Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 17:05

Because natural implies the opposition of unnatural. And if a term is wrong it's wrong. And that one is.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 17:08

Why would this child grow up with nobody fighting their corner?

Again - removal will be traumatising. This will be AT LEAST the third move for this child. That is devastating. How can that be in his/her best interests?

FuckedOffMum · 09/10/2015 17:08

I'd really like some of the posters who are shouting for this child's adoptive parents to hand their child 'back' to the birth parents to answer some of the 'similar' scenarios put forward. Children swapped at birth etc. What would you do? Can you imagine having to prepare your child to be taken away? To have to facilitate visits before the final goodbye? Or would you fight it? Would you resist every step of the way because the child is yours?

So all the mentions of defensiveness and adopters being pro-adoption is, quite frankly, insulting. Adopters feel just the same as birth parents when confronted with the suggestion that they might lose their child.

This is one of those situations that has no right answer. Whatever happens there'll be two parents who are devastated.

whydoicare · 09/10/2015 17:09

There is a link here to a blog which discusses in layman's language about the recent revocation of an adoption order in August 2015 and also references some of the cases that attempted to revoke an order but we're rejected. suesspiciousminds.com/2015/08/11/revocation-of-adoption-order/

Hulababy · 09/10/2015 17:12

Imagine adopting a child & having your child taken away knowing you have done NOTHING wrong!!!

Would the adoptive parents have know about the ongoing case, that the parents were fighting it still, and denying any abuse ever happened, and due to go to court within 12 months? Clearly they must have known something initially due to the parents having contact. But this was stopped once the adoption took place. Would the adoptive parents have been told all of what was happening at that time?

I don't know how much adoptive parents are told of their child's background.

FuckedOffMum · 09/10/2015 17:13

Natural mother (and therefore unnatural mother) are really, really, REALLY insulting to adoptive parents.

I appreciate that the birth parents have been cleared of any criminal wrong doing, but the adoptive parents haven't don't anything wrong either, so let's not insult them either, eh?

Hulababy · 09/10/2015 17:15

Children swapped at birth etc. What would you do?

Hasn't a couple of those situations occurred, outside of the UK, in recent years - and both children returned to their birth parents? They would have been no legal adoption occurring in those situations though - so change of legal parents would not be the same as this kind of situation.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 17:15

Because natural implies the opposition of unnatural. And if a term is wrong it's wrong. And that one is.

No. 'Natural' suggests a relationship or family made by nature as opposed to a relationship or family created by humans (like marriage or adoption).

It does not intrinsically suggest that man-made families are 'unnatural'. That is an emotional response. Which is fine for positive adoption language, but this was a wrongful adoption and I am guessing that the original parents would not self-identify as 'birth' mother and father, so I am not going to call them that. Equally, I am guessing the current parents identify as 'parents' 'adopters' or 'parents by adopters' so I will call them that accordingly.

Both sets of parents deserve equal respect.

You Jane have shown a distinct lack of respect for some parents, so it's a bit odd that you consider yourself an arbiter of what is respectful language TBH.

Lemonfizzypop · 09/10/2015 17:16

Oh my goodness, no one is claiming the adoptive parents wouldn't be devastated, most people have reiterated that time and time again, does that trump the devastation of their birth parents?

I don't know what is best for the child, instinctively I feel like it would be devastating to learn that my biological parents had wanted a relationship with me but that that had been vetoed, as backed up by adopted pp.

It is a horrible situation.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 17:17

X post fuckedoff. I am showing respect for all the parents. If you consider that important, I really wouldn't align yourself with Jane.

BigChocFrenzy · 09/10/2015 17:20

I would NEVER consider reversing an adoption on the grounds that the bm has changed from a dangerous druggie and is now a brilliant successful member of society, bla,bla, bla ...
Or even that the previously unknown bf has been found.

But this is the ONE exception: an outrageous miscarriage of justice committed by The State against innocent parents and also against a child.

So, return the child to their biological parents.
The State cannot just be allowed to shrug its shoulders and say "oops, you'll just have to live with it"

Whichever set of parents loses out should receive HUGE compensation under the Human Rights Act, for gross interference with normal family life.

I think the adoption system is more likely to collapse if people think - in these VERY rare cases - that miscarriages will not be corrected.
btw, such cases could still happen even with legal aid. The Birmingham Six and many others had expert lawyers.

Remember, anytime from say aged 10, that kid can find out from Google or friends or whispers that that they had oeferctly good biological parents.
That could destroy the relationship with the adoptive family, wreck the teen years and that child's entire life might be ruined in fury and confusion.

Better disruption now, than much greater consequences later.

BoboChic · 09/10/2015 17:21

I cannot see how the adoptive parents can hold on to the child knowing that its natural parents want it returned and that the adoption case was based on evidence that is now disproven. If they do so, their child will hate them with a vengeance when it grows up.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 17:23

I'm not talking about devastating for the parents. I'm talking about the CHILD.

Who many of you seem to think can just be passed around from family to family without any kind of issue at all. Which, as kew said up thread, is probably because you haven't dealt with it.

NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 17:25

Yes, I have to agree with the natural parent being offensive.
Is it natural to abuse children, or neglect them, or not want them at all?

I know these parents have been cleared and totally believe they should be reunited, but adoptive parents are completely natural.
My mum changed my nappies, fed and clothed me. My parents loved me, sacrificed so much for me and stayed up many nights and worried when I was so ill. They did it because they were natural parents. Mum, just didn't give birth to me.

whydoicare · 09/10/2015 17:25

As an adopter, I agree there in an implicit message by some posters that birth parents trump adopters. Just the message about "giving back" makes me shudder. They haven't "taken" a child so can't "give her back" - they can however work with child psychologists to facilitate the best outcome - whether that be direct or increased indirect contact.

BoboChic · 09/10/2015 17:26

The most devastating thing possible for the child will be to grow up to find out that it had not grown up with its natural parents for no good reason.

JaneDonne · 09/10/2015 17:27

I certainly don't identify myself as dd's 'adoptive mother'. I'm kind of hoping she'll just have a 'mother' like the other kids.

HardWorkButTheyMakeMeSmile · 09/10/2015 17:27

Fucked off mum

I can answer that question for you. I was accused of causing a non accidental injury on one of my four children. What followed was months and months of heart wrenching emotional torture. And yes I had to talk my children into accepting the social workers involvement, the supervised only visits, the change to different addresses, the eventual split from two siblings as all four couldn't be accommodated together. It killed me inside and a part of me died during that whole process, but I made it as okay for the kids as I possibly could. I explained everything to them all the way through. I held them as they cried. Sobbing that it wasn't fair and they wanted to come home. I made them accept that this was the way it had to be for now and to just remember every single day that they were loved.

In the end the medical evidence prevailed and the kids were returned and our lives could try to get back to normal but I am fully aware that it could have gone very differently.

If it had I would have fought it to the bitter end legally but I would have put their interests above mine and made it as easy for them to move on as I could.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 17:28

Yes, I have to agree with the natural parent being offensive.
Is it natural to abuse children, or neglect them, or not want them at all?

None of that happened in this case, though.

Which is one of the reasons why normal adoption terminology shouldn't apply here.

NewLife4Me · 09/10/2015 17:28

jane

I believe staying with the adoptive parents under this situation will be devastating for the child and will come back to haunt the adoptive parents if they don't do anything about it.
I'm sure they will take some comfort from knowing their b parents tried to do what they could and fought for the child.

RussianTea · 09/10/2015 17:30

Jane you lost all credibility with your fanjo remark.

Plus you really seem to be struggling with the notion that this is not a normal case of adoption.

F0rmerlyKnownAsXenia · 09/10/2015 17:30

Why are people attacking this unfortunate child's parents and other adopters?

Baby barrister has clearly explained that it's the system that's at fault here. No one who works in the system is " pro adoption " - they are just " anti children's homes" . Which is the alternative , if children in care are not placed for adoption.

The system needs to be properly regulated and funded if miscarriages of justice are to be minimised .

BigChocFrenzy · 09/10/2015 17:32

The interests of the child are to avoid wrecking their life from age 10 or 12, when they would find out the truth, if left with adoptive parents.
That kind of secret can't be kept in this age of social media and www.

FuckedOffMum · 09/10/2015 17:34

I'm not aligning myself with anyone. I was merely reiterating that 'natural mother' is a term that is insulting - and indeed harmful, within adoption. Referring to birth mothers automatically resulting in all non birth mothers being unnatural. The widespread use of natural mothers further cements the idea that non birth mothers are second best and that non birth children are unnatural, therefore wrong.

It might be an emotional response, but it's not unusual and I think it should be respected.

tldr · 09/10/2015 17:34

God, I'm seeing from this thread why adopters are made to jump through so many hoops. The lack of awareness amongst almost everyone else about the trauma caused by moves is eye-opening to say the least.

Swipe left for the next trending thread