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.

a biological relationship DOES mean something. the fact that biological relatives are sometimes abusive does not negate that.

i say that as someone who is non contact with my biological family.

more importantly biological relationships mean something to children and adults who have been adopted, who have been conceived via donor sperm, who grow up not knowing their father etc.

it is perfectly possible surely to be respectful of relationships not based on biology and to see them as capable of being as strong and important as a relationship of biology without having to resort to saying biological relationships mean nothing or the experience of conception, pregnancy, labour and birth mean nothing and are just 'squeezing something out of your fanjo'?

I completely agree.

My point is that biological relationships are not the be all and end all.

My DDs biological relationships are very important... as a starting point.

My (and my family's) commitment to them - despite whatever they have thrown at us because of their distress - are also very important.

No we DONT KNOW toko so why do you still suspect them of something.

It's not unheard of for there to be massive miscarriages of justice in the where people have been found guilty of crimes they didn't commit and spent decades In prison all on the say on bad evidence. Can you image of the judges thought 'weeeell they could be guilty of something so let them rot'

The birth parents have been cleared. They are not guilty. We have to use that as a starting point and really get behind and support these two parents that had their new born taken from them. We have to assume that they are guiltless because no other evidence has come to light. I'm sure things could be 'leaked' to the papers to sway public opinion about them if they were guilty of something. But there isn't. And the SS are going to get a rightful battering over this again. Why are you imagining there is a whole history of abuse? Where are you getting your train of thought from?

Do you not believe that people in positions of trust lie/fuck up? Our establishment isn't one for championing the truth is it ?

toko you are seeing it through your personal experience of your children only, which is never a good thing for an unbiased opinion. No fucking doubt from me the biological tie for your children is nothing like your bond. That doesn't mean its true in all cases. And with all due respect, while I don't doubt you love them exactly the same as me or any decent birth parent now, I'm pretty confident that the second you set eyes on them you didn't feel the same as you do now about them. Abusers and mh etc aside, birth parents do. The bonding process is different, and adopters being human it isn't instantly present to its maximum degree the first time you see them. They might end up equally 'maximum bond possible' but those bonds don't occur the same way and it's silly to imply they do.

I've witnessed birth parents, foster parents, and adoptive parents screwed over by the system. And far more importantly children. Our social services system is fucking scary for every innocent victim involved, from children, all types of parents and the many decent professionals too.

Lookingglass We know nothing, other than that the defence found an expert willing to testify to new medical conditions, and the CPS dropped the case as there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. That is it, nothing else.

That is why we have to wait for the family courts to decide, because they will have all of the information - such as why symptoms stopped with the foster parents and who the child currently knows his birth parents as - and they will rule whether it is still likely that abuse took place.

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?

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

No its not crap.

Clearly your daughters' awful (but thankfully rare) experience is colouring your view somewhat. It is also one of those things that is hard to fathom until you experience it (which unfortunately risks sounding a bit smug but is nevertheless true).

if this was a SP saying she loved her DC just as much as the BM did and had just as much right they would get pulled up shreds on here.

anchor do you think that the defence expert was lying?

"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" I don't find this at all sinister. Often, social workers are working with families where multiple children have had to be removed from the birth family - they will be pretty certain as soon as a pregnancy starts that that child will eventually be adopted as well (my dd was in foster care with a baby who had 12 siblings taken into care before she was born).

And with all due respect, while I don't doubt you love them exactly the same as me or any decent birth parent now, I'm pretty confident that the second you set eyes on them you didn't feel the same as you do now about them. Abusers and mh etc aside, birth parents do. Massive assumption! I have a birth child and an adopted child, and didn't feel instant bonding with either. It took several months, in both cases, to feel a real depth of connection.

Well as a birth parent and an adopted person who is in contact with all sides of biological and non biological family I can say with confidence anyone who thinks they can generalise about bonding doesn't even begin to understand its alchemy.

I don't really get many comments on this thread, the two courts work separately, many children are adopted without criminal court cases. The adopters can't legally return the child and actually I can't see that it is necessarily the case that the family court proceedings have been invalidated as that would depend on what else was included as evidence.

I can't see that anyone can know from the information shared so far, it's a worrying, heartbreaking case but for all I can tell the media reporting might be one of the most worrying parts.

Inthelookingglass, are you saying adoptive parents shouldn't say they love their children as much as birth parents, that they shouldn't have the same rights?

There are a number of MNetters who are both birth parents and adoptive parents. Why not ask us about our bonding experiences, rather than suggest that we could legitimately be 'torn to shreds' for daring to consider ourselves real parents?

those bonds don't occur the same way and it's silly to imply they do

Many adopters on MN have very bravely discussed publicly how difficult they found it to bond with their child initially to help others posters. I can recall many birth mothers (some of whom were adopters and some not) come onto the thread to reassure them that not everyone bonds instantly with a child they give birth to.

So yes you're right it is silly for anyone to suggest that everyone bonds in the same way with their child. It's also a bit dismissive of men who have to bond with their children without the benefit of pregnancy and hormones.

But it's irrelevant really - it was me who seemed to set the cat amongst the pigeons with my Birth parents 6 weeks, adoptive parents 12-30 months (ie uncertain). And it was a bit misunderstood - I wasn't intending to imply that 6 weeks isn;t enough to bond with a birth child, I was meaning that 12-30 months is more than enough to bond with an adopted child.

One once you're bonded - you're bonded - I wasn't meaning that bonds keep growing with time.

I know that many birth parents don;t seem to accept that once bonded with your adopted child the bond is as strong as any other parents bond with your child. And I'm sorry to be reasonable and accept that it might take longer (yes though just might!) to bond with an adopted child than a birth child. But this isn't the situation here - the adopted child and adoptive parents have had long enough to bond.

In any event it isn't an issue of which parent is more bonded to the child but what the best thing for the child is.

In the absence of all the information, I don't know what that is. I'm not totally convinced I would know in possession of all the facts.

marys yes I am. No need for the shocked face. Today I lunched with a friend that was around at the very begining of her dss life. He doesn't remember her not being there.

Going off your theory then she should/could love him just as much as his bio mum.

I don't think dismissing the importance of the biological bond helps in this case, I'm finding some of the comments attempting to do so quite alarming, and I certainly can't see it helping when the child realises he has birth parents who wanted him.

sorry cross posted with a pile of people there.

Loving idea that I am comparable to a step-parent

Would confuse DS immensely though.

I thought SP meant single parent! Of which I am also one

maryz your experience is not the same as every woman that has adopted.

dev where have I said that they shouldn't say they love their children more than their birth mothers? I gave an example of a SP. Who am I to tell anyone what they specifically feel.

Regarding this case - no I don't think the adoptive parents have as much right as the bio parents.

I can only speak for myself but I think it's s pity some have insisted on turning this these into birth versus adopters.

We are all parents.

I've experienced bonding with both a birth and adopted child, Russian. Am I allowed to express an opinion?

We all are, aren't we?

My experience is that there is initially a difference, but I was specifically responding to toko's assertion that biological bonds are 'crap'. They aren't. Simple really.