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.

devora if you think that translates into 'identity over attachment' then I'm not even going to try and reason with you.

sigma yeah, sorry for some reason I've not read hundreds of posts saying 'I have no valid opinion' and just me saying 'I do'. I've read lots of posts about personal experience leading to which way posters feel is likely to be best for the child. I'm doing exactly the same.

I don't think any of the people supposedly 'coming from the adoption angle' have given an opinion of what is in the child's best interests. In fact, most have specifically said that they don't know what would be best, and don't think anyone here has enough knowledge about the situation to judge.

They have used their own knowledge and experiences to challenge those saying that they know the best thing is for this child to be returned to the birth parents.

I'm just remembering when my own ds was 3, he followed me everywhere, how terryfying to be removed and told someone else was his mum

how on earth can you say on one hand I'm wrong to suggest this child will already have issues from attachments and in the next say your ds has issues from it?

My DS does not have any attachment issues.

He has other issues which are now independent of how well he is attached to me or how well he might reattach to anyone else. If I died tomorrow, he may well reattach to someone else quite securely (though he is now 10 so thats not so likely but obviously that's an age thing) because he has the ability to attach. But a change now would most likely exacerbate his executive processing disorder.

The issues partially caused by broken attachments weren't resolved when he subsequently eventually became securely attached to me. The neural pathways in his brain have been misdirected and there is a lot of work (ongoing and ahead) to reinforce them.

The argument some posters have been making is that because this child is probably securely attached to their adoptive parent that should be able to form secure attachments again to another parent.

This isn't necessarily the case - issues arising from broken attachments aren't solved by a subsequent secure attachment. In fact another broken attachment can exacerbate the underlying issues which are not an attachment disorder.

I'm specifically addressing the point that the child will be able to reattach to parents because they have a secure attachment now. I'm saying that my totally normally attached child would have far bigger issues than you could possibly imagine if he were moved now (or even when he was three) and they wouldn't necessarily be attachment issues.

Is that clearer? If DS had been moved at 3 all holy hell would break lose and I'm not sure his mental health would ever have recovered. Its hard enough as it is for him and we have ongoing psychologists support. When he gets to adulthood, I will at the very least have the comfort of knowing he got that far in order to be disturbed by his lack of a birth family.

I'm not arguing that you can't have a different opinion to me (which would be pretty pointless) I was merely pointing out that adopters don't live in a vacuum and have other experiences of adoption and the care system beyond the adoption of our own children - we don't necessarily need someone to tell us what the drawbacks of adoption are into teenage years/adulthood.

Yes emotional harm is a factor but the the harm must be "significant".

I get that you've decided that the short/medium/long term harm of moving again is less significant then the long term harm of being returned to birth family. I just don't understand why you think that based on your experiences of the care system. The decision should be made based in this individual child.

Kew

Excellent post

Since this problem is due to a forced adoption cockup by the State, it means that assessing this child's needs and helping them transition into a new arrangement cannot be left to the usual budget balancing of needs / resources.
When the police beat someone up, or a hospital error leaves someone disabled, then that large pot of money is found, regardless of needs elsewhere.

This case is just as serious and life-changing.
So, don't let any lack of resources be a factor now - or that would also increase the punitive damages probably awarded later.

Also, it must be made clear that those now involved professionally are not to consider in the slightest any saving of embarassment to colleagues or to their employers.

Imo, since the original decision was based on false information presented by "expert witnesses" in court , the default position - out of natural justice - should be to correct that miscarriage of justice UNLESS this particular child is no longer bonded to the birth parents and does not, in the transitioning months, look likely to regain that bond.

So, the child comes first, but a little secondary consideration must be given to the direct victims of this miscarriage of justice: the birth parents and future siblings.
Especially because avoiding correction is the reflex in many large organisations, to avoid investing a lot of extra resources, or avoiding further embarassment.

A miscarriage of justice needs a different emphasis to sort out, if parents are to retain faith in hospitals and not to avoid SWs even more than now.
Whatever is decided, there must be a public apology, penalties if any processional standards were breached and a proper evaluation of whether an obviously wrong decision can be corrected.

I wish we had more facts on this.

I don't. I think in this case, at this time, thats a dreadful idea. Maybe in time.

Whatever happens this wee one will need a lot of support I think they probably will get it, and I suspect so will the birth parents. I have a horrible feeling that the adoptive parents will be left high and dry though. But I might be being pessimistic.

Sorry I think my previous post is a bit too long. I'll but out at this point again. I can't keep saying "I'm not sure what would be for the best but don't underestimate the damage caused even by returning a child to loving birth parents" without sounding like a parrot.

bigchoc when we refer to the child's needs, we are not talking about financial needs, but emotional needs.

Kew I agree, there is nothing new to say.

bigchoc, the adoptive parents are also victims of this miscarriage of justice (assuming that's what it is).

When they adopted this child they ought to have been able to have faith that the placement order was safe.

Whatever happens now, they also are looking at very different circumstances to those they anticipated.

kew that is indeed my point. This child too has already had broken attachments. Where we differ is you coming from the angle one more will be the straw that breaks the camels back. And my view that adding the extra straw now is better than adding an entire bale down the line.
You also mistake me on the question of breaking the attachment now. You seem to be coming from the view that because the attachment is likely to be strong to the adoptive parents there is potentially more problem in breaking it. Which compared to if the child had been in musical short term placements for the last three years I agree has more potential for issues in the short term. But I believe the long term issues are lesser from breaking that stronger attachment. In part because current adoption assessment finds new attachments are easier when the child has made them before. Partly because I think accepting the circumstances and results from removal for this child have more potential for problems than breaking the attachment and partly because from what we do know until recently the child appears to have had regular contact with parents. Hence it would be slowly increasing that contact, not placing them with parents they don't know overnight.

I'm also not dismissing any of the problems your child or anyone else's has, or what you suspect would be the result if they had have been removed from you. But in addition to that I'm considering the experiences of adults and children who have huge issues because of removal from birth families. And not just those who know removal was the best choice, or those who feel they were victims of malicious sws, or who had unpleasant care once removed. Mostly I'm thinking of people who agree that at the time ss thought it was in their interests to be raised in other than their birth family. And they, and their outcomes strongly indicate it wasn't at all the best choice for them.

I do agree re the publics right to know the facts. We have a right to know exactly what comeuppance there is for the professionals responsible for this fuck up. But we have no rights to know the full details. And never should know, unless this child in much later life ( as in well into adulthood) makes the fully informed decision to share them.

Where we differ is you coming from the angle one more will be the straw that breaks the camels back. And my view that adding the extra straw now is better than adding an entire bale down the line.

No. Where we differ (lumping myself in with Kew here, because I have an 'I agree with Kew tee-shirt) is that we keep saying 'may, may, may' and you keep saying 'definitely is, definitely is, definitely is'.

And the we add emphasis by saying 'if, if, if' this child gets irreparably damaged now, then what comes later hardly matters, because the child is already broken.

I get it, the issue is the site is including the word definite in my posts when you read it, despite me having not included it. Explains a lot. There was me thinking you were expressing one opinion in much the same manner as mine.

Although I do think what is definite is the child will have issues down the line whatever happens, it's damage limitation not complete prevention.

tldr The birth parents are direct victims of the miscarriage of justice, whereas the adoptive parents are indirect victims:

It is the birth parents who faces years of accusations, were arrested, charged and waited for a trial (which didn't proceed)
Whichever set of parents eventually lose out, only the birth parents suffered that horrendous torture in the criminal justice system.

Sigma33 Of course I realised we're discussing the child's emotional needs.
However, I'm concerned that the decision about allowing contact with the birth parents and enabling transition to them may be affected by that probably needing much greater resiurces than just leaving the child where they are and without contact.

So, they do have financial needs, in order to address emotional needs and their future life.

Of course the adoptive parents are direct victims, they are now in a position of wondering whether their child will remain with them

Resources will be needed either way so I hardly think a decision on the child's future is going to be based on that

Of course the adoptive parents are victims too, but they have NOT been targeted by the criminal justice system at all.
They have NOT been questioned for weeks about child abuse, then questioned by police, arrested, charged, faced ostracisation as child abusers, jailed & bailed, sent to trial.

Direct victims are those specifically targeted. Indirect are not the intended targets.
When an action for damages is brought for wrongful arrest etc, only the birth parents will be party to that.

Keeping the current no-contact adoption situation has to require fewer resources than a long transition period with both sets of parents involved and having contact.

The resources required will depend on the outcomes identified at assessment

These people weren't targeted, they went through the system based on the information that was available at the time. There isn't some huge conspiracy theory, a six week old presented with unexplained injuries, the normal procedures were then followed. Errors were made later, but people weren't targeted for god sake