Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

No legal aid = baby adopted

943 replies

CFSKate · 09/10/2015 07:54

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.

OP posts:
howtorebuild · 09/10/2015 14:21

www.ehlers-danlos.org/patient-support/child-protection-and-ehlers-danlos-syndrome-2/ the whole NAI/FII bullshit has been wrecking lives for years.

stuckinahole · 09/10/2015 14:21

Exactly Azerty!!!

AnchorDownDeepBreath · 09/10/2015 14:23

It's not a vile attitude. I wasnt suggesting that it should override what is best for this child or any other. Just that it will set a precedent and the implications of that need to be considered.

As a child who waited to be adopted and wasn't, who desperately wanted a family and never got one, and who watched others go through the same, it's probably a bit close to home.

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 14:24

I hop the adoption is overturned

I highly doubt it will be - there is no legal basis on which to do so. It's vanishingly rare - I can think of one case in the last 10 years (though there may have been others) where the child was an emanicpated minor and applied to court to have the adoption annulled.

Kewcumber · 09/10/2015 14:25

The best solution is likely to come from some form of arbitration and to be honest probably relies on the goodwill of the adoptive parents.

Obs2015 · 09/10/2015 14:25

Because the judge goes on the evidence. the evidence being the case that is presented to the judge, by the SW'ers.
And the SW'ers are supposed to be open and non-judgemental.
But sometimes they are not. They make up their minds. And the case snowballs, until finally it is discovered that it is based on presumption, assumption and heresay, rather than factual evidence.
The SW'er decided right from the off that the parents were abusive, and ran with that.
The mum is crying and crying, no I'm a good mum, I love him, I'd never hurt him.
She's guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty.
And the case snowballs.
Until it finally transpires that the child does have a medical condition and the mum was never lying.
But in the meantime, the child was adopted. because what else was the judge to do, with the evidence he/she was presented, by the social worker.

HermioneWeasley · 09/10/2015 14:28

The adoptive parents are legally the parents of this child in exactly the same way that those of you who gave birth to your children are legally their parents

Do you think that the courts should be able to take your kids away from a safe, loving and happy home because they think another set of parents would be even better? I suspect not.

Regardless of what's best for the child (and of course that's most important) Why do you think the suffering of the parents that have raised the child for 3 years since he was 6 weeks old would be less than what the bio parents are experiencing now?

There's a very clear and unpleasant view on here that adoptive relationships are somehow lesser or second class

MovingOnUpMovingOnOut · 09/10/2015 14:29

Well said Hermione.

stuckinahole · 09/10/2015 14:31

I think people are making a point of view of how this was allowed to happen in the first place.

Imagine giving birth & having your baby taken away knowing you have done NOTHING wrong!!! Get real please

ConstanceMarkYaBitch · 09/10/2015 14:32

The adoption will not be overturned. At this point it makes no difference what has been found or determined; the adoption has been finalised over a year ago and nothing is going to change that.
Which, imo, is as it should be. You can't correct one tragedy by causing another.

tldr · 09/10/2015 14:33

Obs, and the doctor who said there was abuse, was she hoodwinked by the SW as well as the judge?

hairbrushbedhair · 09/10/2015 14:35

I think there should be safeguards out in place such as three medical professionals independent of each other all having to consider suspected abuse cases too. IIRC in the baby P case there was a new incompetent Dr who got things wrong, and the social workers got all the blame

tldr · 09/10/2015 14:36

Imagine giving birth & having your baby taken away knowing you have done NOTHING wrong!!! Get real please

Imagine adopting a child & having your child taken away knowing you have done NOTHING wrong!!! Get real please

BathtimeFunkster · 09/10/2015 14:36

Do you think that the courts should be able to take your kids away from a safe, loving and happy home because they think another set of parents would be even better?

Well that's what has happened.

And saying "oh well, too late. The new parents we chose get to keep your child forever on our way so" is inhuman.

No legal process should be irreversible in the case that it has been shown to have been conducted unfairly.

Parents and children have the absolute right not to have that relationship destroyed by the state for no good reason.

Now there are two sets of parents in that situation.

I'm surprised that any parent thinks it should be right that their child could be taken from them for no good reason and never returned.

That could happen to any parent, adopting a child doesn't make you immune to false claims of abuse.

howtorebuild · 09/10/2015 14:37

The law is an associate and can be changed to allow adoption to be reversed in a miscarriage of justice. It just needs a change in law. I would guess then a court hearing along the lines of a residential hearing during divorce.

People will still adopt.

stuckinahole · 09/10/2015 14:37

SW DO jump to conclusions. They DO have their minds already made up. Now they have not only destroyed one family but low & behold they've destroyed another (adoptive parents) good work Social Services!

Both parties are likely to sue and the tax payer will fork out

Sleepybeanbump · 09/10/2015 14:37

In don't understand how people can say 'but you can't just say oh sorry mistake and take him away from the adoptive parents'. That's exactly what they've done to the biological parents!! Sorry, nothing we can do, terrible mistake but it's done now, live with it. Yes, the tragedy of this situation is that all potential solitons cause grief to someone, but WHY should the adopters get greater rights and security in the face of the ss fuck up than the bio parents?!? They're being asked to live with the consequences forever, unfair and awful though they are. Why is that acceptable but undermining the adopters rights wouldn't be?

And if it's all about the child, that's a moot point anyway. How can we possibly know with any confidence how it will balance out re long term pain for the child if he stays and discovers truth later, and

Personally, it seems like the adopters have a very easy time of it. They get to keep the child even if it's for totally selfish reasons, while trumpeting about thinking of the child. The real parents are still being fucked over by all and sundry with this absurd expectation that they just lump it for the sake of the child. And tbh, sod 'what's right for the child'. It's a weasely argument dressed up as objective selflessness. We all know we'd do anything to get our child back in the same situation. How on earth can they be expected to walk away because it's 'in the interests of the child'.

And as for the adoptive parents... I'd WANT to do something about it if I was them.... Talk about access, or a phased handover or something. I wouldn't just want to keep someone else's wrongfully stolen child and just carry on as if they didn't exist. I couldn't live with it, or myself, or my fear of how the child would react and judge me for it later in life.

stuckinahole · 09/10/2015 14:38

This is a total miscarriage of justice.

howtorebuild · 09/10/2015 14:39

The law is an ass.

Liomsa · 09/10/2015 14:39

Five people are in a hideous Hobson's Choice situation, all four parents and a three year old. My heart goes out to all five.

But people advocating 'serving justice' by removing a three year old from the only parents he or she knows and sending him or her to live with the parents he hasn't lived with since early infancy are making very big claims for the emotional resilience of three year olds, apparently purely because they don't themselves remember being three. And this is a child who has lost at least two sets of parent-figures already - his/her biological parents and presumably one or more sets of foster carers.

Anyone who has become a parent by adoption, or is close to a family that includes an adopted child, knows how those losses, even if they're long before conscious memory, can manifest themselves.

I do agree that this child needs to know the truth of what happened as he/she grows up - to do otherwise would be desperately unfair to all concerned. But to label the removal of a three year old from the only parents he knows to virtual strangers -even though those virtual strangers are his biological parents who were deprived of him through an appalling injustice - a 'short term problem' to 'right a bigger wrong' or deal out a more longterm justice is misguided at best. Yet another loss is no 'short term pain for longterm gain', it's dicing with a small child's life, and the life of the adolescent and adult that child becomes.

One hopes the parents will manage to work out something that is in the child's best interests between themselves, with help and support, though I can't imagine what. But I don't think that overturning an adoption order is the answer.

And for those saying that people who feel that overturning an adoption order isn't the right answer are worried about messing up the 'adoption system', shame on you. Have you seen an adoptive parent having to reassure their child for years that, yes, they were moved around and lost people in the past, but it will never happen again, we are your forever mummy and daddy? Saying that several times a day for years? Being unable to take your adopted three year old on holiday or even away for the weekend, because when he sees clothes being packed, he thinks mummy and daddy are going to disappear, like the last set of carers, and shuts down completely? Not being able to use ordinary child disciplines like time out or the naughty step because the experience of being excluded in the tiniest of ways, puts them right back in the middle of losses they can not consciously remember? Being hysterical with joy when your adopted child finally starts being naughty, because he's been too afraid for months or years to do anything slightly naughty because he think he'll be sent away again as a punishment?

That's why adoption orders should be very carefully arrived at, but absolute.

ConstanceMarkYaBitch · 09/10/2015 14:39

I'm surprised that any parent thinks it should be right that their child could be taken from them for no good reason and never returned

And yet thats exactly what you're advocating should be done to the adoptive parents? Why is that then?

stuckinahole · 09/10/2015 14:40

Missed point I see!!

The adoptive parents have done nothing wrong - agreed.

The birth parents have done nothing wrong - agreed.

So who has done wrong - oh social services

IconicTonic · 09/10/2015 14:40

I think some people are under the impression this child was taken to the adoptive parents at 6 weeks old when it's more likely to have been within the last year. It would be more normal to have gone to a foster home initially with contact and then contact to have stopped when moved to adoptive family.

It is likely the birth parents don't know the adoptive parents, where they live etc to prevent them trying to snatch the child back. It is very naive to think any kind of contact/join custody could work at this point as the birth parents would always want more.

howtorebuild · 09/10/2015 14:41

The fault with the medical training and medical negligence.

tldr · 09/10/2015 14:41

And as for the adoptive parents... I'd WANT to do something about it if I was them.... Talk about access, or a phased handover or something. I wouldn't just want to keep someone else's wrongfully stolen child and just carry on as if they didn't exist. I couldn't live with it, or myself, or my fear of how the child would react and judge me for it later in life.

And who has said they won't/wouldn't?

Personally, it seems like the adopters have a very easy time of it.
Because I guess they've barely even noticed this has happened, right?

SW DO jump to conclusions. They DO have their minds already made up.
Possibly. That's why it's up to doctors to present medical evidence and judges to, erm, judge.