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.

Kewcumber, I am in awe of you
and Devora. Please understand my attitude was a sort of self preservation I'm not heartless and was always sympathetic to whatever the situation had been. But my mum was the one who did everything for me and loved me because that's what mums do.

I've been thinking about this poor child, it really is a complex situation just from the facts we've been given.
I can't imagine what any of his parents must be going through.

Yes, things have really changed NewLife. There's a big emphasis on openness now - I think I said upthread that I was told off by the social worker because I hadn't started telling my dd she was adopted when she was 18 months old - she said, "You need to start telling her BEFORE she understands, and then the words will never come as a shock". And I honour the fact that she cares enormously about her birth family. We talk about them often, and look at photos. She has a special locked box in her room - only she and I know the combination - where she keeps the few things they gave to her at birth.

It's not easy, and sometimes I do wonder if the pendulum has swung too far! For example, it's easy to say children should be told the truth in an age-appropriate way, but some truths simply cannot be communicated in a way that children can fathom. It is hard to find the balance between talking about their birth parents in a positive way (which is what my dd desperately wants to hear) and giving her a realistic understanding of why she had to be adopted. It's not easy, but I do it because it's the right thing to do, and because I want her to always feel she can ask for my help and support in this journey, including when she is adult and may want to trace her birth family. I would hate for her to feel that she had to choose between me and her birth mum.

I think I'm a pretty typical adopter. Which is why I have been a bit impatient with posters here who seem to think that the only alternative to simply handing the child back is to lie to the child and keep her in ignorance. Prospective adopters are screened and trained to have respectful, open attitudes to the child's origins - which of course is no guarantee that these adoptive parents will be open to at the very least direct contact with the birth parents, but I think makes it more likely. The birth parents haven't been trained for that, and I think we would all understand if they just want to turn back the clock and have their child home. I really hope, though, that all the parents will be able to work together to achieve the right outcome for the child, whatever that is.

Really I'm not at all awesome! Would it help burst your bubble if I said I once tried to do a birth parent search for ds's birth mother when he was about 2 and I was terrified of actually finding her then was upset when I discovered she really had covered her tracks too well.

Laughing as I remember the day out with Kew. Yes, my youngest is quite fond of telling random strangers, "I've got three mums, you know!" But it was lovely to see the three of them compare notes on this - divided in racial origin, numbers of mothers, numbers of fathers, but united in Harry Potter and Minecraft

In all fairness devora Harry potter and Minecraft could solve a lot of the worlds problems

Kew, not at all sorry, still awesome

I was told when little but honestly there were so many of us at the same school and I have 2 siblings, one of which I choose from hundreds of babies.
I was a dopted.
Had no idea what made me dopted or what it meant, I can't ever remember a time I was shocked or upset apart from one child at school, when I was 5.
Later we were all told our mothers had been unmarried and they weren't allowed to be our mums.
We never asked questions and in fairness they didn't know a lot.
Much of what was written on my notes were lies anyway.

I know things are different now and I hope this poor child is told the truth and can come to terms with it in time.
I really think it would be a bad move for the birth parents to not be a part of his life. I don't think any of us on here knows exactly what should be done unless somebody here is familiar with this case.

you misunderstood me, Spero. It has never occurred to me that there would not be "top lawyers" (lazy slang anyway) in family law. I am guessing there are good and bad, as in every area of law. i am noncontentious commercial, so a different world, but more interested in what you do, probably.

I was talking about the process. An interview by a newspaper with a judge who was criticising fellow judges for rubberstamping sw recommendations with a proper review of the evidence. no mention of the barristers at all. And in relation to the commercial cases, the fact that commercial clients pay huge sums of money for large teams who would have had far more man hours than a legal aid lawyer, I had assumed, though I might be wrong.

I hope that you have had other victories which you felt were the right outcome for the child involved.

Sorry, I am over sensitive after years of being called a 'legal aid loser' and that I only practise in family law because I am too stupid to do anything else.

It's not just personally wounding - this has a real and negative impact on a lot of parent clients who won't engage with their lawyers, having been told just how thick and collusive with the SW we are.

I am also aware that I have somewhat contradicted myself. I accept there have been real and serious criticisms of the way family cases have been conducted, in terms of the rigour of evidential analysis. that both saddens and surprises me as that is not how I conduct my work and not how I see any of my colleagues conduct theirs.

I think what needs to be appreciated that in the vast majority of care proceedings (I would say certainly more than 80%) it is not a question of me being puzzled about the case against the parents. But rather I am baffled as to why action wasn't taken YEARS ago. It is sadly very common to see chronologies going over years with the case being closed and then re-opened a few weeks later.

The only victory of which I am proud was getting a supervision order for a mother who had been very badly and unfairly treated by the LA. I thought she did deserve another chance.

But I am afraid the majority of my 'victories' simply involve delaying the inevitable by shining a light on the shoddy way a lot of cases are put together. I think this is necessary work as due process is very important. But it is sad to see so much time and money spent on this end of the process when there is precious little to support families and children, particularly in mental health provision.

Well Spero there you have a name change when you want one you LAL you... As if:)

I really think, and see, no evidence of corrupt practice, of collusion between judges and SW of quotas or cost cutting in children being placed for adoption. Generally the system does its best and occasionally individuals or the system isn't fit for purpose... This may be the case here or may yet not be the case. There is rarely anything so simply black and white.

These parents and this child may have suffered unnecessarily and horribly but yeah I more often wonder how the hell children haven't been removed and why the bar is set so low. And you know as a birth mother I have a bit of insight into just how awful it is to not care for your own child and even then I wish more children came first. Really we should all campaign for better family support full stop.

I didn't see this on TV but I will try and watch it on catch up.

I'm wondering why the courts were so quick in putting the child up for adoption.
Is there a procedure to follow such as Fostering for a certain length of time, with possibly adoption following?
And why wasn't all medical evidence taken in to account at the initial investigation?
When other people have been wrongly accused of crimes there has been monetary compensation but no amount of money could replace their child, so there needs to be discussion about the long term needs of the child now at age 3 and how his needs would be best met. I can't see how the Courts could rule that they can not have their child back if they have been proved to be innocent? Because the adoption only went through because they were presumed to be guilty.
It is very sad for both the birth and the adoptive parents but the child's long term welfare is the most important issue.

I've been reading along. And am interested it the points put forward. I've also been following the case of a Canadian lady who had children removed due of her mothers lies. Her youngest 2 were adopted, the eldest fostered. The mother has since been cleared the eldest was returned her, the younger children are to remain with the adopted family.
The eldest is gutted nether of them have done anything wrong but they aren't allowed access. I do believe those kids could turn against the adopted family for withholding the truth from them. Surely adoption that happened because of SW errors should be annulled? Is their not some sort of international UN law on removing children when its not the parents fault?

However another thing that worries me about these sorts of cases. What happens to the new mum who is sat at home with her sick baby, reading this, thinking what if I take him to hospital and they think its abuse? Do I wait and hope he is ok tomorrow or take the risk they think I'm neglecting my baby.

All of it is scary. I'm amazed the courts don't talk to each other.

I think of the pain a future biological sibling will experience if they are separated - because I am one such sibling:

I was furious and devastated to suddenly discover in my 50s, organising my mother's funeral, that I had 2 elder half-sisters who had lived and died without my ever knowing them.
My sisters were WW2 babies, at a time when adoptions were sometimes secretive.

They never knew I existed, but if the internet had existed when I was a teen, I would have data-mined my family automatically and found the full history.
I would have run off to look for them, probably cancelled Uni plans and changed my life.
So, maybe I have projected that they would have been furious at the separation and hunted for me, too.

I'm furious and my separation from my sisters was for social reasons, not a miscarriage of justice by the State - which would send me incandescent.

I'm wondering why the courts were so quick in putting the child up for adoption.
Is there a procedure to follow such as Fostering for a certain length of time, with possibly adoption following?

Because the government has told them they must. The Children and Families Act 2014 has imposed a very strict time limit on care proceedings of no more than 26 weeks.

Courts are under great pressure to comply. Apparently we were very close to having care proceedings removed from judicial control and given to a tribunal of lay people. The Gov was saying they simply could not afford the previous system, where care proceedings usually took well over a year to resolve.

the reasons behind this are NOT because the Gov wants to steal children. It is because it is very, very clear just how damaging it is for chilldren to have to wait in limbo for a permanent home, forming every stronger attachments to a foster carer who they then have to leave. Frequent changes of placement for young children can have devastating effects on their emotional health - and I think many adoptive parents would back me up on that as they experience it first hand.

If you say 'but its only a few months' just think what those few months represent for the development of for e.g. a 10 month old. Its a huge chunk of his life.

to suggest that children should just stay in foster care whilst the criminal process drags on, to me suggests that you either don't understand or don't care about the likely impact this would have on the child.

We need to improve the processes urgently. I don't know why the criminal and family courts can't communicate better either. It is urgently required.

MrEBear, others have explained it better than me but I think the key legal points here are:

• in law, welfare of the child comes first. It trumps restorative justice to the parents.

• adoption is, generally, final. I'm not clear how the birth parents would challenge this one - as indicated upthread there are three legal steps to adoption, not clear whether all three can be challenged at once.

• the courts didn't talk to each other because these are separate legal processes. I think I'm right in saying that in MOST cases of adoption, the birth parents have not been convicted of a criminal act. The standard of proof is different, and in any case adoption has time targets to meet which do not take account of criminal proceedings.

And I agree with Spero that the whole thing is a mess and desperately needs properly resourced reform.

BigChocFrenzy - that must have been hard to handle. I wish people could just be honest - as Carl Rogers says, it is never dangerous or unsatisfying to be closer to the truth, the facts are always friendly.

Surely adoption that happened because of SW errors should be annulled? Is their not some sort of international UN law on removing children when its not the parents fault?

The Council of Europe is certainly critical that we don't overturn adoptions when there has been a miscarriage of justice. But our system has survived several attacks in the European Court. This may change as public opinion seems very clear about this situation.

I do believe those kids could turn against the adopted family for withholding the truth from them.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhh.....................

How do you know that the adoptive family are withholding the truth?

As has been said already, many times, adoptive parents are trained in the importance of life story work i.e. their child knowing the truth (in an age appropriate way). During the matching process the openness of the adoptive parents to whatever level of contact is planned is assessed.

Like many adoptive parents I bend over backwards to be positive about the birth parents, because my DDs came from them and they are still part of our lives and always will be. I have bent over backwards to arrange contact with extended family, only for DDs to be hurt yet again when extended family cancels at the last minute.

senS
This wasn't a quick process. The adoption took 2 or 3 years to be decided and finalised. The criminal court case - and the new evidence - does not necessarily mean that the family court would make a different decision if it heard the case again today. it would weigh the two different medical opinions and have to decide which is more probable. Plus, if there is any other evidence (which none of us know), that would also be considered.

There is pressure to make decisions within the child's timeframe - that is, to recognise that a month can be a huge period of time in a child's development. That children cannot be kept in storage while the adults go backwards and forwards determining what exactly happened. In other words, there is a trade off between a child's need for protection with a child's need to stay with biological family where possible and with a child's need for stability and permanence.

There have been cases where a child's need for continuity has outweighed biological factors. If anyone wants them I'll track down the law reports. In one case a foster parent was given permission to adopt when the LA wanted the child to go to an aunt. The children had been with the foster mother for a couple of years, and the aunt was a stranger to them. The foster mother was open to contact with the aunt.

In another case the father had murdered the mother and was in prison on a life sentence. The mother's family lived overseas, the father's in the UK. The father's parents were appalled by what their son had done (he still denied it). Usually the child would not be placed with the perpetrator's family, but the judge decided that - given existing relationships, language and culture of the child - there would be less trauma if the child went to the father's parents. Both sets of grandparents spoke the same language and were willing to work together so the child could have a relationship with his mother's family - including Skype and visits.

I think some of us understand all that, Devora, and still feel that the best outcome in this instance is for the child to be returned to his birth parents (no, not overnight before anyone says so.)

I feel 'shared custody' would equate to the child not really belonging anywhere, particularly if siblings are subsequently born/adopted.

Kimberly Mays, who was accidentally switched at birth in December 1978 with another baby girl (who sadly died aged ten) ended up with this sort of arrangement and it resulted in trouble and trauma in adolescence, with her first severing ties with her birth family and then running away to live with them. To me, that's a child very clearly showing she doesn't know where she belongs or fits in.

I also feel the parents - all the parents - deserve better, frankly.

Mrs Bear, I agree that it may make people anxious about seeking help. I find this case particularly scary as when my son was 10 months old he suffered a fractured skull in an accident with his childminder. She didn't tell the truth about what happened and we were suspected of harming him. He was removed from us whilst it was all investigated and fortunately the truth came out relatively quickly. He was returned to us and we were absolved but it could so easily have dragged on. We were in despair because how can you prove you HAVEN'T done something?
Even though we were proved innocent (or most unlikely to be guilty as SS so charmingly put it) I feel very nervous even now nearly 5 years on, if either of the children injure themselves!
We were told by SS that whereas the police have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, they only have to prove what is most probable.

the courts didn't talk to each other because these are separate legal processes. I think I'm right in saying that in MOST cases of adoption, the birth parents have not been convicted of a criminal act. The standard of proof is different, and in any case adoption has time targets to meet which do not take account of criminal proceedings

Yes BUT its the same factual matrix for both so they really should talk to each other. The police are often very interested in the outcome of a family case; if findings are made against the parents that assists the CPS in deciding whether or not to prosecute. They really should communicate better. Some cases have joint hearings before a Judge who is qualified to deal with both family and criminal matters. This is a good idea but very difficult to set up in practice.

But the fundamental difference, as you say, is that the AIMS of the criminal process are entirely different to the aims of the family court so the processes will move at different rates and for different reasons.

And to clarify my comment about biological bonds being 'crap' - badly phrased, my apologies - I meant to say 'crap' as the sole way of deciding where a child should live/who should bring them up.

it would weigh the two different medical opinions and have to decide which is more probable.

There are not two medical opinions of equal weight, one suspect because it was sought out by the defence, as you have previously insinuated.

The expert medical opinion of both prosecution and defence appears to be that not only is there a medical condition that explains the bleeding in the mouth, not only that the claimed fractures never existed, but that the markers for this being a medical condition were many, clear, and should have been picked up.

The parents weren't found not guilty because the state couldn't prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

They were found not guilty when the case against them collapsed and the prosecution offered no evidence against them.

No evidence. At all. That they ever abused their child.

So no. The family court should not now be in a position to tarry and do a bit of wondering about what to do and see if they believe the failure of the state to present any evidence against this child's parents should affect their decision.

It is very clear that decisions about returning this child to their rightful family must be made as quickly as possible and contact must be restored immediately.

The Telegraph and Guardian both report that the parents were told they would never see their child again. Is this a lie?

I expect this child those could turn against the adopted family if they ARE told the truth, i.e. that they have perfectly good parents, from whom they were separated only because of a miscarriage of justice.

It would be damn near impossible to explain why that is fair, to explain to them AND future siblings.