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.

Maryz don't you find when things start getting really bizarre and bear so little resemblance to your actual life that it starts getting funny.

DS's birth mother saw him for less than an hour, his birth father never. I don't doubt that she has a bond with him. I would doubt it is as strong as mine. And I would expect his birth father would have even less of a bond. How is that when apparently its all about biology? It's a conundrum.

marys the only person who is turning this thread nasty is you.

This case isn't about you. This is about a massive miscarriage of justice to a couple that did no wrong and did not want their child adopting out. I think your experience is clouding your view on it.

kew that is your experience of it. Sadly this child we are actually discussing parents were not like that. They visited for two years. Then they were stopped.

We are all parents

We are.

And all parents are equal but (sorry George Orwell) some parents are more equal than others.

AP's/SP's who can tell the difference? So it's OK to use any example you like to prove that some parents are more equal than others.

I never said biological bonds are crap. They can be on occasion though

I agree with that - I've been NC with my mother for 15 years.

Why can't my friend live her dss just as much as you live your ds? She has him 50/50. Was there from the start. Why maryz ?

parents who were not like what? I'm addressing your point that step parents are the same as adoptive parents. I am allowed to address that, yes? Given that you made that point n'all.

I can't say again that I don't know what the right answer for the child would be, it's getting a bit boring.

It's not a bonding competition Lemonfizz.
The bonds that are being dismissed are the non biological because there are still too many who can't accept that bonding between those biologically unrelated is just as complicated and wonderous as that between birth family members.

And if it is a simple and terrible as some media reports and some posts assume, I still wouldn't know as an adoptee, a birth parent, a parent and someone who works in a field related to adoption what the best outcome (for the child) would be.

I will repeat though that right now we dont know what the family court considered most relevant.

Lookingglass Not at all, I tried to ensure it didn't come across like that, too.

But the process isn't finished. It's important to keep that in mind right now. Until it's concluded, we cannot argue that it hasnt reached the right conclusion. It's unfinished.

It's also important to remember that we have only heard one side, and perhaps there is more to this. Perhaps there isn't. We don't know, though, until more information is released. I don't think it's likely that there was anything else against these parents, it would be ill advised of them to publicly release a statement if there was, but in any case it's vital to take into account that the courts (either or both of them) have more information than us. Their judgements may not make sense without that information. (Granted, they may not make sense with that information too, but that's a different issue...)

Well does she?

If she does then what are you arguing about? Really I am confused. If she loves him 100% then why can't she be as bonded to him I thought you were arguing she wasn;t?

I assumed you were saying she wasn't as bonded to him because he has had a mum from day 1 and she doesn;t feel like his mum.

FWIW I have DS 100% and I'm pretty sure bonding with him early on would have been difficult if I had him 50% (and presumably she didn;t until he was old enough to be away from his mum) and if his birth mother still lived with him.

I think there have been some unpleasant and ignorant comments by some.

I also think this has led to some posters believing that no one who hasn't adopted have a clue about anything and should shut up and accept that those who adopt Know Best.

That's how it's coming across, anyway.

kew I think it's escaped you and maryz that this thread is about the two parents and child in the media. Not your personal situation.

In that case yes I agree - some parents are more equal - the bio parents.

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*

Sadly yes, I think that must be part of the 'push' for adoption. It is going to be cheaper to have an adoptive parent fight for and advocate for their child out of love, rather than as a professional foster carer. BUT of course, it is better for the child to have that kind of parent in their corner.

As ever, nothing is cut and dried. Some birth parents are wonderful. Some are abusive monsters. Some adoptions are the best thing that ever happened to a child. Some break down and cause even more trauma.

It is simply madness to try to turn this into birth v adoptive v step parents. Yes, the biological link is very important. Our identities, our genetic heritage is important to us. Yes, some biological parents are dangerous and abusive and their children do need rescuing. Yes, we should be very worried about a system where a miscarriage of justice leads to a family possibly losing their child throughout his childhood.

if you want things to be be clear cut, its an understandable wish. But it never will be.

So you're allowed to use your examples of other people who aren't these four parents and child to prove biology trumps adoption in this case but we're not?

Interesting debating tool - but guaranteed to "win" I guess.

I agree with you Spero but the thread has turned into another one about how right adopters are and how wrong everyone else is. I'm done. Pity, as at one point it was interesting.

Some are Maryz but given the age of your eldest, you know some stupid, ill-thought views will come up.

What I'm cross about is that again any concern about the systems we have in this country with regards to adoption lump those expressing those concerns in this category and it's frustrating.

MaryzThe link was to show adopters are not always given the full medical history, as I previously stated. I queried if it was down to negligence or to covering up having wrongly taken an ill child from a good home to be adopted and try and fob off the problems on abuse when it's ill health.

Of course parenting stirs up strong feelings. But why waste time arguing over whether adoptive parents love their children or not?

Some do, some don't. Same with birth parents. Some enjoy being parents, some don't. Same with birth parents. Some regret being parents, some don't, etc, etc, etc.

But the point of this thread should be the really important one about what do we do when a child is removed from parents who do not appear to have done anything to put that child at risk? We can't just shut down the debate on the basis that child is settled with adoptive parents. I agree with the Council of Europe; we can't just assume that this is in the child's best interests and not even bloody debate it - which seems to be the position we are now in as a society.

It's not acceptable. But I can see why we won't ever move on given that the debate descends so quickly into anger and vitriol.

I'd never suggest stop adoption; I feel that would undoubtedly lead to numerous problems. I actually think in some cases, the state needs to act faster and more decisively.

But, if we are having forced adoptions (I don't like that phrase but it's the best one I can think of to ensure you all know what I mean) then there does need to be a frank discussion about miscarriages of justice and about other things that stem from this.

It's important that there isn't a one size fits all. I don't think every case should result in a child returning to his birth parents but in this particular case I think that's the best way forwards.

Perhaps, given the wide use of social media, closed adoptions full stop should only be used in very extreme cases? Just missing out loud here, by the way.

It's certainly not easy, but I do think we can at least talk about it!

Musing, not missing.

Agreed spero

DS's birth mother saw him for less than an hour, his birth father never. I don't doubt that she has a bond with him. I would doubt it is as strong as mine. And I would expect his birth father would have even less of a bond. How is that when apparently its all about biology? It's a conundrum.

It might help to untangle the confusion Kew if you could point out the post or poster who has said that 'it's all about biology'