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'm working my way through this thread but a question springs to mind (sorry if it's already been discussed):

Given the lengths Social Services normally go to to keep children in their birth families and the fact that the birth parents were observed during years of supervised contact with the child; what happened during the contact time that made the social worker(s) decide that it was not in the best interests of the child to be returned to them?

Care orders are not normally issued solely on the basis of medical evidence and, as stated in a link posted above, the condition affecting the child would have been known to SWs, medical representatives and judges to be a not uncommon condition in infants.

I'm not asking to cast aspersions on the birth parents, just wondering what else the Family Court would have taken into consideration.

No we DONT KNOW toko so why do you still suspect them of something.

It's not unheard of for there to be massive miscarriages of justice in the where people have been found guilty of crimes they didn't commit and spent decades In prison all on the say on bad evidence. Can you image of the judges thought 'weeeell they could be guilty of something so let them rot'

The birth parents have been cleared. They are not guilty. We have to use that as a starting point and really get behind and support these two parents that had their new born taken from them. We have to assume that they are guiltless because no other evidence has come to light. I'm sure things could be 'leaked' to the papers to sway public opinion about them if they were guilty of something. But there isn't. And the SS are going to get a rightful battering over this again. Why are you imagining there is a whole history of abuse? Where are you getting your train of thought from?

Do you not believe that people in positions of trust lie/fuck up? Our establishment isn't one for championing the truth is it ?

Where have I said this?

Yes, people in positions of trust sometimes lie/fuck up. And so do parents sometimes.

My point being, all along, that we have very limited information and therefore none of us are in a position to know what is best. That the lack of a conviction in a criminal court is not proof of anything, except that there isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt that abuse occurred. That is not saying that they are guilty, but pointing out that there is no logical relationship between 'no criminal conviction=innocent'. Innocent people do sometimes get convicted, and guilty people sometimes walk free. And that is before you get to the different levels of proof needed to secure a conviction versus decide what is best for a child's welfare.

And the idea that confidential information should be leaked to sway public opinion leaves me speechless. Are you really saying that should happen?

Lots of people here "not casting aspersions or anything" whilst very definitely casting aspersions.

BigChocFrenzy, upthread I said that one of the challenges of adoption is having to help your child to understand things that no child can really or should have to understand - that they were the product of rape, that their birth parents chose to keep all the children except them, that their birth parents hurt children. This is another of those things. Of course it's not fair. Nothing about adoption is fair. And yes, the child may react with anger and blame - we're used to that too.

Nobody in this case has an easy ride ahead.

I don't see people casting aspersions Lemonfizzypop, just offering a range of reasons why it's hard to know what should happen next in this case. And I don't think it's for the general public to 'get behind' these parents - I think it's for us to demand (and be prepared to pay for) first class children's services that we can trust to do their job sensitively and effectively and confidentially, appropriately accountable but free from the glare of public scrutiny.

From what I've read - and correct me if I have it wrong - the case went to trial with the prosecution medical evidence saying it was non-accidental injury. The defence medical evidence disagreed, and at that point the trial stopped.

Presumably because the defence medical evidence provided 'reasonable doubt' (criminal level of proof) that abuse had occurred.

Or did the prosecution medical witness change their mind? I haven't read that anywhere, but it could have happened.

I believe there was a report that the condition was not caused by the parents. Some (not all) social workers find it hard to back down when they might be wrong. Of course most of them try to do good work but plenty get it wrong and it's good the courts are there to oversee things when parents bring cases.

Devora all of those things would mean an adoptive family is of coursethe best option, in THIS case the child has birth parents who love and want him and are no danger to him.

This is the problem on this thread, people are constantly comparing this situation with THEIR adoptive situation, it's not like for like, this is very unique case!

That the lack of a conviction in a criminal court is not proof of anything, except that there isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt that abuse occurred.

Nope, in this case it is proof that there was no evidence to be presented by the prosecution.

It's not that the burden of proof was not reached, it's that there was no evidence with which to make a criminal case.

None.

There is no evidence against me either, maybe someone should come and take my children away from me forever?

Or did the prosecution medical witness change their mind? I haven't read that anywhere, but it could have happened.

The prosecution found a new expert witness that said that there had never been any fractures.

The prosecution entered no evidence against the couple, the case collapsed, but the verdict was "not guilty" because that's the verdict available in criminal trials.

But you'd have to say that on a balance of probabilities, there is still no case against the parents for abuse.

Of course it's a unique case Lemonfizzypop, and in offering that comment I wasn't saying that that meant the child should not be returned. But many, many posters have said, "When the child finds out they will hate their adoptive family" as though that in itself means that the child should be returned.

Please try to open your mind to the many complexities of this unique case. I have not for one second suggested my own family situation is comparable. What I am doing is drawing on my experience to try to open up the conversation away from "Return the child - end of!". That may well be the end point - and I have no reason to think that is the wrong outcome - but it should not be the starting point.

Most of us are posting on the assumption that "not guilty = innocent" because that is the official legal status after a verdict.
Depressing for defendants who are cleared of any kind of crime to realise many will think "not really innocent"

The case was dropped and no professional has produced any evidence other than the totally wrong medical assessment.

Their barrister refers to "a crime they never committed" and similar statements - surely no reputable lawyer would stick their neck out like that unless they were damn sure.

The prosecution isn't going to waste time and money with a trial if there is little prospect of reaching the standard of proof needed. If the defence medical expert threw doubt on the prosecution medical expert, then why would it go to trial?

As has been said, endlessly, that is very different from saying there is no evidence to consider when making decisions on the balance of probabilities.

And none of us know either way.

I don't know how you turn 'we don't know the full story' into making insinuations. Or how you are so sure you have enough information to know, definitively, what happened and what should now happen.

If the defence medical expert threw doubt on the prosecution medical expert, then why would it go to trial?

That is not what happened, as Inhave explained repeatedly.

The prosecution engaged their own expert whose evidence was that there had never been any fractures.

Their own expert refuted their own evidence and so they didn't enter any evidence and the trial collapsed.

It is not that they didn't bother to take a case. A case was taken, their own expert refuted their evidence and there was no further case against the parents.

You are mischaracterising what happened here, so determined are you to insist that what happened in the criminal case is irrelevant.

In criminal law, not guilty = innocent. Quite rightly. Different medical opinions cast 'reasonable doubt'.

As has been said endlessly, few of the parents whose children have to be removed get prosecuted. That doesn't mean removing their child/ren is a miscarriage of justice. Whether a criminal case does or doesn't come to court is irrelevant.

In civil law, those medical opinions would be tested against each other. May be the initial medical assessment was 'totally wrong', as you claim. Where do you get the information on that?

In civil law, those medical opinions would be tested against each other.

In a criminal case they could be too.

If they weren't in complete agreement that there had been no abuse.

Defence: there has been no abuse

Prosecution: oh yes, it would seem there has been no abuse. We can enter no evidence.

Case collapses, couple found not guilty.

tomo: in a civil case they would be guilty

Toko The family barrister stated on BBC Today, see Guardian :

“[The expert witness] said immediately not only are these not fractures, but this child has eight classical signs of infantile rickets. I served that report on the family court within moments of them making the final adoption order. Do they review it? No. They confirm the final adoption order.”

The prosecution accepted this report and presented NO other evidence, dropping the case. So, no evidence against the parents to weigh up.

I'm not sure there is a lot to be gained at this stage from debating the finer legal points. As it stands the adoption will in all probability stand and like it or not the

DAMN phone

Contact between birth parents and child will come down the adoptive parents. So let's hope they are well counselled

Probably and because of that blatant injustice, some nervous parents will delay taking babies to hospital or GP.

I would like to know who if anyone was advising the family and whether as someone suggested up thread that wider family didn't take the child in order to support the innocence of the parents. If this is true I thinks a big mistake - I'm pretty sure Spero's website gives good advice on this but in my opinion keeping the child in the family is always more important than standing behind the parents. To be fair I have no idea if this is the case here and I can see how in the heat of "battle" you wouldn't be thinking that clearly.

It's the idea that once a mistake has been made and continues long enough, it can't be corrected.
Very worrying for confidence in the system, which probably gets it right in 95% of cases

And I have supported a friend through accusations of abuse, attending medical examinations and social worker meetings. I know how terrifying it is.

I am sure it will be challenged all the way up to the ECHR now as Spero said so the law will be robustly tested.