No legal aid = baby adopted

[CFSKate]

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.

Devora that is what has been reported in the press: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11921061/Vindicated-parents-of-baby-taken-into-care-and-adopted-vow-to-fight-for-return-of-stolen-child.html

Jane

I don't agree with you neither.
I think much of the trauma of moving the child that people are talking about would be more in fitting with the children entering the system having been abused, neglected, from drug addiction etc, not a child who has experienced no abuse apart from that of ss of course.

Any adoptive parent is groomed or naturally comes to the conclusion that adoption is in the best interest of the child. They are assessed on their ability to be selfless and realise this, especially during placement.
As this isn't in the best interests of the child as they already have capable decent parents, they will want to return the child in the child's best interest.
otherwise I'm sorry but I'd go as far as to say they shouldn't be adopting if they don't.

I have a friend whose H walked out shortly after the birth of her twins. He lives on the other side of the world and sees the twins once a year properly and perhaps a couple of times in between. They adore their father - the biological bond is so strong.

This is a complete miscarriage of justice, I am having anxiety myself at the thought of what these parents have been through. I can only imagine how I would feel if my child was taken from me forever for no reason.

The child should be returned to the birth parents, I honestly can't see how anyone could suggest otherwise and still claim to have the best interests of the child at heart.

Gradual contact building up to the child returning to live with them full time.

Bobo - they have contact, they recognise him as their father. What devora is saying is that this isn't the case here.

I have a child who is the product of donor sperm; trust me, she does not 'adore' her father and nor does the child born as a result of my donated eggs 'adore' me!

In any case, Devora - apologies, I realise you didn't explicitly state your view one way or the other but surely continued contact would continue drawing attention towards this awful event?

I'm not sure that would be right for anybody.

UnlikelyPilgramage, you say: But I feel the only kind way - the only sane way - is for a child to be with his parents and I know you agree on this - that unless there is abuse or neglect or severe risk of - that should be with the birth parent(s).

What I agree is that children should not be removed from birth parents unless there is severe risk of abuse or neglect. That does not mean that this child should now be removed from her current parents, in order to correct a past wrong. The wellbeing of the child comes first, and many posters on this thread are only seeing the undoubted damage caused by wrongly removing a child from her birth parents. They are not acknowledging - maybe because they've never seen it - the huge damage caused by disrupting a child's primary attachments. Please try and learn from those of us who have. It is NOT true that this trauma is in some way undone by return to biological parents, that that transition can be accelerated and smoothed over by the power of 'natural' maternal love. As we are often told in adoption, love is not enough.

Having said that, for me it would not be an option either to just ignore this miscarriage of justice and carry on as before. But the starting point for any resolution is that individual child, not posters' uninformed beliefs, instinctive sympathies and prejudices.

but surely continued contact would continue drawing attention towards this awful event?

I don't think there's any way for the families to 'move on' from this awful event. They will be living with it for ever.

I do know a little about attachment, Devora - please don't assume I don't know exactly what I'm talking about here.

I realise the enormity of removing this child from his adoptive parents at this stage.

However, the problem is that whilst in the here and now staying with his adoptive parents is undoubtedly the best thing, long term, I feel staying with his adoptive parents would be extremely damaging. The chances of him being angry, feeling out of place, resentful and cheated are, I feel, very high.

Furthermore it robs the adoptive parents of a 'proper' chance to be his parents without the shadow of the birth parents.

My view isn't based on what is best for a three year old but what is best for the child, adolescent and adult that three year old will become.

My view isn't based on what is best for a three year old but what is best for the child, adolescent and adult that three year old will become.

Very wise.

Well, I'm impressed at how many people here seem to know exactly what they're talking about. I've been neck-deep in this stuff for years and it only gets more complex and challenging for me. Signing off for now.

I don't think there's any way for the families to 'move on' from this awful event. They will be living with it for ever.

Also very wise.

Those are the two key issues, really; that the effects will endure whatever happens and that the three year old will one day (soon, in the grand scheme of things) be a teen and an adult.

Looking at it that way does give some strong pointers.

Hopefully the adopters are wise people.

Children swapped at birth etc. What would you do? Can you imagine having to prepare your child to be taken away?

Not the same. You always thought your child was your child. The adoptive parents know that their child was not always their child.

Surely this child deserves the opportunity to be in their birth family.
It won't be easy and needs a careful reintroduction process. But this child deserves whatever resources that takes to be given a chance.

hypnotist, who would be supporting the child through this gradual build up of contact? Their adoptive parents? Do you think adoptive parents are superhuman? 'You know we said we'd be your mummy and daddy forever? Well...'

Or do you think the child should be moved immediately to foster carers so that some strangers can support him/her and he/she can have the trauma of two moves instead of just the one?

I'm not sure if that's intended sarcastically, Devora.

I don't think anyone knows 'exactly what they're talking about' - perhaps a better rephrase would be 'I recognise that this will have repercussions for the child in terms of his attachment.'

If we state that to remove the child from his adoptive parents would be too damaging in terms of attachment, and allow contact and visits with birth parents, that's indeed a fair argument.

Would the child blithely accept it? It's possible - but the chances of also feeling displaced, angry, resentful, cheated - seem far more probable, especially if he has birth siblings living with his birth parents.

There isn't one answer that will make things fine for this child. There's simply a 'best fit.'

In answer to your post, I don't profess to be an expert but I know enough about attachment theory to recognise removing a child from his parents he has bonded with is damaging.

Unfortunately, it's damage limitation now, as we are past the point of 'no damage at all.'

Can anyone confirm whether the placement was a Foster-to-Adopt one?

There aren't any siblings. Reportedly the parents were to frightened to have more.

(That should be 'too frightened')

I haven't rtft yet, sorry, but wanted to say that I hope that they get some really good solicitors, and a fantastic judge, and that if successful a precedent is set. Adoptions can be reversed easily by the adoptive parents and the failure rate is high, and there are too many reports of poorly handled adoptions as per comments by family judges themselves, so there is a problem.

Understandably, but that's not to say they won't in future.

It really is just a heartbreaking case and I couldn't feel more sympathy for everybody in it if I tried.

But since, with the best will in the world, 'sharing' a child is not in his best interests, I don't see how insisting he stays with his adoptive parents is ultimately helpful to anybody.

All the talk of it being best for the child in the longer term being moved now, aged 3, after at least two previous moves are massively underestimating how those moves will affect the child later in life. Is it better to have a more securely attached child who has to cope with this complicated history with the support of his adoptive parents (+ birth parents through contact?), or a child with numerous moves under his belt, memory of his adoptive parents (+ contact?) and having to cope with his complicated life story? There is no right answer and all the drum beating here isn't going to find one.

As an aside, I agree with the others who question how much experience all the people on this thread have of the issues being discussed.

The swapped at birth scenario is of course not the same, there is no identical scenario, but it's the best one I've read on here. As for always thinking of the child as yours - the adoptive parents have. I bet since they first heard of this child they thought of them as theirs. Just because they came to the child via adoption doesn't diminish that.

I too am signing off now, because continuing this is pointless. It's disheartening to see just how narrow minded so many people are regarding adoption. I hope and pray my children never encounter such people in real life.

Damage limitation is exactly right.
What brings the fewest longterm effects for the teen and adult, not what caues the least pain in the shortterm.

You would explain to the child that it was a miscarriage of justice, that their birth parents were perfectly capable of looking after them.
Then surely the child would choose to at least spend time with birth parents.
The child might become very angry and confused in their teens over this "mistake" or having no single home.

If the child is returned to the birth parents, there would be a transitional period, but it sounds like they were allowed a relationship until last year.
Would that be retrievable ?

At least frequent contact should be started immediately with birth parents, to help assess and develop the options.

I know from personal experience, the first 6 weeks in a baby's life are the most important for bonding, as I'm sure others on here know too.
This child had this from parents and will have no underlying issues from this, unlike those put up for adoption and forming no bond with one caregiver from birth. Who, incidentally can have issues with this throughout life.
The child hasn't been traumatised from abuse or neglect, in fact the biggest trauma will probably come from ss taking the child from the parents.
I'm not suggesting it would be an easy transition nor that the adoptive parents wouldn't be heartbroken but honesty, love and what is right for the child in the long term is the important thing. Far better to sort it now than try to communicate this to a teen or adult.
The child has an identity and parents already and never needed intervention.

Attachment isn't a here and now thing. Insecure attachment damages and affects every single one of your future relationships. So no-one who is saying 'this child would be damaged' is doing anything other than thinking about this child through the whole of their life. And anyone who knows anything about attachment would know that.

You would explain to the child that it was a miscarriage of justice, that their birth parents were perfectly capable of looking after them.
Then surely the child would choose to at least spend time with birth parents.

A lot hinges on the adoptive parents' willingness to say exactly that, I think.

Because a child would be at risk of major emotional harm in a home where they did not have access to the whole truth.