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.

Jane

believe me, I know about this. I'm sure I manage my issues far better for knowing I wasn't snatched from my loving parents and placed for adoption.
Yes, it has damaged all my relationships, not severely but I know I have issues that to others seem bizarre.
I can't imagine being this poor child tbh, god help him/her whatever happens.

It looks like it was a foster to adopt situation, Russian. The adoption was finalised a year ago, but the adoptive parents have had residence of the child for 2.5 years.

I'm sure you do newlife

No adopter I know would do anything other than approach life story work and contact with the best interests of their child absolutely being the only thing that mattered. But trauma at this very young age gets hardwired into the way you react to everybody and everything - that cannot be in the child's best interests.

And yes I would hope I would be able to give up my child if it were best for them. Judgement of Solomon and all. That's what real parents do isn't it? Put their children first.

This is a horrendous situation for all concerned. I have a visceral reaction to the idea of anyone forcibly removing my child from me, and if it happened, I'm sure that I would fight with every fibre in my body to get her back. This is what has happened to the poor birth parents in this case, and now the adoptive parents must be dreading that the same thing could happen to them. Regardless of the outcome, it's tragic - one set of parents will be desperately unhappy.

Legally, the adoptive parents do now have more rights than the birth parents. Morally, though, I'm not sure that either set of parents has a stronger claim. The child is not the possession of its birth parents or its adoptive parents. He/she does not "belong" to either.

What matters now is whatever is in the best interests of the child, but I'm genuinely not sure what those are or whois in a position to judge.

I presume that the child has now developed a bond with his/her adoptive parents, and that it would therefore be potentially damaging (perhaps devastating) to have that bond broken.

At the same time, I don't know what (if any) the long term effects of adoption are on those who are adopted, or indeed if it is easy to even measure these effects in isolation from the trauma that many adoptees will have experienced prior to adoption or during the transition period immediately afterwards. Does growing up outside of your birth family have an impact on mental health, for example? Is there any research that has looked in to this?

It seems to me that, even if the adoptive parents maintain custody of the child, if that is considered to be the least disruptive option, at the very least the child has an absolute right to know his/her birth parents, to have regular contact with them and to understand the reasons why he/she was removed. It may be very hard all round for both sets of parents to live with this, but I think they should try to make it work for the sake of the child, and the law should support this.

I really feel for all concerned. :(

Jane

I thought about my parents and what they would have done. They fostered before adopting and when they died we found hundreds of slides of babies some obviously the same child. They never spoke of it but I know they stopped because mum couldn't cope with having to give them up, hence they adopted. I think they would have been heart broken but would have given the child up.
Maybe it's because ss say they like to keep dc with parents if possible, and usually there is a reason a child is better off adopted or fostered.
I think so many people are upset about this because of the sheer injustice and potential problems for the child.
I know it would be so hard for the adoptive parents it's their child now.
However, injustice aside I still think long term it is better for the child to return to biological parents.
It must be so hard for all concerned.

If you can recommend any reading around attachment I would certainly like to know more, if you can help

in order to correct a past wrong.

A "past" wrong?

In what sense is a child being deprived of its parents for the rest of its life a "past" wrong?

This is an ongoing wrong.

This is damage that continues to be done to this child, and will continue to be done, because that child was wrongfully removed from its loving family.

The fact that a new family has been found does not, in any way, put the harm that has been done to this child in the past.

This is nothing like a happy adoption that counts as a new start for a child.

The adoption of this child was an act of harm towards it. It permanently removed it from its rightful, legal family for no good reason at all.

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.

There not much point with me engaging in the debate much further - I've kinda said what I think, but just to say that this statement isn't actually true.

My son was relinquished, was not abused or neglected in any way and has ongoing psychological issues caused by the separation from early carers. This doesn't make him more likely to be able to rebond with a carer he had bonded with when a baby, it makes him less likely to do so. Because another break in his very secure bond with me would probably (only in my opinion to be fair) destroy finally his ability to trust that anything in his life is permanent.

I can't talk for this child or for these parents but it isn't true that trauma is caused by abuse or neglect the process of repeated separation alone can be as damaging. It's one of the reasons the bar is set so high to remove a child because studies show that staying with crap parents is less damaging than repeatedly being moved.

It isn't necessarily relevant here but I'd like people to at least acknowledge the pain this child will go through if "Sent back" - she will be losing her parents again.

I think most people are acknowledging it, Kew, but our view is that pain, for this child, is unavoidable. It's how to best minimise that, not eradicate it completely.

Dan Hughes is the guy on attachment for adopted children newlife. There are a couple of books - building the bonds of attachment is one. Can't remember the name of the other one. They're very good.

Well you'd minimise the damage by not moving the child. But for some reason that isn't acceptable.

Thank you Kew

I stand corrected and had heard what I had posted to be true.
I too can see that the child's adoptive parents are real to the child and it would be an upheaval.
I just believe the pain or issues would be less as the child grew up with biological parents than having to cope with the fact he was taken for no reason.

The parents are only young and still together, they had no other child for fear it works be taken too, they may have more children.

The parents may also have more children with the same health issues, which actually is something you bond over in a family.

Jane, it is true that would minimise the damage for a three year old. I'm not convinced at all that it would minimise the damage long term, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I genuinely believe any trauma now will be a lot less than the impact 10, 20, 50 years down the line of remaining with the adoptive parents. As to the attachment, part of the pre adoption assessment is how attached the child is to its birth parents / foster parents etc. Because the more attached they are, the easier it is in theory for them to potentially form new attachments to adoptive parents. So the same would apply in reverse here. Not to mention the reason toddlers taken into care do better than older children in terms of long term outcome is because the younger they are, the easier it is to adapt. So while none of it is clear and simple I do think a return now is best long term for the child.

I agree with your post wholeheartedly, Lurked.

The parents are only young and still together, they had no other child for fear it works be taken too, they may have more children.

Are you making the point that they can still have a family despite losing their firstborn?

Or that the child potentially stands to lose the relationship(s) with its full siblings as well as its original parents?

Let's hope the adoptive parents are not selfish and legally give or back to the child's parents with a view to giving them back, remaining in contact for life, backing out into an Aunt/uncle role, it really is for the best.

Give back Pr to the parents.

i just cannot see a healthy positive family coming out of keeping that child and denying contact. it's not a case of thinking that returning the child to it's parents is a positive or easy thing but that it is the only thing that can be done given the alternative. the alternative being growing up to know you were raised by people who used their power (a legal paper) to prevent you knowing your parents and extended family even though they knew that they wanted you.

if they are going to be honest with the child don't you think the child is immediately going to want to meet their parents and extended family? saying no you can't essentially just because we don't want you to because you're 'ours' now and a court of law backs us up is not the basis of love and trust and a child feeling safe and honoured. no matter how you storyboard it.

hopefully the adoptive parents will not take that route and will not stand in the way of this child having a relationship with it's parents.

Because the more attached they are, the easier it is in theory for them to potentially form new attachments to adoptive parents. So the same would apply in reverse here

That is an extremely good point Lurked.

Not to mention the reason toddlers taken into care do better than older children in terms of long term outcome is because the younger they are, the easier it is to adapt.

Decisions do need to be made quickly and well, don't they? It's a huge ask. I'm glad it's not my responsibility. It's such a minefield.

if they are going to be honest with the child don't you think the child is immediately going to want to meet their parents and extended family? saying no you can't essentially just because we don't want you to because you're 'ours' now and a court of law backs us up is not the basis of love and trust and a child feeling safe and honoured. no matter how you storyboard it

If the family did decide that, they would doubtless explain it as being a decision in the best interests of the child's sense of security.

This s such a tragic case. I would like to understand more about why the adoption was finalised before the case against the parents had been concluded.

The U.K. adoption system has already been found to have breached the ECHR in a number of respects (the case of P, C and S v UK, over a decade ago). Unfortunately, lessons don't seem to have been learned.

Or that the child potentially stands to lose the relationship(s) with its full siblings as well as its original parents? this

I guess most of us are looking at this from our own perspective as parents. Rationally, I know that it might not be true, but my gut tells me that nobody else could possibly love my dd as much as I do, and I would therefore struggle to accept that she could ever be better off staying with another family, under any circumstances.

I'm sure that most birth parents probably feel that way. However, I'm sure that most adoptive parents have an equally strong gut reaction that tells them that that they love their kids each and every bit as much as any birth parents do, and that there can be no possible benefit at all to a child in tearing it away from a stable, loving family and from all that it knows and loves.

It's very hard to put your personal feelings aside on this one.