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 would love my child to meet his biological family and I have (as Devora says) to live with the fall out for him that this isn't possible.

I'm an adoptive parent and, like Kew, rather bristle at the idea that that makes me 'pro-adoption'.

It doesn't, does it? Not automatically.

But you must recognise that a vociferous pro-adoption lobby exists?

Sansora, this is why there needs to be a public enquiry into the unacceptable lack of knowledge in the medical profession in known medical conditions, it's not good enough to miss them.

As humans it's not acceptable to suffer medical negligence, the tax payer is funding these bullshit witch hunts.

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.

And you think this is what these adoptive (or indeed any adoptive parents) think?

You think they should be able to hand this child back but you don;t think that the birth parents who have after all spent 6 weeks with their child should say "It will be too traumatic for the child to be removed from a stable home now, lets try to get some contact agreed"

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.

And you think this is what these adoptive (or indeed any adoptive parents) think?

You think they should be able to hand this child back but you don;t think that the birth parents who have after all spent 6 weeks with their child should say "It will be too traumatic for the child to be removed from a stable home now, lets try to get some contact agreed"

You put yourself up there as a medical expert, in a position of trust and make sure you understand all medical conditions or you admit you have limited knowledge and the courts rule out each and every know medical condition or don't bother with the medical evidence, because at present its not fit for purpose.

Because kew in this case the birth parents wrong was committed first. Therefore righting that wrong is priority in terms of parents rights. And as I said the childs rights trump both.

It doesn't matter whether the birth parents haven't seen her for a year, or parented her for 3. Not one of us loves our kids based on familiarity. My dd is 11. I don't feel stronger love than I did at 3 or even the minute she was born, based on the fact she's been around longer, because it doesn't work like that. I'd love an adult or a step kid based on getting to know them, not my child.

Do the adoptive parents in this case even know who they are yet?

I imagine there is more than one adopted child with a medical disorder that can cause bruising

You think they should be able to hand this child back but you don;t think that the birth parents who have after all spent 6 weeks with their child

Now you are massively underestimating Kew. Underestimating biological ties AND underestimating the natural human sense of justice.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, RussianTea. There's certainly an organised anti-adoption lobby, and they tend to provoke a response, resulting in a polarised debate. That may give the impression of a pro-adoption lobby. But I think those of us who argue against John Hemming, Denise whatsit et al aren't a lobby in any sense I'd recognise. Certainly, the adoptive parents and social workers I know are very aware that children should be raised by their first parents wherever possible.

If my adoptive parents had told me they hadn't handed me over to my biological parents in this situation I would have hated them and gone nc when I was able.
I'm sorry but I feel really strongly about this. My bm didn't even want to look at me let alone have anything to do with me, my adoptive parents were brilliant, lovely people.
I'm sure in this case the adoptive parents are lovely, but there are parents who should still be parenting that child who have been denied that opportunity.
I hadn't heard of this story until this thread and hope all the professionals in the case who declared under no doubt are/have been sacked but I doubt it.

Does anybody know of a web page or petition?

Devora

There are certainly people/groups who seem to blindly opine against adoption irrespective of the specific facts of a case.

There also seem to be those who are doggedly 'pro' adopters and adoption regardless of the facts of a specific case.

Both positions are dogmatic and less than logical.

Being a parent by adoption doesn't make you a member of the latter group as a matter of course. Being a parent by birth doesn't make you a member of the former. They are both rather extreme positions.

Underestimating biological ties AND underestimating the natural human sense of justice.

So we're back to birth trumps adoption? That there can never be an adoptive parent who loves their child with every ounce as much passion as a bio child?

By the way I am a biological child myself.

The general consensus appears to be that the adoptive parents should hand the child back because the birth parents did nothing wrong - they apparently should be able to do that as its the right thing but the birth parents shouldn't be expected to leave the child where it is even if it's better for the child because their birthright trumps everything.

We all have no knowledge of the personality of this child, how badly she was affected by the original removal, whether she has been with adoptive parents from the beginning (unlikely but possible with foster to adopt) whether she's been through several moves.

But so many of you are so certain that her starting over again is the answer.

There also seem to be those who are doggedly 'pro' adopters - I've never come across anyone who is pro-adoption regardless of the circumstances. Adoptive parents tend to be way less "pro-adoption" than non-adopters IME but I've genuinely never met anyone who would advocate adoption in the absence of neglect and/or abuse.

Come across a startling number of people who are anti-adoption under any circumstances though.

And you think this is what these adoptive (or indeed any adoptive parents) think?

No, I think it's what the person I was responding to thinks.

Course adoptive parents can love a child as much as birth parents. Nobody has said otherwise. The difference is the birth parents don't love their baby any less because they had her only 6 weeks, as opposed to the adoptive parents 3 years. It doesn't work like that. Time isn't what makes you love a birth child.

So we're back to birth trumps adoption? That there can never be an adoptive parent who loves their child with every ounce as much passion as a bio child?

No Kew. That's not it

Bonding in a natural family is necessarily different to bonding in an adoptive family or fostering placement. Which is fine. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges. There IS no 'trumping' or hierarchy - just two different starts to bonding.

YABVU to dismiss the bond between a 6 week old neonate and it's natural mother so lightly as if it were just a matter of 'time accrued', however.

Fair enough Bathtime - I looked back and couldn't see anyone saying that and I've certainly never met an adoptive parent who didn't care about their childs history or how they came to be with them. We have to tell our children all about it - it'snot the 1960's where people were encouraged to lie to their child about being adopted.

Kew

Of course biological parents don't trump adoptive parents, but in so many people's opinion in this case, yes it should.
If nothing positive comes from this story i.e child returned to bio family then I hope it goes to prove a case for a change in law.
Bio family should trump adoptive if the bio family have done nothing wrong and are completely innocent.

Supposing this happened to you Kew. Your child/ren taken away because you were innocent. Wouldn't you want them returned, you are their parent.
If they were then adopted by somebody else would you think that was in the best interests of your child.

I bonded with my baby as soon as I discovered I was pregnant, loved it and took care of us until I could meet my baby outside of my body.

Yes Russian I accept that - I may have been being a bit overly argumentative. But we aren't comparing a child who has spent 6 weeks with each set of parents and more importantly we aren't comparing two sets of parents that the child has necessarily bonded equally with.

I'm influenced by memories of my then 3 year old with extreme separation anxiety who would have been traumatised by a move (and probably still would) at that point. That his birth parents felt bonded to him would have been no consolation at all.

Apologies if anyone has already posted this but I thought that this was a very balanced and helpful explanation of the case and what is known (and, importantly, not known) about it.

There is a birth parent on MN who despite believing that she is probably now competent to parent her child agrees that it is his best interest that he stays where he is.

Having parented a child with issues around separation and anxiety caused by relinquishment and adoption I am much less sanguine about inflicting it on any child - whatever the parents rights viewed by the majority.

I can only think that people haven't seen the damage that transplanting children does to them.

I'm not (though it might seem otherwise) arguing that this child should stay with adoptive parents (although legally this will be the decision I'm sure) - I think whats best for the child is paramount. Having seen how badly affected a child is by this kind of fundamental change, then yes I think I might be able to accept that my child was better off staying where he was.

Life as I knew it would be over (but then it is for one set or other either way) but I couldn't bear the thought of DS being so scared and confused again in order to win the "who got wronged first" battle.

It must be scary for patients to read talk of others wanting adoption reversed, it doesn't make you any less a parent

Some are gifted a child they grew themselves. Some are gifted a child they are matched to. Both are parents.

This case isn't right and adopt reversal laws do need amending, along medicolegal evidence. Be angry at the Doctor misleading the others, who caused this mess not adoptive v biological parents.

No, I agree - not equal time.

But as you say there are TWO sets of parents and the child probably does retain some bonding with both sets. They certainly all retain bonds to the child. Added to which, the future version of this child is likely to want to pursue contact with both sets and will certainly need to understand the story.

So perhaps thoughts of blending the two families' needs is more helpful than 'trumping'?