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 not condemning the adoptive parents.
I bet you she's shedding tears, looking at her husband, and crying, saying to him 'how did we end up here, how did we get into this nightmare. What are we going to do NOW'?

Again, try explaining that to a teenager when they see 13 years of Christmas and birthday presents, wrapped and piled in the corner. When they see the full siblings they could have grown up with. I've seen adoptive parents talk about the risks of social media when birth parents pop up with sob stories and the child was too small to remember the abuse and neglect they suffered. In this case the stories will be true.

And are the parents going to go back to Guildford Crown Court?
What are Surrey Social Services going to actually DO now?

but they are that child's mum and dad.

But they should never have been.

Absolutely does not change the fact that they are. The child has done nothing wrong and none of the parents nor the child are responsible for this situation.

Ask the child who mum and dad are then tell the child you are taking them to live somewhere else. How do you imagine that might feel? Could you knowingly as a parent put your child through that? I don't think I could.

I agree that the adoptive parents have done nothing wrong up until now. But if they keep the child, then I don't think they are acting in his best interests. I feel desperately sorry for them, they are as much victims as anyone else in this awful situation. It would be incredibly difficult for them to consider adopting again.

There's a reason that it's now regarded as the best option for the child to stay with their birth family if at all possible. There's a reason that the anonimity of sperm donors was removed. There's a reason that where possible adoptions are open allowing contact with birth families. It is considered the best option for the emotions welfare of the child.

And all completely irrelevant in this case where a child has already been removed and is living happily with his/her parents (who happen to be adoptive) as is the case here.

It seems to me that you have some sort of axe to grind about adoption generally Backforthis. I'm not sure that's going to be terribly helpful to this discussion though.

What sort of trauma do think a child removed for a second time to go back to their birth parents will experience? None? Some but worth it? How do you quantify and justify that? I don't know where to even begin :(

I think i would MovingOn, because I think it's right. And I mean for everyone.

I don't think causing further pain to a child is right. I think there must be another way that is less disruptive and more child-centred.

That poor child.

The people who allowed this to happen are evil.

Ask the child who mum and dad are then tell the child you are taking them to live somewhere else.

Yeah. Coz that's the only way it could happen that this little kid is not knowingly estranged from its loving biological family.

No, I do think a 2-3 year old who has been with a family for the last year, would suffer if returned to his birth parents, who he hasn't seen fur the last year.
But I STILL think that this is for the best. for all involved.

And I have great respect for the adoption service. My parents are social workers, specialising in placing children with adoptive parents. Many so difficult, because these children had suffered such abuse.

But I still think that in this particular case, because of the injustice, the birth parents should have their child returned.

What about children who are adopted because their birth parents didn't get clean/sober/safe in time to be allowed to keep them?

If their birth parents get clean/sober/safe 6 months after they've been adopted, should they be 'returned'? What about a year? Two years?

What if the child stays with adoptive parents only to reach adulthood and find out birth parents were clean/sober/safe for all that time (minus 6 months)?

I disagree MovingOn.
The child should be returned.

Tldr, but in this particular case, the parents did nothing wrong, did they?
There has been a mid-diagnosis. The child was removed wrongly. Fur what later turned out to be not just spurious reasons, but factually incorrect reasons.
The evidence does not support the conclusions.
A mistake has been made. Innumerable mistakes I suspect.

Am I being naive but why can't the two sets of parents have joint custody of the child - like divorced parents do?

And I disagree with you for the reasons outlined above Obs. I respect your opinion though :)

Actually I disagree with it being an either or situation. I think the child should have a relationship with their birth parents. I'm just not convinced a return (based on the very limited information we have) would be in the best interests of the child.

An injustice has been perpetuated no one would disagree, but the remedy in this situation is not to put people back to the situation they would have been had nothing happened. That's not possible because time cannot be turned back, relationships cannot be unformed and causing further pain is not justice.

True. You can't turn the clocks back. Irreparable damage has been done.
An injustice has occurred. But who decides what justice is?
If your child was removed, as an injustice. Do you honestly think that someone trying to tell you that not having the child returned to you, to prevent further harm to the child, would that seem like justice, to you?
Justice?
Wouldn't to me.
Suspect it wouldn't to the majority either.

It's not the case though is it, that if everything stays as it is the child wii suffer no further pain. When he hits 16 or 18 or however old and realises what has happened to him the pain will be horrendous.

That's why I think he should bd returned slowly and gently over a period of years if necessary.

I think it would be awful. I might not even be able to live with it. But I would like to think that as a parent I would put the needs of my child before my own needs. The King Solomon analogy as described above is a good one.

I don't think there's anything anyone can say that would persuade me to put the feelings of the parents above the needs of the child. I also don't think what the majority thinks or feels is really relevant either. It only really matters what the child thinks or feels and what is best for them. It's making the best of a bad situation no doubt, but the child must come first.

tldr in that scenario presumably the children would have gone into care for the right reasons in the first place. Whereas in this case foster care should have been a better safe than sorry precaution for safeguarding the child till it was investigated.

I don't feel anything but sympathy for the adoptive parents, I just feel more for the birth ones. If apologies and compensation have to go to one set, and the child the other set, I just strongly believe the birth parents shouldn't be the ones compensated for losing a child.

I think the long term solution is more accountability. Not just for kids and parents but social services etc too. When it comes to services you can fuck up big time and ruin entire families and carry on with your job. And I think part of the reason the many good social workers are seen as twats, and there is reluctance to ask for help is down to the fact bad eggs are often allowed to carry on.

Tinkly I don't think anybody is suggesting keeping the exact status quo.

Slowly and gently in the next year, or as quickly as the child can cope with.

The child is only 3. 3 year olds can be quite accommodating.
Visiting mummy and daddy regularly. Increasing contact.
Finding ways to say, that we are all grateful to 'Susi and dave( or whatever adoptive parents are called) because they have looked after you so brilliantly for the last year.
But letting the child know that in time they will be going back home to live with mummy and daddy.
Social workers can explain these things. Social workers have already explained twice why he's been taken away,placed with adoptives. I'm sure they can explain why he's now being returned to his biological.

Ah lovely another fuck up of Social Services and people wonder why the fucking hell these bastards are not respected & have a bad reputation. I am never shocked anymore at the lengths social workers go to

But I do feel returning the child IS best for the child.
I believe this IS child centred, child focused.
It's not just what I think is best for the parents. I'm saying it because I believe it IS best for the child.

Of course it is Obs, you are right

MovingOn are you a Social Worker first. And a parent second?

What would you do if your biological child was removed wrongly?