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 believe Spero is a family law barrister

I suspect that birth parents just can't imagine how anyone could possibly love their child as much as they do.

I don't care if someone could love my child as much as I do, I still don't think that should trump their and my right to our relationship.

TBH I don't find it at all weird that my parents or MIL might live my kids as much as I do. Differently, obviously, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Regardless of how much anybody else might love, or fancy they love, my children, I am their mother and our relationship to each other (and to their father) is the primary one.

I chose to have them, I chose to bring them into the world and look after them and be responsible for them.

Even if somebody else could prove "stronger" love, I am still their mother.

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.

You're right, that is a feeling that biological parents will never have.

I'm not sure you quite had "no biology or hormones" to assist you, but it's a fair point - a parental bond not based on the drive to pass on your genes. That sounds amazing.

It's easy to forget that with the adopted people in your own family, because an adopted cousin is really no different from a birth cousin. A friend's child is just a friend's child, you love them the same regardless.

And actually, this is NOT about adopters versus birth parents. It's about people who think the solution is simple and obvious versus people who think it's not at all simple and obvious. Adopters are strongly represented in the second category only because we have witnessed many of the issues first hand.

kew I disagree that those of us who have suggested the child should be returned aren't considering the child first. That's exactly my reason for thinking it should be the birth parents. I accept your opinion is different but don't try and attach the moral high ground of considering the child to your opinion only.

I don't at all think there is a simple and obvious solution to the harm that has been done to this child.

Unlike, say, the many people pages back who think the adoption should stand, the adoptive parents are now the parents, the kid is better off if all this is brushed under the carpet, it's a done deal, how dare anyone suggest otherwise.

Or maybe I dreamt all those posts.

The people initially suggesting it was maybe not quite so simple as "adoption order made, tough shit" are the ones being accused of being simplistic.

It's almost as if "oh, it's all too complicated" is a good cover for advocating the status quo.

I did talk about this earlier on but it appears to have got lost in the oodles of posts since.

Assuming what we are reading in the press is totally correct.

Do we think there should be potential for a none lip service type of investigation into this perticular child to work out given the extream nature of the circumstances the 100% likelyhood he/she will find out about it if he/she is likely to suffer significant future harm by remaining with the adoptive parents (of the type of significant future harm that warrants a care order).

If he/she is likely to suffer significant harm by being placed back with his/her birth family.

Obviously both are likely to cause significant harm but they are different types of harm, but which is likely to cause most harm.

Obviously I do not personally know anybody involved in this case but I do have a few thoughts in my head as to what is likely to cause the most harm but that would obviously not apply to the individuals because of that.

Given that there was evidence that satisfied the jury in the criminal court, why was that not presented in the family court? It didn't need the ruling of the court with the higher burden of proof, it just needed the evidence, surely?

I wasn't using love as the determiner for who the child has their primary bond with but to discuss why some people have such a visceral reaction the the idea of this situation happening to him.

And yes ds's birth mother is still his mother. His primary bond is still to me, and even if he is lucky enough to ever meet her I doubt this would change.

I'm confident also that no-one on this thread knows what this child relationships are like and how badly affected they have been by the changes imposed on them so far.

The COS dropped the case based on the evidence their expert provided. It was not fully heard by a jury

P P bloody P

I think you were dreaming all those posts, Bathtime Funkster.

I didn't suggest every poster wasn't considering the best for the child many haven't, those that have often used the reason that the adopters won't tell the chld and the child will come to hate them etc. I don't think other posters haven't considered the best thing for the child I'm just startled that they know what it is.

Happy to review those posts bathtime I didn't see them. I have repeatedly said that I didn't think the courts would overturn the adoption (based on previous cases). I don't think I've said whether I think that's right or not.

Oh, I see. So the evidence wasn't generally available? Good to know that the child's needs are cental to system. That's what the mantra is, isn't it?

One branch of the state has pertinent info to another part of the state, but never the twain shall meet. What a fuck up. And for that, a kid's life is immeasurably more difficult and the taxpayer will fork out a fortune.

I cannot remember where I ssaw it but there was a short statement released by surry children's services so etching about best interests of the child the family court hearing all the evidence and the adoption being in essence compleatly appropriate.

Obviously assuming what we are reading in the press is correct I would be interested to know if surry are going to stick to that stance or explanation.

Is this child going to grow up believing they were violently abused by their birth parents and effectively rescued. Because fuck me if they do that is some serious serious scope for significant long term future trauma that will be even worse when they find out the truth.

I know a young lady who had quite a decent mother nothing special but not abusive and a grandparent with serious issues who spent the first 5 years of the childs life reporting the mother to SS for all manor of issues from serious neglect to physical abuse and even including an allegation of a witnessed rape (the child was 2 when this was alleged) each time SW investigated off the top of my head it was something like 30 allagations. Not once did they find anything wrong these investigations inc medical ones and many of the allagation were really obvious lies. The mum went on to become a SW herself as a result of the support she received as a teen mum from the SW involved and maintained a limited relationship with the grandparent always managed carefully and with supervision until the child became an adult.

Unknown to the mother the grandparent presented all this info to the child as if it were factual and had happened, this now adult has serious mental health issues that all professionals have attributed to this situation and had a valuable source of support (her mother) minimised by the nature of the apparent facts she was told that near enough totally trashed their relationship. Even something as minor as searching medical records and SS records caused years of trauma.

One relative who she respected and dearly loved and trusted told her that another had so breached the boundaries of decent parenting that it constituted the most serious child abuse when it was not true there is recovery going on but it is slow and has required a huge amount of work by this family and professionals they have engaged.

In the case of this toddler all of that would be backed up by files that he/she will have an absolute right to see when older and reinforced by state employees,it is most concerning

By witnessed rape I don't mean she alledged the child had witnessed one.

kew

Can I ask why you think your ds bm is still his mother? because I think you are your ds mum and a bloody good one too.
Even though I didn't know the circumstances I never considered my bm to be anything else other than the woman who gave birth to me.
I'm not saying I'm right, btw.

To others though I will add that of the adopted people I know and have met every one of them including me wanted to know the details of their birth and issues surrounding their adoption.
We were told nothing back then but as soon as many hit 18 they wanted their answers.
In Tracy Beaker dream sequence style I dreamt mine were famous film stars or explorers and hated leaving me.

Spero, I have seen an earlier post where you refer to the courts kicking off in 2013, and I think that answers my question.

NewLife, I won't answer for Kew, but I certainly still consider my dd's bm as her mother. She will always be her mother. As will I.

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?

I am a family law barrister and have been since 1999. I can only speak of course for my own work and the work of the hundreds of my colleagues I have met over the years.

For a contested final hearing I will often have up to five lever arch files of evidence. I will spend many hours with these files. I will draft a detailed chronology. I will take notes and cross reference. Because of the discrepancies and misrepresentations I have found I have often 'won' a case and stopped a child being made subject to a final care order.

One of my proudest professional moments was when I discovered a document buried deep in the back of one of the bundles which showed that the LA had not begun an assessment with an open mind. I successfully got the children returned on a supervision order. Six months later they were removed again on an emergency protection order.

So great victory there for everyone. Especially the children. I delayed their safe placement with another family by six months, causing them yet more harm and trauma.

But if a case is evidentially weak it has to fail. We have to have faith in the system. I do absolutely reject the suggestion that those of us who work for parents are just hopeless stooges in the pockets of LA and that we don't care about the evidence.

I assume by your reference to 'top lawyers' you don't think anyone doing family legal aid could be a 'top lawyer'. I will send you my CV if you like. I am pretty typical for most legal aid family law barristers. We all have excellent degrees from Oxbridge/Russell Group universities. We do family law because we find it interesting, not because we are 'legal aid losers'.

Devora

Wow, how things have changed in respect to attitude of adoptive parents.
That's blown my mind.
My parents generation were certainly not open to this, but we were mostly adopted soon after birth, so maybe different.
Another change for obvious reasons is the shielding aspect from the children
There were never any problems of security and photo's etc, no child protection issues as such, and you were more likely to be adopted than have divorced parents.

Given that there was evidence that satisfied the jury in the criminal court, why was that not presented in the family court? It didn't need the ruling of the court with the higher burden of proof, it just needed the evidence, surely

I thought that no evidence was presented to the criminal court, because it turned out that there was no evidence to present? The family case had already been and gone by the time the criminal case started. I don't understand the massive delay there - that is one of the most worrying things about this case.

sorry, Sock already explained, I was misled by the lack of 'P'...

Because she carried him for 6 months, gave birth to him and shared her DNA with him, he is who he is partly because of her. It really isn't in my rights to take that relationship such as it is away from him. If he chooses at some stage to consider her jusst some woman who gave birth to him that's really up to him. I don't think I overplay her role in his life to him its very matter of fact. Our conversations about her tend to revolve around the physical ( what she looks like). I think it would be better for him to have some contact and I have a suspicion that if he did it would lapse once his curiosity was satisfied. But it can never happen so pointless to speculate.

Sorry cross-posted with Devora.

Devero and I took out our mixed bag of children (mixed in oh so many ways!) a few months ago and her youngest initiated a conversation about how many mothers and father's they each had! It wasn't a conversation we've had with anyone else before or since and quite surreal but quite comfortable for them.