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.

Thanks spero (and maryz). That's pretty much what I thought - in a functioning, affluent, first world country you really ought to be able to have faith that it's been done right. (I'll admit, I'm thinking more from an adopter's perspective about unassessed family members turning up at the 11th hour though, rather than about miscarriages of justice).

boohoo, it's normal that face to face contact is stopped with birth parents when the child is placed with the adoptive parents, so the child can bond with APs. Any face to face contact would only be done after that if SS/the court had said it should happen. This would be vanishingly rare anyhow, but in this case the birth parents were thought to be abusers so it really wouldn't happen. It's not indicative in any way of how the adoptive parents may behave now.

tldr got there before me but just to add (to the perfectly normal situation that face to face contact stops at the point the child is placed with a new family) that it doesn't mean that contact is stopped completely - they may have agreed letter box contact.

But nice that you automatically assume the adopters are the bad guys boohoo

I don't know why this cannot be challenged legally I don't think anyone has said it can't be challenged - its not likely to succeed just based on previous challenges. That doesn't mean I don't think it should succeed or even that there should be a different outcome even if the legal challenge doesn't succeed by agreement between the parents. I just think that people in possession of more information than we have are better placed to make the decision (and I don't necessarily mean the court who I guess will also be concerned with precedent). However I presume a court not only takes into account the intention of any adoption order to be final but also whats in the best interests of the child.

I too have heard of people leaving the country in order to keep their kids. The case I'm thinking of was a pregnant woman who'd been told her baby would be taken away at birth (like older siblings) she went to France and told the LA her situation they supported her 18 mths on appears to be doing well with her baby.

Sparo, your insight is fantastic to have.
Back to the couple in question, surely they could take this case to the European Court of Human Rights?

Ian Josephs sent me a video a few months ago

That's a bit grim Spero why on earth did he send it to you? Was he thinking he showed what a great success it had been?

One of the most chilling things about IJ is his focus on parents rights over everything else. Even the right of the child to be safe eg not reporting abuse (by a third party) in case your child is taken away.

They have to exhaust domestic avenue first MrEBear I don;t think they've even started here yet.

To add to what tldr says about last minute family members, yes it does happen. Slight change of details but same scenario I encountered recently. School age child, let's say sn making them hard to place, dad died, mum tracked down and agreed to adoption. No other family members supposedly. Adoptive parents had child living ft with them in the belief it was just till everyone was satisfied it was a good match. Childs main issues other than losing a parent were down to playing musical neighbours/ friends/ care/ foster homes in the interim and thinking they'd be moved on again. Psychologist agreed signing the papers so the child knew it was final (old enough to understand adoption was permanent) was something that the child needed asap. Adoptive parents find out the hold up is because another member of the family is after custody, and there is no adoption order as yet. As it was, nobody in their right mind would give the family member custody, but nobody really knew that except sw. And imo it stemmed from an sw and la who thought it was a gamble worth taking because of the childs need for stability and the fact they just didn't have any other way of providing it in the interim, as proven by the musical homes before the adoptive parents. Not through being child snatchers, or for the sake of being careless about the child or adoptive parents feelings or rights. Just desperate.

Who cocked up? Birth parents and adoptive parents are caught in an emotional vice because some well-meaning fools cocked up. Just name them -at least to the birth parents. Certainly the hospital which identified "abuse" should be held responsible for irresponsible and incorrect diagnosis. Perhaps the Hospital Trust board chairman has something to say - or perhaps not! Has the GMC reviewed the medical qualifications and credentials of whoever 'identified' the abuse and called Social Services. And who in Social Services cocked up on Court Actions? Mind you, they'll all be covering their arses with legalistic sound bites whilst the innocent birth parents are left childless and bereft. Stinks!

There are a number of barristers on this thread! indeed... and some may not even be admitting it!

That's really interesting, thanks babybarrister. I also understood that children's' homes are still very much part of the picture in Spain etc, is that correct?

I was once told by a parent in Ireland that social services only investigate the worst cases of abuse because there is such a shortage of foster carers and there isn't any other choice about what to do with the children. That children are being separated from siblings and sent around the country to where a foster carer might be available.

I have no idea if its true but its certainly the opinion on the ground where my friends are - that the rights of marriage outweigh the rights of the child.

Surely there has to be a happy medium?

Would an Adoption Order have been issued purely on the basis of suspected abuse at 6 weeks old? Would there not have been some consideration of the parents' relationship with the child as observed at the contact meetings over the following years?

Kew, re the video I think he sent it to me to show that he was right to help parents leave the country because they are treated so badly. But I agree, he doesn't seem to have any insight at all into the impact on children - he is very dismissive of any talk of 'emotional' abuse and seems to think we just mean parents shouting at each other from time to time.

surely they could take this case to the European Court of Human Rights? I think this is the interesting point. The English system has survived challenge in the ECHR a number of times; our basic system is obviously compatible with Article 8. BUT it is clear that the Council of Europe have been critical of the high levels of non consensual adoption in England AND our historic refusal to revoke adoption orders on the basis that it isn't in the child's best interests to do so. I think that is where the challenge may come.

babybarrister, are there fewer care proceedings in France etc, though, proportionate to population? Ie, more support/intervention given face to face and only the extreme cases reaching the courts?

*not France - "on the continent" maybe - the BBC inside out report referred to France (and Ireland)

I don;t know a lot about the French system but what I do know leads me to think they may indeed put a lot more money into support earlier than we do.

In ireland my anecdotal evidence only says there are fewer care proceedings because SS just don't bother to get involved. It isn't my impression that there's only budget to give more support than we give here - in fact my impression is there is less support.

Spero I had a debate with someone I'm 99% sure was him online where he quite openly stated that children shouldn't be removed until they'd been actually harmed. I put to him the case of a sibling group where the older (aged 2 or 3) had broken their arm being thrown across the room into a wall. A concerned neighbour managed to video part of that incidence. He quite clearly said that the younger baby shouldn't have been removed as they hadn't suffered any harm and should have been left in situ whilst the older one was removed.

iPaid - the trouble is, we just don't know (in the absence of the written judgement) what weight the judge put on the various factors.

There are more questions than answers in the information that is in the public domain.

Lots of judgements do get written up, e.g.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=fo6

And there seems to be a move that if a case is in the public eye the judgement does get published as much as possible given the need to protect the people involved.

For example, those reports of the Italian woman forced to have a C-section and then her baby was 'stolen' - which turned out to be rather different to the evidence.