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.

Irrespective of any parental rights or lack of them I do think there should be a serious investigation into the likelyhood of this child experancing significant emotional harm in the future. Growing up believing you have been harmed in some way by people who were meant to love you can be immensely damaging and difficult to mitigate even if told that is not the case. And the you throw into the mix that the child shouldnt have had it happen at all. All of that is highly likely to cause significant harm.

No reason why this couldn't be along side investigating the level of harm caused by another move a move is also likely to cause significant harm.

So why not spend a lot of effort working out which one will be worse for this child long term and going with the less emotionally abusive situation with serious help in place.

If it was my child, I would not be asking the knob heads who tucked up to make decide, I would ask the adoptive parents to agree to provide and work out a way for contact with a view to residency, the adoptive parents remain on the scene just back off to Aunt/Uncle roles. Depends on how selfish the adoptive parents are I guess.

yes they could 'story' it that way russian but i doubt the child would buy it - either they'd have been told young and expressed their desire to see their parents and had it overridden OR it would have been concealed from them in order to avoid hearing they wanted to see them. neither is likely to be seen as positive by the adopted person.

The Knob head in this case is a Doctor who would have no legit role in assessing that type of harm.

I'm not quite sure why the workers who responded to her referral and continued evidence would be considered to be knob heads.

You get called to a hospital for a 6 week old baby with a very commonly seem abuse related injury and a well known respected Doctor who is known for evidence in CP and criminal cases backs the call of the referer all the way, would you seriously not act on it?

i'm trying to think of it from the perspective of being the child.

i certainly wouldn't go all out to push for adoptive proceedings to beat criminal proceedings and push to make sure the adoption went through before the criminal case. it wasn't the doctor that enabled that. and before taking a child from it's parents i'd want to rule out any condition that could explain the child's presenting state.

Needsasock, that might have happened but it might not. The doctor's initial referral yes, but their views going forward may not have been the key factor, from what I understand. The paranoia over baby P means that some sw feel under pressure to not take chances and they can push that through. this is a point made in an interview with head of ss I think, recently, where she said in a Guardian interview that some decisions have been and are likely to be in breach of human rights.

Imagine how you would feel if it turned out your baby had been accidentally switched at birth and you had raised the 'wrong' child for three years. During those years, your biological child had died. Now the mistake has been uncovered and you are being asked to hand the baby back, so your child can be raised by its biological parents.

THIS.

I think the biological parents shouting for immediate reversal need to think about this scenario.

It's a truly horrendous situation all round. For all 5 people involved. This is a situation that will NEVER be put right.

The doctor needs struck off.

I am still curious though as to how the child went from being covered in bruises within 6 weeks, to then not developing any new bruises once removed from its biological parents.

The knob heads should have ruled out all known medical conditions first, they didn't, they failed their patient, medical ndgldct, left the child's health condition untreated, robbed it of its peace and family then created this mess. Who wants to take advice from these negligent people, after that?

If mum and baby had low vitamin D and she was bf, once bf and it was sunny, the vitamin d deficiency would improve.

We know precisely nothing about the adoptive parents, other than it being fairly certain that, while they are in the stronger legal position, they are in agony - so I think it's pretty vile, as well as ideologically-loaded, to be constructing them on here as potentially 'selfish' should they not rush to give up their child the second this hit the press, and as exploitative 'beneficiaries' of a miscarriage of justice. With no knowledge at all of what they may be thinking, what support they have, and -if this thread is anything to go by - a large percentage of people treating their parentage of this three year old as negligible, capable of being set aside, as a purely legal fiction, they are hardly in an enviable position..

It's an unimaginably awful situation for all involved, but if there's an argument to be made that the adoptive parents should retire gracefully into Uncle and Auntie roles in the interest of the child attaching securely to one set of biological parents , isn't there an equally compelling argument that the child's biological parents consider whether they should do similar, for the sake of the attachment the child has now to the only parents s/he knows?

And if you find the idea that the birth parents should dwindle into uncle and auntie roles outrageous, don't you think the idea would be equally abhorrent to the parents who adopted this little boy or girl, and love him/her?

IF anyone is interested this is the judgment in the Webster case which is probably the closest case to this one - also a case where medical evidence had pointed to abuse but it was later proven to be an innocent explanation. Again by that point the children had been adopted. The birth parents tried but failed to have the adoption order set aside. Though in that case the children were older and had been with the adoptive parents for longer I think. It shows that revocation of the adoption order is potentially possible but only in 'highly exceptional' cases.

This is the recent case where an adoption order was set aside but it was very unusual. The teenager had been adopted as a young child and the adoptive parents had effectively abandoned her and sent her out to live with extended family who abused her. She was later reunited with her both family and wanted to be legally recognised as theirs. The court agreed but stressed they were very unusual facts.

Those of you who are adament that the adoption should be over turned and the child removed from his parents and sent to live with people who are strangers to him -

What do you think should happen to all the children who will then remain in care and not be adopted ? Because very few people will adopt if their child could be legally removed from them years down the line .

Presumably you are in favour of children's homes and other institutions ? Because foster care doesn't work in the long term- look at the situation in Ireland .

How much will it cost to provide this care for 18 years ? And the therapy for all the disturbed children . What about the additional numbers of people who will be in psychiatric care and in the criminal justice system ? The large number of teenaged pregnancies and people spending life on benefits ?

Have you thought about the implications of what you are suggesting ?

We know precisely nothing about the adoptive parents, other than it being fairly certain that, while they are in the stronger legal position, they are in agony - so I think it's pretty vile, as well as ideologically-loaded, to be constructing them on here as potentially 'selfish' should they not rush to give up their child the second this hit the press, and as exploitative 'beneficiaries' of a miscarriage of justice. With no knowledge at all of what they may be thinking, what support they have, and -if this thread is anything to go by - a large percentage of people treating their parentage of this three year old as negligible, capable of being set aside, as a purely legal fiction, they are hardly in an enviable position..

This! The rush to tell the adopters they need to give their child away to alleviate a miscarriage of justice is sickening. We have no idea how they are approaching this issue but we know they have all the facts, not just the media reports and the comments from the birth families solicitors.

People only wanted to adopt babies, then there were few babies so people adopted older children, if the law changes ow will still want to adopt, they will accept things. I don't believe people will stop wanting to adopt.

Really ? How many adopters do you know ?

Formerly presumably you are not, in fact, Xenia?

To put it another way, Xenia, how many people would be desperate to adopt knowing they would essentially be asked to share parenting of their child?

I know cases like this are extremely rare and so do adoptive parents. People aren't stupid.

Howtorebuild - it's not just about adoption numbers. What about security and permenance for the child. I tell my son every day that he us safe, that he will have us forever, that nothing can change that. It's a crucial message for him. The idea that he might have birth family trying to overturn his adoption in 3, 5, 10 years in untenable. He would crumble with the insecurity and anxiety. It would be hugely damaging to him.

I don't think that one case of a child being returned to his or her birth parents will put people off adopting. Instead, perhaps it will stop children being adopted out unlawfully. If prospective parents are assured that the law has been followed and the adoption is legit then there is nothing to fear surely?

The fact is, there was no legal basis to remove this child from his/her parents, therefore it is not 'their child' and if they truly care about the child's future welfare they would at the very least facilitate contact with the birth parents.

I imagine if the child was old enough to state a preference to live with his adoptive parents that would be taken into account.

One exceptional case does not mean that adopted children up and down the country are going to be whisked away from their parents, any more than some children going into care and put up for adoption means that my child is at risk.

Sticking doggedly to something which is clearly unjust is, well, wrong. If it causes any additional distress or upset to adopted children or their parents I regret that, but it doesn't change my view.

I don't think that one case of a child being returned to his or her birth parents will put people off adopting. Instead, perhaps it will stop children being adopted out unlawfully. If prospective parents are assured that the law has been followed and the adoption is legit then there is nothing to fear surely?

what do you think the adoptive parents were told in this case ? Do you imagine that they were party to the legal process ? Of course they were not.

The point is Xenia, this is an exceptional case.

If the likelihood of children being returned to their birth parents because of multiple miscarriages of justice is a strong possibility then I'd say that raises grave concerns beyond anything posted here, but I don't think it will.

I understand this is an exceptional case. But if the law is changed because of this, it will put people off adopting .

How will any adopters know if the child they are hoping to adopt is one of these " special cases " ? Why would anyone risk it ? They could lose their child YEARS down the line .

Would you do it , pilgrimage ? Give up your children because someone had messed up a legal case years ago that you had nothing to do with ? Would you ?

If an adopter is put off, maybe they are not suited to putting a child first. I suspect the numbers wanting to adopt won't drop much, people will just adapt.