wonderful adoptive parents than I ever would with my bm or her family.
They loved me and I loved them unconditionally. They are sadly no longer here and I miss them terribly. I couldn't have had better parents and was so lucky. So I think adoptive parents are fab and enjoy reading threads from the lovely parents here. Thanks

I think about this poor child and wonder how the bio parents must feel as well as the adopted parents.
I believe this child has been through enough already and should be back with it's biological family. It's the right thing for the child, with the adoptive parents having occasional contact.
There may be some upset now but in time this has to be far better than the poor child growing up with nobody fighting their corner.
I'm sure the first question an adoptive person asks is why couldn't I stay with birth family.
If the answer is because they were incompetent, neglectors, abusers, didn't want you etc. it's not nice to hear, but you have faith in the fact your adoptive parents saved you from this.
Being told there was a cock up and nobody thought you should be returned is bloody awful.

Hulababy · 09/10/2015 17:02

Makes for scary thinking - How can adoption be legal when it occurs under false information? But it can, and it is legal and there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

It is a tragedy from which there will be no winners.

The birth parents have no doubt under gone a traumatic three years and now face a lifetime of knowing they have a beloved child they cannot contact.

The adoptive parents now know they have a beloved child who was removed from his parents under false beliefs, and that they will have sad information to pass on to their child when he is old enough - and the consequences that may bring.

The child will have a difficult time coming to terms with what has happened, when he is old enough to learn the truth of his birth, removal and adoption and the unknown of who his birth parents are, whether to contact them and his other family, how it will affect his new parents, and years of anguish no doubt.

Horrific for all.

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 17:03

I'm not sure you're able to give a neutral view on this case tbh, understandably, but I think you're letting your judgement be clouded.