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 have to ask the ridiculous question here. if this showed up when the child was 6 wks old, and it was due to a medical condition that they didn't know about for what we assume is a good 2 years, with perhaps the last year (as the child is 3yo now) dedicated to the adoption process.... were there no recurrences of any types of symptoms related to the medical condition???

I'm not denying the presence of the medical condition, as clearly they've said the child has it, but then wouldn't you think in the 3 years following the original incident there would have been SOME type of recurrence of some sort? Something?? Was it ignored then by SS? Was it not recognised as related symptoms? Wouldn't any further symptoms be a red flag that something was wrong in relation to the criminal case?

Those poor parents (both sets). It's awful, they've all been failed.
theres no way the child should have been adopted before the case. I appreciate adopting earlier saves a lot of anxiety and complex issues for the child (and they are the important ones). But it's important to get it right.
Yes there's appeals etc etc but given that the case was months away, it shouldn't have been granted.

There's been other cases I've seen that have gone on for years, the birth parents agreed it wasn't right to have the children back because too much time had passed.
But in this case I think both sets of parents could perhaps come to a decision as to what's best. That would save this becoming a legal precedence either way.

I'm not a social worker at all Obs. Why did you think I was?

I've already answered your second question above.

The adoptive parents could and should have told the child that s/he had been adopted, and that they were not its birth parents, especially if there had been ongoing contact with the birth parents for some time.

At three, it seems that the child is not too old to be returned to its birth parents after long and careful preparation and negotiation. (I cannot remember very much, if anything, of my life when I was three although I appreciate other people may do. )

As for the very sad Madeleine McCann case, in the unlikely event that she is with another family, it may well be that those adoptive parents could think it was above board, she may have been in a foreign orphanage for a while, perhaps a religious one which takes in seemingly abandoned children, lost her English language and much of her memory of her early life. And then legally adopted. Would leaving her with the adoptive family really be in her best interest? (And yes, it's unlikely but I'm talking hypothetically. )

I think the whole problem with adoption is that it's so black and white and there is very little room for compromise or admitting mistakes. Courts, social workers, medics are very reluctant to admit, much less correct, mistakes or 'The system will fall apart'. Well, perhaps we need a new system.

Humble apologies.
You sounded so like one. Sorry if I mis-interpreted.

Nobody who could claim to love that child as a parent should would want them to grow up away from a birth family that lived and wanted them and from which they were wrongfully taken.

I agree with this. I say that as an adult adoptee who had wonderful parents.

At the very least the adoptive parents should be trying to facilitate contact between the birth parents and the child. Otherwise what will they tell their child?

"There are good reasons you were removed from your parents and good reasons there is no contact"? That will come back to bite them once the child reaches adulthood.

"Your parents wanted you very much but we wouldn't let you see them" How is that in the best interests of the child?

I really dislike the vilifying of social workers every time something like this happens. Of course, with the best will in the world mistakes will happen sometimes. Even the most perfect of us sometimes messes up.

But it is a stressful, underpaid and under respected job and someone has to do it. I wouldn't do it for any amount of money; actually I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it.

So I'm really glad there are social workers out there helping people every day.

I don't feel anything but sympathy for the adoptive parents, I just feel more for the birth ones.

Because adoptive parents aren't 'real' parents of course...

Bizarre.

By the sound of it the doctors messed up, not the social workers. So why are the social workers being vilified?

Because adoptive parents aren't 'real' parents of course..

no because they should have been matched with a child who needed a home not one who was wrongly taken from one how is that child not going to hold them at least partly responsible when they grow up i don't know its just wrong on so many levels

i fear for children growing up in this world

Because social workers have the over riding say ... they are the only government agency that will & can take children away. These days they will do anything to save their own skin. They are like nazis with power .... I have experience of this from both sides, in fact 2 people I know resigned from said work as they saw too much of "we need to move fast on this one" or "this one will get adopted easier than xxx"

Could not agree with you more goawayalready

Why do the birth parents get more sympathy than the adoptive ones?

That's what I'm querying.

I'm not saying the adoptive parents should have more sympathy than the birth ones, either, surely it must be hideously painful for both?

Yes it is hideous for both. And I'm sure each of them will sue the fuck out of the system! And rightly so.....

lurked, obs , the injustice doesn't matter to the child at the moment, not at all.

The injustice will matter to the child when it's older as the arbitrary lines in the sand re time frames getting clean/sober/safe will matter to other adopted children. (To some of them, those lines in the sand will feel every bit as unjust.)

But at some point adoption has to be irreversible, and at the moment that's when the adoption order is issued.

Adoptive parents aren't privy to court reports or medical reports or anything else regarding why the children were taken into care/placement orders were granted. They do not get legal representation. They rely entirely on what SS have told them and the fact that a judge issued a placement order.

If adoption orders weren't permanent, adopters would be vanishingly rare and that would be infinitely more harmful to many more children.

Whatever happens in this case, it absolutely should not be done on the basis of overturning an Adoption Order.

No, social workers don't have the over riding say. The judge does.

The social workers present their reasons, and evidence, for why they think a child should be placed for adoption. Sometimes their evidence is their own observations and assessments - but in this case the 'evidence' was from the doctors that said this was not an accidental injury.

So I'm not quite sure why this is the social workers fault, rather than the judge or the doctor. But no-one is attacking judges or doctors.

I'm an adoptive parent and have very mixed feelings about this. But I know that I will have to tell ds one day about why he couldn't live with birth parents. I know for my ds there was no option but to remove him. I don't think I could keep a child away from birth parents knowing they were wrongly removed. I don't think I could justify that to ds as he grows and I think he'd hate me for it.

In fact, there have been plenty of cases where the judge has thrown out the SW's case for adoption.

I'm confused by this. ALL parents are entitled to legal aid when it's in the PLO process. Why would they not have been? Legal aid isn't really the issue here, the Dr who didn't diagnose the child properly. Social services have to go on the reports they have from experts and the court makes the ultimate decision.

I agree Sigma the adoptive parents will be in just as much pain if the child is returned.

I agree with other posters though that, sadly, the parents' pain is not the consideration, it is about the child.

There must be a lot of adoptive parents feeling terrified that the irreversible status of adoptions is being debated and called into question. It must be awful.

Because the social workers would have made the conclusions already & presented to the court. The court takes the professional advice from the social workers

I hop the adoption is overturned. I feel so sad for this child and it's parents, all four at present, it should be returned to its biological parents.

The medical profession clearly have a limited knowledge and the pressure should be on them to stop the medical negligence and the poor training in the medical profession. The damage to parents is a disgrace. How much is this costing the tax payer?

I think people will still adopt in future.

The social workers are supposed to disagree with the medical evidence? On what basis?

Hmmmm....

I can imagine the scene:
SW: well, the doctor's report says non-accidental injury, but I disagree

Judge: What training do you have that gives you greater medical expertise than a qualified doctor?

SW: None, but I just have this sort of feeling about it.

Do you think the judge would say 'Oh, OK, I'm sure your 'sort of feeling' is more likely than the doctor's report. Let's ignore what the doctor says...'

Maybe not?

But if birth parents' case is still in court, the child should have remained in foster care.