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.

Oh and please don't take my post as a disagreement with anything you have said Spero I agree with all of it. Especially the we have a problem. I would just welcome your view on my questions.

Why can they have a shared care arrangement where the child spends time with both families?

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.

Well sorry but in this case it is worse for the birth parents. They have had their child taken from them for no reason and been put though 2 court proceedings, one of which cleared them of any wrongdoing only to permanently lose custody of their only child minutes later.

They have had regular contact with their child who refers to them as mummy and daddy. They have been this child's parents for 3 years. The adopted parents have had custody of the child a matter of months.

Yes, it sucks for everyone but if this case happened as stated then the adoption is unlawful and should never have happened. The child should be returned to the parents he/she has known for most of its life.

But I suppose I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have any first hand experience of adoption

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)?

Yes. But I disagree that this is 'without a full examination of the evidence'.

It has to be a full examination of the evidence. But the standard of proof is different. It is balance of probabilities. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the purpose behind care proceedings is different. To insist on proof beyond reasonable doubt would mean that children ended up not being protected when they should have been.

you might say that this is a price worth paying. But many don't agree. And it will require an Act of Parliament to change the law.

I was considered to be an adopted child not one bio,one adopted - if its any consolation to you the rules have changed and these days the birth parent does not need to readopt their own legal child. I'm not quite sure how the certificates are handled though - I guess you have both a birth and and adoption certificate.

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?

But the case HAD concluded - in the family court. But that is the court that matters. Criminal courts don't make orders about where the children of criminals should live. That is for the family courts. And the family court heard the evidence and made an order that the child should be subject to a final care order. I assume the care plan was for adoption. And so the process rolled on with placement order, and adoption order.

The fact that the parents were not convicted in a criminal court is irrelevant to that process. The only thing that is relevant is if the criminal process - which seems to be the case here, but I confess I am not entirely sure what's gone on - reveals that the fundamental factual basis of the family court decision was WRONG. For e.g. the family judge made a finding of a fractured bone when no such fracture in fact existed.

Because the purpose behind care proceedings is different. To insist on proof beyond reasonable doubt would mean that children ended up not being protected when they should have been.

Could you have a different burden of proof where the intention was to do something irreversible?

So you can remove children from their parents and put them in care on the balance of probabilities, but you cannot permanently sever their relationship with their family unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the family is negligent.

"Balance of probabilities" seems a very low bar to set for effectively saying to a family - "you are dead to each other".

Why can they have a shared care arrangement where the child spends time with both families?

In an ideal world, this is what would happen. But we are sadly very far from an ideal world. The ideology around post adoptive contact is that it is harmful and undesirable and adoptive parents don't want it as it destabilises their child.

I don't think the research supports that.

But we have an environment where professionals are not open to the idea of post adoption contact with birth families. And yes, I can see that in many cases it would be utterly destabilising.

So even if the birth and adoptive families in THIS case have the necessary selflessness and emotional maturity to put their own feelings aside for the good of the child, sadly I don't think they would be encouraged or supported to do so.

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)......

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.

Maybe, Kew, the thing that some posters are reacting so strongly to is the cock-up in the way state power to interfere so hugely in family life has been used?

Maybe some (a lot) of these posters would say exactly the same if the first family were the child's family by adoption and the child had been removed and re-adopted? Miscarriages of justice rouse powerful feelings as do thoughts of losing your DC. There is also the fact that the original parents have a face and a media profile now, which means people identify.

I know there have been a handful of deranged goady posters on this thread but I'm really not seeing any 'biology beats all' nonsense. I normally have a good antenna for that.

Thanks Spero I see what you mean. The criminal court case wasn't deciding if they should be full time parents to their children, that decision had already been taken in the family court. But I agree the fundamental basis of the family court's decision was flawed.

Could you have a different burden of proof where the intention was to do something irreversible?

The courts are very clear that an adoption order is a draconian order and it is only permissable when 'nothing else will do' and when there is no other realistic option. Parents must be supported to care for their children, if they can't then family placements must be looked at.

So 'balance of probabilities' isn't some kind of wishy washy test. The courts kicked off dramatically in 2013 and made a huge fuss about the 'sloppy and anodyne' analysis in many family cases; the consequence has been a drop in the number of placement orders made.

If you are interested, there is an explanation of the case law here

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/when-can-the-court-agree-adoption-is-necessary/

Could you have a different burden of proof where the intention was to do something irreversible?

So you can remove children from their parents and put them in care on the balance of probabilities, but you cannot permanently sever their relationship with their family unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the family is negligent.

"Balance of probabilities" seems a very low bar to set for effectively saying to a family - "you are dead to each other".

Good post Bathtime.

I meant to say earlier, in response to Bobo that I believe France has two legal forms of adoption; One that severs legal relationships with the birth family and one that doesn't. I do wonder whether there is a template there for rare, complicated cases. Or even as an intermediate stage.

The adopted parents have had custody of the child a matter of months. - how do you know - I haven't seen that anywhere.

There was an assumption that the child was placed with the adoptive parents when the supervised contact with birth parents stopped 12 months ago but there has also been a suggestion that the child had been with the adopters longer through foster to adopt plan. I don't think we know.

we can't just assume that this is in the child's best interests and not even bloody debate it I agree with Spero on this (talking about the law being very likely on the side of the adoptive parents), bizarrely it seems on this thread it is the majority of adopters who are in favour of considering what is in the best interests of the child and the non-adopters on the whole in favour of one set of parents without considering whats in the best interests of the child.

Many posters have assumed that when an adoptive parent has said please don't underestimate the harm caused by another move that we are inevitably meaning don't remove the child from the adopters. In fact on several occasions such we have been dismissed with a suggestion of introductions (like the original adoption would have had - because we all know how helpful they are ), about how it will all be fine because parents and child have a natural bond, how it will be done over a period of time (Intros normally take a week!).

I think there should there should be a sensible discussion of what is right for this child. Regardless of how badly treated either or both set of parents have been, which ever one is hurt more the only small chance that might come out of this is to minimise the damage caused to this child. The door is already closed to both parents on that one.

I just can't understand how so many people can be so convinced they know the answer.

"Balance of probabilities" seems a very low bar to set for effectively saying to a family - "you are dead to each other"

But that isn't the impact of an adoption order. An adoption order gives the parents legal status as parents and removes the birth families parental responsibility. But that doesn't make the birth family 'dead' to the child.

We have moved on a lot, thank goodness, from days of closed adoptions when children might not even be told they were adopted. Life story work is seen of crucial importance and children will grow up with lots of information about their birth family. Although direct contact is not the norm, indirect contact is. There is a register of family details that the child can access when 18. With Facebook et al that often happens a lot sooner.

I completely accept this is pretty cold comfort if what you wanted was to raise your child and see him every day. But I don't think the debate is assisted by that kind of hyperbole.

I don't think the research supports that. re contact.

No it doesn't but I think most of the research (as you will know but others might not) has been done around relinquishment where both parties see contact positively.

Much contact in the Uk is tainted at present. I think it will require a huge cultural shift to get all sides of the adoption triangle to see contact in perspective as being about doing the right thing for the child.

I think such a shift may be possible but its an uphill struggle I would guess.

Maybe some (a lot) of these posters would say exactly the same if the first family were the child's family by adoption and the child had been removed and re-adopted?

Well I both would and have been.

I'm mystified that any parent would look at this and presume that their position in it could only be as the second parents.

The child's rightful family are not its family because they are the birth family, but because at the time this child was taken from them they were its actual, real, legal family.

They could have been adoptive parents (certainly in other jurisdictions an adoption could be complete by 6 weeks) and that would not lessen the harm done to the child by its removal.

Thanks for the link, Spero. Yes, I am interested and will read.

The courts are very clear that an adoption order is a draconian order and it is only permissable when 'nothing else will do' and when there is no other realistic option.

How does that square with the seeming refusal to wait a few minutes to be presented with new evidence?

How can it be argued that while the abuse these parents inflicted was still in doubt that permanent (and speedy) removal of the child from its family was the only way forward?

Doesn't that requirement conflict with the 26 week deadline?

I'm mystified that any parent would look at this and presume that their position in it could only be as the second parents.

The child's rightful family are not its family because they are the birth family, but because at the time this child was taken from them they were its actual, real, legal family.

Exactly. It's terrifying, this case, for any parent.

which means people identify - I think as a previous poster pointed out. That's one of the problems with this type of debate we all identify with a child being removed from us with horror and I suspect that birth parents just can't imagine how anyone could possibly love their child as much as they do.

I suppose a comparison is when I was in a particularly loved-up stage with DS about 6 months in and I used to pity birth parents because they hadn't experienced this amazing bond with a child not biologically related to them, that they hadn't experienced the amazing feeling of learning to love a child with every fibre of your being without biology or hormones to assist you.

Of course I grew out of it and my sanity did return (at some point along the way) but for a while I did genuinely think that a birth parent couldn;t possibly understand how I felt about DS! So I do understand the reverse being true - particularly when you have vulnerable children as ours so often are, your protective instincts can into overdrive. The thought of DS going through another move would crucify me.

But that doesn't make the birth family 'dead' to the child.

Well, that's kind of hair splitting, isn't it, given that you said yourself that any contact with the child would not be supported by the authorities, even if the brand new replacement parents wanted to facilitate it?

You have just had your rightful relationship with your own child permanently terminated, but you might be allowed write them the odd letter on the off chance someone will pass it on.

You are no longer a parent to your child, but they might know that you exist one day.

That's as close to "dead to you" as I can imagine.

"Oh well, too late, we've already out out the death notice on your relationship to your child."

They'll be grateful later that we took them from you, because they are better off not knowing you.

But indirect contact (or any contact) is by voluntary agreement Spero - completely at the discretion of those involved. We all know of cases in which one side or the other drops it or minimizes it soon after the order is granted.

Spero is is possible to give both parents parental responsibility and to share custody (I'm not necessarily suggesting this would be good for the child just wondering aloud if it were possible) - I'm thinking of the case where the biological fathers husband (were they married I can;t remember) was given PR despite no biological or even legal relationship. Do you remember it - it was the surrogacy case but with the mother in question maintaining contact who started blocking contact.

I get why adoption and children being removed is generally hard to discuss, media coverage is awful, the court process generally not understood and SS have powers that are scary when applied to your family. Every parent can feel the fear of false accusation, it's a legal version of the fear when a child nearly steps out in front of traffic, or falls down stairs the awful what ifs. and lots of people are very naive about the reality of care, of fostering.

Everyone who thinks they know what is the right choice with this case is responding emotionally. We don't know enough to be able to explore this case properly. We can tell what the parents want, not what the child needs right now.

I think as a previous poster pointed out. That's one of the problems with this type of debate we all identify with a child being removed from us with horror and I suspect that birth parents just can't imagine how anyone could possibly love their child as much as they do.

I suppose it's natural that people's train of thought follows their emotional response. I'm sure lots of people do think beyond that too, though

The thought of DS going through another move would crucify me.

Of course Kew. Can you imagine it the other way? Taking him to A&E and leaving without him? Being exonerated but never getting him back?

It's even harder to truly put ourselves in the child's shoes.

Spero, what is your professional role?

Re the draconian thing, that is the theory, but there are reports that in reality there is nowhere near the level of investigation you would have for, say, commercial cases, where top lawyers are involved and pouring over the paperwork, making sure all the points are picked up and pushing things forward, and that some family judges have been criticised (by other judges) for fundamentally rubber stamping what the sws have asked for?

*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.*

Please, please do point me to these posts. What actually the adoptive parents have been saying is, "Horrible situation - really hard to know what the best thing to do is - but it has to be what's best for the child and that has to include the trauma of multiple moves, as well as the importance of their bond with the birth family." If you can show me any poster on here who has said that they want the state to remove children from their families for no good reason, I will donate fifty quid to the NSPCC.