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.

Hi Russian, I really wasn't implying anything about the extended family at all, just raising a question in the light of the increased SGOs. I absolutely am not drawing conclusions.

Also it's six weeks plus pregnancy. If there is SW involvement it can come well before birth. As many parents both birth and adoptive know, an infinite amount of damage can be inflicted in utero. Again NOT saying this is the case here at all, no implications or insinuations.

We wouldn't know about previous SW involvement because all of the info on this case has come from the first family, their lawyer and the criminal court judge which was ONLY dealing with the criminal charges not any additional concerns which would have been exclusively dealt with in the family court I think. If I'm wrong about this please someone correct me, I'm not a lawyer.

Again, I am absolutely not saying this is the case, just pointing out that none of us on here pontificating about the rights and wrongs of this actually know how the adoption process went. We can speculate and surmise but the criminal and family court procedures are quite separate and we simply don't know.

I would perhaps say my approach on adoption was much simpler when I knew less. It is a labyrinthine issue and trying to black and white it is never constructive.

I now think that it is mostly born of incredibly sad complicated situations and most of the people involved most of the time are just trying their very best for the child. It doesn't always work out but mostly everyone is trying really hard in a very human way. Just my opinion FWIW.

Ha! Literally cross posted with everyone!

Spero - just as an aside - I'm confused by your two references to UKIP. I haven't seen anyone else mention them but it's more than possible that something has gone over my head. What's it all about?

If I remember correctly claig an earlier poster is ukip.

I bet most of us have never been cleared by a family court and a criminal one about possible abuse either. So why on earth is there any reason to suspect this family wouldn't be cleared by a family court either.

Fwiw I am pro adoption. If the birth parents can't or won't care for the child within a reasonable time frame. And trust me I don't have a grudge or misconceptions about child services. But I do know they can and do fuck up and remove children sometimes when it isn't remotely necessary, and vice versa. And I don't just mean as a reasonable precaution like care would have initially been in this case.

Nor do I buy the reversal putting off future adopters. There are shit loads of kids needing homes, whether that's adoption or long term foster care.

Oh yes, claig dropped out so early I'd forgotten.

Spero - just as an aside - I'm confused by your two references to UKIP. I haven't seen anyone else mention them but it's more than possible that something has gone over my head. What's it all about?

Sorry, I only read first four pages before commenting - which I know is awful but I couldn't resist - and all I saw was claig banging on about Douglas Carswell which just triggered the RAGE for me. Awful bandwagon jumping fools.

He has made a FOI request to every LA recently which just underscores he knows nothing and understands less yet is running some campaign against the Evil Secret Family Courts, because he thinks there are some votes in it from the thousands of parents unhappy and traumatised by our current system. Don't tell me UKIP give a damn for these parents or the children.

Sorry. De-railing rant over. But it is maddening how this debate is hijacked time after time after time and we never get much further forward in dealing with the quite desperate problems in the whole system.

It wasn't literally, I get really annoyed when other people do that.

I recently looked into adoption and it was made pretty clear from the offset that there are very few children going up for adoption these days, hardly any under 3's and a lot of 'competing' parents waiting for matches which has happened partly in trend with the SGO's. The authority I inquired in said that they have a way of knowing which children are likely to go up for adoption and are actively looking for matches long before that happens. It does worry me in light of this case (assuming there are no more explanatory details we aren't privy to as to why this adoption was granted) and put me off becoming an adopter if I'm honest.

That failure to secure a criminal conviction does not render the decision of the family court unlawful.

I understand that it was lawful for them to refuse to consider new evidence that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the child's removal.

My argument was that it was not moral.

And that if we need to change the law to stop evidence being deliberately overlooked so we can get to irreversible positions as quickly as possible, then that is what we need to do.

How does it come about that evidence like that can arrive mere moments "too late" when a child's future and basic human rights are in the balance?

I don't believe that nobody in the family court knew that evidence might come.

I think those of us that are not jumping on the 'child should be returned to first parents' wagon are saying:
a) the only info we have is first family's statement - which is not unbiased

b) there are a while lot of unanswered questions. Why was evidence introduced so late? How reliable are the different doctor's accounts? were there any other concerns? why did the child not have any injuries in foster care, unlike first parents' care? None of which are taking sides, only pointing out that nothing can be said on either side without more info

c) why do 6 weeks of first parent care outweigh at least a year (on the info we have) of adoptive parent care? Why is the biological bond being eulogised when far more biological parents abuse children than adoptive parents?

I don't think anyone who disagrees with the 'give the child back asap' brigade is saying that they have an answer. Just that the answer is not so clear cut.

hairbrush The fact there is a waiting list for under 3's goes to prove a possible reversal isn't going to put adoptive parents off imo. But yy you're right on them 'knowing'. Sometimes when the kids aren't on the at risk register or in care. And in cases where a baby has been unofficially matched in those circumstances, a tiny minority of professionals really do fucking try to make sure that match goes ahead when the actual evidence proves care let alone adoption isn't going to be granted by a court or in the childs interests. It's like they hate being proved wrong on a personal level. Unfortunately as that tiny minority aren't hung out to dry when they fuck up, all social workers get lumped together as baby grabbing bastards.
Although as an aside I detest describing it as a waiting list. It makes birth parents sound like worthless machines, babies sound like products, childrens services sound like traders and adoptive parents sound like shoppers. None of which is true apart from the odd twat.

No shortage of older kids needing long term care though. Especially sn or siblings. The wait for that is as long as it takes to do all the necessary procedures. Which is depressing as fuck really.

Me either bathtime.

I don't think anybody is jumping on any wagons. I think it's a large majority of people with the same view . Using language like that or calling them a brigade belittles the fact that a large number of people feel the same or rather has an opposing view to you. I wonder why you need to do that?

toko the fact that you think that just because the birth mother only had the child for six weeks (because the child was taken away from her unlawfully) and has no rights is staggering. I wonder what your agenda is and if this is view that SS hold, because if it is - it's bloody frightening

It's like they hate being proved wrong on a personal level. Unfortunately as that tiny minority aren't hung out to dry when they fuck up, all social workers get lumped together as baby grabbing bastards.

Yes here is the other problem that sits along the medical negligence and law being an ass.

You get a sw, Doctor, health visitor, taecher, police, school nurse all in a state of mass hysteria and then poor child x lives with the consequences. These professionals are just as responsible as the Met, GOSH and ss in the baby p case.

My agenda is to point out that we have one side of the story.

That any adult's rights - whether first or second family - are nothing compared to the child's rights.

That maybe the child is best off, in the long term, with going back to the first family, and maybe it isn't.

That none of us know enough to be certain what has happened in this particular situation - let alone the future feelings of the child- to decide exactly what is the least worst solution.

That in saying this I have 'an agenda', but those saying the opposite don't.

I don't actually know the ins and outs of all the circumstances about anyone on this thread either. But I'm sure as hell not sat here thinking anyone on it is abusing their children based on the fact I have no evidence they aren't doing.

And yy toko to if you can't understand bonding with a birth child isn't down to time accrued.

hairbrush, "The authority I inquired in said that they have a way of knowing which children are likely to go up for adoption and are actively looking for matches long before that happens. It does worry me"

that worries me too! how horrendous is that - the implications are extremely worrying. perhaps sw/other professionals involved in the adoption vetting process should definitely NOT be those involved in child protection cases and the departments and people should be entirely separate.

Spero I read your link with interest. Do you think that some of the push for adoption over long term fostering placements is down to local authorities wanting to save money? One of the examples given in the document you linked to was of a child with autism where the LA kept searching for an adoptive family even though the child wanted to remain with the foster family. I assume had they found an adoptive family this would have ended up being much cheaper for the LA and the adoptive family would have ended up having to fight for the required support.

I think we just have to go off the facts that we have been given. We can't wonder or guess what else there maybe because the SS has not come forward with anything else when they have had multiple chances.

I think the inclination that there maybe somthing else on the the morning show by the SW was pretty appalling. It's just major ass covering. They fucked up.

I have heard of adopters not being told everything about a child's medical history. Is that error, hidden as the medical condition was hidden in a nai error case, who knows.

If you want some details.

I never intended to be an adoptive parent. I was asked, for various reasons, to look after 2 children for 48 hours while something else was arranged. Elder DD asked if they could visit again, after careful thought (because I didn't want to be another adult who let them down) I agreed. Our relationship developed. They were placed with a member of their extended family against their wishes. That person (as they thought might happen) was abusive and exploitative. They told me how unhappy they were, and I raised it with their social worker. She bullied them into withdrawing what they said, and with family member refused to let them see me.

I went to a family court. The judge asked the children what they wanted re: contact with me. They said they wanted it. Judge removed SW for not listening to them, and said they could see me. DDs asked new SW if they could live with me. Back to children's court. Permission for DDs to live with me, and in due course adoption. First Mum agreed DDs should live with me. Gave blessing for adoption because she 'knew they would always be looked after'.

Both DDs have serious emotional and neurological problems, because of their early experiences. I have been the most consistent and caring adult in their lives.

I wish I wasn't. But I am. And I have given up a huge amount to be consistently loving and caring towards them - which is completely OK with me, because they deserve it.

But their 'natural' i.e. biological family have been consistently abusive or neglectful to the point of abuse. So I know that these magical biological bonds are crap.

Which is not to say that in this case the biological parents are anything other than loving and caring. But the fact that they are biologically related, sadly, means nothing either.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2986483/Mother-reveals-gave-adopted-toddler.html

SS can't give any details because of confidentiality. First parents can say what they want.

As I said, they may be 100% accurate. They may not be. None of us know.

I think the inclination that there maybe something else on the The Morning show by the SW was pretty appalling. It's just major ass covering. They fucked up.

NONE OF US KNOW!!!! You or me. Maybe they fucked up. Maybe there was a whole history of previous abusive behaviour. None of us know and because SS are bound to confidentiality.