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.

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

I don't think they are lesser or second class but adoptive relationships are different to biological ones. The love an adoptive parent/child feels is the same but the history around the relationship is different. Biological parents don't have another set of parents in their child's life but every adopted child has a biological history that includes another set of parents - whether good, bad, whatever - they exist. and the adoptive parent knows this and raises their child to include this history.

So in this case, the adoptive parents has to face a serious question about how to deal with the biological parents. They cannot pretend that the bio parents don't exist. their child will one day be very curious about those bio parents and will need to be told the truth. "The adoption was final" won't be a good enough reason to explain why they could not have a relationship with their biological parents who had done nothing that warranted removal of a child).

Mind you I am presuming the adoptive parents will have been told the background. It is possible they won't.

No amount of excuses, reasons, discussion or debate changes this.
I think it's absolutely disgusting and no, i don't agree that adoption should ever be final with no redress when the parents are found innocent.

Personally, it seems like the adopters have a very easy time of it

fuck me, if you think the adopters are having "a very east time of it" then you have the empathy of a gnat.

And I'm not a parent by adoption, incidentally. Nor am I taking the adoptive parents' 'side' in this. All four parents are victims of a horrible miscarriage of justice.

I just don't think that anyone can think in terms of 'justice being served'. This is a child, not stolen goods.

advocating should be done to the adoptive parents? Why is that then?

Because otherwise the precedent is that agents of the stars can take your child away permanently when you have done nothing wrong.

I would think the child should be returned to the legal parents from whom they had wrongfully been removed, even if those parents were adoptive parents.

It's bizarre (and a bit frightening) that adoptive parents seem to see themselves as the potential beneficiaries of a situation like that.

Nobody who really loved a child would keep them away from their rightful family after an awful miscarriage of justice like this.

How could you ever explain to them that their original parents loved and wanted them and they were taken in error, but that you thought it was best to keep them?

That's not love. That's not about the child.

Anyone who blithely states they would give the child back is a liar, or a fool.
There isn't anything that would make me hand my child over to someone else, whether it was a miscarriage of justice or an alien fucking invasion. Pretty sure most parents feel the same.

And those ranting on and on about social workers clearly have their own biased agenda. SW's didn't raise an issue here, dr's did. It wasn't social workers that approved the removal, it was a judge, who also approved adoption. SW'ers did their jobs: other professionals determined the child was at risk so they removed it. Thats what we pay them for. In this case the dr's made the mistake.

the adoptive parents have done nothing wrong thus far however they willingly engaged with social services and the fostering and adoption process. they knew they were entering complex territory.

the parents simply gave birth, lost their child to a mistake and in no way willingly engaged or had any say in the matter or had any active role other than victims of a cruel miscarriage of justice.

one party knew they were taking a risk or at least entering a very complex and fraught scenario - the other party were entirely passive in that and in no way entered such a contract.

the adoptive parents have done nothing wrong up to now but if they don't allow a relationship between the child and it's parents now then they will be doing something very wrong in my opinion and in order to do it will have to lie and conceal truth from that child. it's not like they're going to be able to raise them telling them they were adopted from parents who did nothing wrong and who are still desperate to see them but mummy and daddy won't let this happen because you're 'legally ours now'. so what will they do? lie? not tell the child they're adopted? avoid and obfuscate for as long as possible? they have no good way forward realistically other than allowing this relationship and seeing where it goes. i feel very sorry for them but the reality is now it has happened they have no way of moving forward in integrity - denying contact between the child and it's parents despite knowing they have done nothing wrong just isn't being a good parent to the child.

i can't see what choice they have.

Liomsa I was beginning to think that this is deteriorating into a discussion about who gets to keep a possession. All sounds a bit like pass the parcel - when the music stops...

There is no good way to resolve this 5 peoples lives are potentially in tatters. No change in the law or returning of the goods from where they came will overcome that and potentially may make it worse for the child - none of us know.

The law currently sits on the side of the legal parents but I very much doubt the adoptive parents are sitting around smugly thinking "ha ha we win"

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

Any decent person would.

Regardless of how the adoption and custody issue is resolved, that child needs both sets of parents to remain in its life and to have contact with both.

Bathtime your attitude to adoptive parents is disgusting. And you are absolutely full of it if you think you would just hand over your child because someone else made a mistake long before you got involved in the situation. Bullshit you would.

Regardless of how the adoption and custody issue is resolved

There is no adoption or custody issue like it or not there is a legal set of parents and I would be amazed if any court will overturn it.

It is possible with extensive counselling and mediation that face to face contact can be negotiated but I think it highly unlikely that a court will be involved.

It's bizarre (and a bit frightening) that adoptive parents seem to see themselves as the potential beneficiaries of a situation like that.

What? Potential beneficiaries ?

I don't think adoptive parents are lesser than biological ones. But in this case they are. And more importantly both sets of parents are lesser to the childs rights.

Agree with obs sws get a lot of input into a case. In a case of eg neglect, I've read reports that give an impression there is a problem where there isn't. Without being remotely specific eg 'Called at teatime, not much sign of food or dinner preparation, children not eaten yet'. When in actual fact the truth is 'parents on strict budget and do their shopping weekly on x day when paid, family were leaving to go to relatives when I did cos on x day they all have dinner there as long standing social occassion. Past visits indicate children fed regular suitable meals and food shopping a budget priority'. Or the other way, when parents are given benefit of the doubt beyond all reason.

When it comes to medical reports, sws get the blame because lots of people wrongly assume based on their experience of above scenarios. I know for a fact any number of families that have had services involvement on the estate I practically live on. The absolute vast majority the sws have done an amazing job. But the entire estate hates them because the good stuff isn't common knowledge. The bad stuff is though.

however they willingly engaged with social services and the fostering and adoption process. they knew they were entering complex territory

Yes, believing that judicial process would have properly done its job, they were prepared to parent a child they didn't give birth to whom they believed had been abused and who would have been further traumatised by being removed from birth family/foster family.

What monsters.

The best prospect for this child is that both adoptive and birth parents are more able to be reasonable than some of the posters on here and stop thinking about their rights and more about their responsibilities. Then I think there is some prospect for shared contact to the benefit of the child - unconventional though it might be and I truly wouldn't want to be the parents trying to walk through that minefield.

This child has a right to grow up with a peaceful stable family life so any accommodation the parents can come to should be capable of providing that.

There is no adoption or custody issue

Yes there is. There has been a wrongful adoption.

The fact that there is currently no legal remedy (still less a way to heal the psychological carnage) for this, IS the problem.

If adoptions are going to proceed at a faster speed than criminal law. These cases will -tragically - crop up from time to time.

The answer cannot be "Yes the state wrongly took your child. Please accept this apology and cheque as recompense and get on with your life. You might be able to meet your child again once they are an adult.". Not only is that utterly brutal, it sets up perverse incentives.

There isn't anything that would make me hand my child over to someone else, whether it was a miscarriage of justice or an alien fucking invasion. Pretty sure most parents feel the same.

Yes. the biological parents felt exactly like this when SW took their child. And continue to feel this today.

Kew, absolutely. I have never met an adoptive parent who wasn't very aware of his/her child's birth parents, and often put themselves through the emotional wringer to maintain letterbox contact or direct contact with birth family, while dealing with their own, private feelings about the circumstances of their child's removal, which may have involved drug addiction, abuse, neglect. I don't think any adoptive parent ever forgets their child had a life before they know him or her.

These adoptive parents have the no less appalling knowledge that their child's birth parents did nothing wrong. They aren't rubbing their hands together, cackling 'We win!' as though it's a football match. I can't begin to imagine whether it's worse to have to deal with the knowledge that your beautiful, beloved child was abused by his birth parents, or that he was removed from them in error, and suffered consecutive losses for no reason. They must be in hideous pain. As are the poor birth parents.

Is there a petition for a debate in parliament, for better medicolegal reporting in court and adoption reversal? I would like to sign such a petition.

I think there is a direct correlation on this thread between a posters' insistence that there is one simple solution, and the extent of their understanding of the issues. It's a horrible situation, and the answer is not easy or obvious. I am sure those who are involved with this case and who actually know what they are talking about are currently discussing a range of options.

I'm an adoptive parent and, like Kew, rather bristle at the idea that that makes me 'pro-adoption'. Adoption involves trauma and loss and it would have been much better if my child had not had to go through it. Understanding this damage, I am also aware of how that would be compounded by forcing a child to undergo another change of parents. On the other hand, I know how much many adopted children hunger for their biological parents, and many of us deal with the emotional fallout of that on a daily basis.

Imagine how you would feel if it turned out your baby had been accidentally switched at birth and you had raised the 'wrong' child for three years. During those years, your biological child had died. Now the mistake has been uncovered and you are being asked to hand the baby back, so your child can be raised by its biological parents. OK, horrible situation. Many posters here have been emphatic that they would do so. But would they do so automatically, without discussing every possible option, without exploring the suitability of the biological parents to care for their beloved child? Of course not, it would never be a quick and simple decision. So those blaming the adopted parent and saying it is 100% in their hands (which it isn't; they can't just hand the child over) should stop and think: maybe, just maybe, they are being concerned and loving parents and taking time to carefully explore the best way forward for the child.

I don't think adoptive parents are lesser than biological ones. But in this case they are.

Hmm that's an interesting approach - I don;t think adoptive parents are lesser but I think they are.?!

So in the scale of parents worth:

Birthparents who have parented their child from birth
Birthparents who have parented their child for 6 weeks out of 3 years but weren't mean to them
Adoptive parents who have parented their child for (say) half of their three years (the half they can best remember)
Birthparents who have parented their child for 6 weeks out of 3 years and were mean to them

I do agree (and so does the law mostly) though that this matters less than what is the best for the child.

Similarly, who will explain to the poor child at 18 that, barring a miscarriage of justice, they would have spent an uncomplicated, undisrupted childhood with their natural family (identity issues are huge)? Who will explain that a decision was made when they were three to 'run with' a wrongful adoption, and why no attempt to build continuing relationships with ALL the parents was made from that point onwards?

There isn't anything that would make me hand my child over to someone else, whether it was a miscarriage of justice or an alien fucking invasion. Pretty sure most parents feel the same.

Nope.

My children are people. I love them. I want what is best for them.

I don't see them as objects to be handed over or held onto tightly.

This child that they adopted has other parents who should still be the parents.

No parent could deprive their child of that relationship knowingly.

To say to yourself, "yes, the people who made this child, who love this child, who this child will always wonder about, who this child will grow up to resemble, who this child will one day want to meet, who this child will wonder about why they gave them up, they are not this child's parents. This child belongs to me in law and that's what matters."

would be extraordinary.

To not care about your own child's history, about how they came to be your child, to want to keep them no matter what, no, I don't think all parents' love is so shallow and proprietary.

I have seen the hurt in a family member when she found out that her birth parents had stayed together and had 5 more children. That she had just come along a bit too early for them.

We're all still her family, and she loves us, but that was hard for her.

I can't imagine how she would have felt to find out that all those years they fought to keep her and wanted her back but that a legal process was deemed more important.

Surely there was medical investigation ongoing throughout the first two years , and even if you thought you couldn't get legal aid the parents surely fought somehow, surely sought advice from family rights group etc... Why did everything fail? It's tragic on so many levels. Tbh my brain just can't process that every single person and agency failed this child and both parents.

It seems everybody did though

The wee one has a very rare condition that I believe was only spotted by the defence lawyers.