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.

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

No you didn't; Toko did. Of course biological relationships can go horribly wrong. That has been acknowledged. That doesn't mean the notion of biological bonds is 'crap'.

What is your experience, Russian? Have you given birth and adopted? Because if you haven't why do you think that there is a difference?

Parent naturally and by SGO (and a SP, in fact, but that is incidental to this issue).

I think you are right Spero,it does need a proper debate and s re-examination of closed/open Although I would point out that I do think that when a child has been removed for proven abuse or neglect but the parents go on claiming innocence (and I can understand why they would) then direct contact would be very difficult to effect without real risk to the adoptee's mental health.

The point I really wanted to make though is that I think things kick off in discussions like this is because it gives us all the fear because we identify with the parents in our own situation (broadly) As an adopter it makes my blood freeze to contemplate for a nanosecond 'giving up' my adored DC. I am their Mama Bear , I would fight, kill and die for them. The idea that they could be ripped from my arms and 'returned' makes me feel physically sick. I love them in my blood and bones and I'm not a birth mother but I feel for the first and second family but I am an adopter so I immediately see myself in the adopters' shoes.

I am absolutely sure that those who have given birth to their children immediately see themselves wrongly accused of abuse and their children ripped away and have the same panicked,visceral reaction. It's an emotive subject - the enforced loss of our children is the worst thing any of us can imagine, so it gets heated.

I feel for everyone in this, it is hideous.

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

Completely agree. But as a society we just seem utterly incapable of a rational, adult debate about this. I am not sure why. But I think irresponsible journalism plays a massive role - I recall the way the Sun dealt with death of Peter Connolley and I have just been sent a link to a poisonous piece of hysteria from Fleet Street Fox which claims 10,000 children are stolen a year (utter crap) and then starts going on about Nazi Germany and Lebensborn.

Revolting. Unhelpful.

So you must understand how infuriating it is, as an adoptive parent, to be reduced by people like LookingGlass to be a second class parent, akin to a step parent, and to have her state that I cannot possibly love my son the way a birth parent would.

I didn't think that post was worth comment TBH. Anyone who thinks comparing an AP to an SP in that way makes sense isn't on a planet I can communicate with.

But, to be fair, the thread took its first downturn at the fanjo remark, which is also the kind of thing I would go miles do distance myself from.

I think if you are faced with stupid or infuriating comments on the internet you can either ignore them or you can try to engage the writer.

firing back in anger will only cement whatever views they have (if they are genuine) or given them cheap thrillz if they have done it to troll.

Either way, they don't change and you feel bad.

Nobody that I've noticed has said adoptive parents love their children or have a lesser bond. Just pointing out that a biological bond shouldn't be judged as something gained over time. Specifically in this case, 6 weeks, or a second as far as I'm concerned doesn't make a lesser bond than 3 years from the parents point of view. That doesn't mean everyone has some all empowering biological bond that trumps adoptive parents, some people don't give a shit for biological offspring. But nor does it mean parents love a biological child less than an adoptive one based on time spent with them.

Which of us haven't seen the heartbreaking stories about single mums back when that was grounds for adoption? There are mums who didn't see their child for decades and yet still love their children same as the rest of us, adoptive or biological. Yes they've learned to live without them on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean their inner feelings are any different. Ditto anyone who has a child that's died. The love doesn't diminish through absence.

Who or what is Fleet Street Fox?

Fleet Street Fox is apparently journalist Susie Boniface

Read this and weep.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/state-sponsored-kidnapping-children-not-6603706

Some valid points buried in a mountain of inflammatory crap.

And it's really fucking offensive to assume a step parent can't love as much as a biological or adoptive one. It depends entirely on the scenario. Same for foster parents, there isn't going to be a one size fits all level of bonding there either.

So sometimes a knee-jerk "the baby must go back, NOW" isn't actually the right answer.

Hopefully that is NEVER the right answer. Even in something as clearcut (legally) as the much-quoted baby-swap scenario, there would be the equivalent of intros, wouldn't there?

Of course they can Lurked but they are a step parent not a parent.

I don't understand how the adoption went through before the criminal case was concluded. Couldn't the child have been fostered with a view to being adopted if the criminal case were to prove the parents guilty of abuse so that when found innocent they could have the child back?

I don't understand how the adoption went through before the criminal case was concluded. Couldn't the child have been fostered with a view to being adopted if the criminal case were to prove the parents guilty of abuse so that when found innocent they could have the child back?

Because care proceedings operate on a different timescale and for different reasons than do the criminal proceedings.

Care proceedings are about protecting the child. Criminal proceedings are about punishing criminals.

Care proceedings MUST now conclude 'as quickly as possible' with default timetable of 26 weeks. Judges are under the cosh to get things done. gov threatned to pull plug on whole system if we didn't speed up - average length of care cases used to be about 49 -56 weeks.

the reason behind the need for speed is the damage done to children if they have to wait for a stable and permanent home. Six months could represent a large chunk of a young child's life. If they are not able to form attachements to a permanent carer, this can be very emotionally damaging and have serious repercussions for their adult lives.

Therefore, once the family court decided that on the balance of probabilities that the parents had hurt their child or there was a risk he would get hurt in the future, a final care order would be made, followed by placement order and then adoption order.

The fact that they were not then convicted in a criminal court is irrelevant to that procedure.

BUT if the criminal process reveals a fundamental miscarriage of justice for e.g. that the care proceedings made a decision on the wrong evidence - then we have a problem.

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.

Well, nothing else apart from the tiny, insignificant detail that the prosecution "managed to find" (oh how neutral language can be) an expert of their own that said that there had probably not been any fractures at any point AND that there were several markers for rickets that should have been picked up.

So an expert witness, called by the state, cast major doubt on the state's justification for the removal of this child from its rightful family.

But apparently, that's something that can be justifiably ignored until it's "too late".

But insinuating that your "confidentiality" is preventing you from revealing an awful truth is acceptable behaviour from people who we entrust with care of the vulnerable.

it was inthelookingglass who bizarrely threw in step parents. I don't think its impossible for step parents to bond with their step children - I think it's rarer when there are two engaged birth parents and split custody as I said earlier.

Apologies for paraphrasing about the biology trumping all - but lets not pretend that there weren't many posters over the length of this very long thread who haven't been saying (paraphrasing again) that obviously the child must go back to the mother who gave birth to the child with absolutely no thought at all to the child (Russain I get that you haven't said that but please don't pretend others haven't).

Perhaps I shouldn't focus on them but it is irritating to be constantly saying "I'm not sure what is for the best here without knowing the child" and being ignored and having people arguing for "of course the child must go back otherwise the adopters won't tell the child anything about the truth and they will be traumatised when they discover it and hate their adoptive parents"

Despite the fact that there isn't one adoptive parent on here who has said that. It's been repeated regularly.

And it is dismissive for posters to keep insisting that the birth parents should get their child back because "they didn't do anything wrong" without acknowledging that the adoptive parents too have done nothing wrong and yet this apparently is not a good enough argument for them. I don't see how its possible to interpret this as anything except - "ah but they are birth parents" so I guess it is worse for them. But people can't say that out loud so they come up with some explanation which involves the adoptive parents running away cackling and never letting the child have any contact with their birth family until they find out from facebook and suddenly hate their adoptive parents.

Adoptive parents have been described as selfish, as essentially parenting a stolen child, as not being able to put the child first (but apparently no requirement for the birth parents to do so) - it's hard not to rise to that even when there are posters on both sides trying to be reasonable.

Thanks for the explanation Spero. Is it often the case that family courts have to make decisions prior to criminal cases being judged and do so on the balance of probabilities ( which I take to mean without a full examination of evidence that you would have in a criminal court)?

BUT if the criminal process reveals a fundamental miscarriage of justice for e.g. that the care proceedings made a decision on the wrong evidence - then we have a problem.

Yes, we do.

But worryingly, there are people who think that we have no problem other than how best to bolster the position of the parents who have wrongfully been given this child to adopt.

It's weird to hear people insist their bond is just the same while they advocate state removal of children from their families when there has been no abuse.

That could be your child permanently removed because of a mistake?

Is it existing relationships with the people who have the power to take your child that you imagine makes you immune from you and your child suffering the same injustice?

You twisted my words to suit your argument and agenda, which to me looks like fear that someone will grab your child from you. We are not talking about you, this is about a miscarriage of justice.

And it is dismissive for posters to keep insisting that the birth parents should get their child back because "they didn't do anything wrong" without acknowledging that the adoptive parents too have done nothing wrong and yet this apparently is not a good enough argument for them.

It would be if they were the family whose child had been taken from them for no reason at all.

Nobody has said that how you became a parent should have any impact on the ease with which the state should be able to deprive you and your child of each other.

Spero I understand the importance of speeding up care proceedings to get some stability in these children's lives but sort of comparing this to the death penalty the argument could be that removing a child wrongly is as damaging as leaving them in a neglect/abuse situation. So we don't have the death penalty in case we kill someone who turns out to be innocent (amongst other reasons, I'm mentioning that one only for brevity). We shouldn't remove a child from its parents permanently unless we're sure the child can never safely return. Surely in this case (and possibly others depending on circumstances) the child should have been fostered with parents allowed supervised contact until the court case concludes?

I know you are a professional working in this area. I work close to but not in this area so I have much less knowledge. I'm thinking as a parent that to have my child adopted when the court case against me hasn't concluded that I am guilty would just tear me apart. How can courts safeguard against that when the message is to speed up proceedings? I'm professionally aware that we drag out things for children removed from their parents and don't provide them with a settled future so I think the sentiment is correct but how awful for parents wrongly accused.

Are you really comparing a step parent to an adoptive parent
Surely you can't be that ignorant about adoption shock

A great many adopted children are adopted as a result of step parent adoptions, it was not that long ago that it was quite large amounts of the total adoptions that happened. And many step parents raise the children with none biological parents nowhere to be seen with the legal responsibility to do so. To those children those parents are mum or dad and nothing else.

An awful lot of those adopted children have also suffered neglect abuse and cruelty at the hands of the parent who was replaced by the adoption so come with the same type of issues that you may have with other types of adoptions.

For what it's worth I was subject to a step parent adoption as a small child many moons ago, a full proper legal adoption with all the relevant checks and everything (in the UK) weirdly this also means that I was unable to obtain my birth certificate until I was able to meet certain criteria because from that point on I was considered to be an adopted child not one bio,one adopted (easiest way to describe what I mean) when I was 14 my 'dad' and my mum broke up within months he was with someone else and to him I ceased to exist. I do have a step dad now he's been around 20+ years and actively chooses to be a grandfather to my children and a very good one he is as well.

Parents are just parents some bond some don't,some are arseholes some aren't, some pretend they have bonded but obviously haven't some pretend they haven't when they have. Human beings are really very weird.