child x and the family court

[comehomemax]

There was a lot of publicity last October about a birth family who had their child (x) removed due to findings in a family court that they were responsible for multiple injuries. The child was subsequently adopted. The birth parents were then aquitted in the law courts of abuse and it created a stir with lots of debate on both sides about what should happen to child x.

The couple applied successfully for the right to reopen the family court fact finding with a view to overturning the adoption.

The president of the family courts has just published the most recent hearing - both birth parents have withdrawn from their request for a hearing on the basis of wanting closure and movingly that they believe a move for x now would be hugely detrimental.

However, the local authority and guardian have asked that the hearing continues to hear the new medical evidence gathered (some used in the criminal court, some not). The solicitors have described the parents withdrawing as a cynical move to dodge compelling evidence that shows they were responsible and are using the higher burden of proof in the criminal court to drive a media focused narrative of total innocence. The family courts look at most probable causes and the key authorities still clearly believe their culpability will be proven through a new hearing.
The judge has agreed to progress with the guardian answering evidence on behalf of the absent parents. The adopters support this and believe x has the right to know what happened to them regardless of whether the criminal courts failed to make the case.

I think the judge has made the only decision he could do in the circumstances. Without a fresh fact finding, the dominant narrative becomes the media led one that the birth family have created and could be hugely damaging to x longer-term. Regardless of the birth families withdraw ing, the stakes remain high for them in that future children could be removed based on the original fact finding. I've linked the most recent judgement but not the original press articles as I don't know what anonymity has been decided on. The story created high feelings here though so I'm sure many remember this one.

It does worry me that we often respond to stories in the media with a "fix this injustice immediately" when later reviews may offer a very different view on things (see Ellis butler also). There were many posters here who were demanding the immediate return of the child in order to be fair which would be hugely difficult for the child regardless of guilt and was inevitably discussed by Denise Roberts and online petitions created. It does seem to have taken a long time to reach this stage and that can't be in anyone's best interest. It will be interesting to see if any mainstream media pick up the story too.

judgement

You would never get anyone to adopt any child and its tuff going now to get people

I'd have thought dispassionate parties would naturally say 'adoptive parents' and 'birth parents' to distinguish when discussing a situation that involves both. Especially in a case like this, where it's not clear that either set of parents deserve demotion.

I don't understand what you mean by demotion though. I see all those terms (parent, adoptive parent, birth parent) as neutral and unbiased terms.

But we can probably agree to disagree. You think I have bias, I don't think I do. It's not worth derailing the thread over.

It's not good enough in this day and age where expert witnesses give evidence in court absolving these parents of blame when we are supposed to be talking about scientific facts (health)

Then you have some other experts coming along disputing previous expert opinion!

You'd think that if the child had a medical condition and his injuries were representative of that condition that it should be proved one way or the other.

The judgement did not specifically state what the actual new evidence was and I'm certain you can be retried for the same crime if new evidence has come to light.

Sad story

Manumission, I'm an adopter so you are probably right that my language was biased there. I'm so used to talking to my boy about birth parents that that trips of the tongue I guess.

It's an awful case and demonstrates just how interwoven but finely balanced these cases are. The pressure to conclude proceedings is in the interest of the child but when it goes wrong, the devestation for all is unbearable.

I just don't see how we can ever reconcile telling children their family is permenant if there is a chance for it to be overturned.

In some countries where adoption is negligible (e.g. Ireland) children retain relationships with parents while in long-term care and families retain PR but that leads to abusers being asked permission for medical tests for a child or education decisions which is horrendous for the child.

I think that there is a difference between circumstances that change - a good example would be an alcoholic parent or parents who then engage with support and become ex-alcoholics but still should not get their child back because they were still alcoholics when the child went into care. In other words, the circumstances were true at the time.

But that's very different to a couple accused of being alcoholics when they never were in the first place which is more comparable to this example.

Turner said he presented expert evidence to the family court within a few moments of the final adoption order being made. He told the Today programme: “[The expert witness] said immediately not only are these not fractures, but this child has eight classical signs of infantile rickets. I served that report on the family court within moments of them making the final adoption order. Do they review it? No. They confirm the final adoption order.”

I maybe sounded more accusatory than I meant to. I just meant that, as it stands so far, these are all blameless parties.

As to the issue of whether there should be scope to overturn AOs, I can't stop vacillating. I read november's point and I absolutely agree not least because we need a natural deterrent in the system to wrongful adoptions being rushed through (not that I think that's common but the system shouldn't reward successfully completing terrible miscarriages).

But then the permanence point is equally compelling.

You really do need Solomon for this.

I maybe sounded more accusatory than I meant to. I just meant that, as it stands so far, these are all blameless parties.

As to the issue of whether there should be scope to overturn AOs, I can't stop vacillating. I read november's point and I absolutely agree not least because we need a natural deterrent in the system to wrongful adoptions being rushed through (not that I think that's common but the system shouldn't reward successfully completing terrible miscarriages).

But then the permanence point is equally compelling.

You really do need Solomon for this.

I agree rainy, there is a difference there. Also in the first case, how long do you wait for an addiction to be overcome. Currently birth parents get 26 weeks and often the timings for support to achieve a meaningful change takes much longer. But the alternative is children in care longer with the disruption that causes. My child had 4 moves within one year - and that was seen as a positive.

Set against all this is the lack of legal support - once care proceedings have closed, birth parents are often left with no legal aid due to cuts. So the chances of errors are bound to increase.

But that's very different to a couple accused of being alcoholics when they never were in the first place which is more comparable to this example.

But even in this situation, the best interests of the child must, IMO, override any injustice to the birth parents.

But even in this situation, the best interests of the child must, IMO, override any injustice to the birth parents.

But then what about the precedent that sets for future cases?

It nudges that famous pendulum a bit too far again. There's then the spectre of future children being needlessly removed from good parents.

(Plus it's disturbing to read 'injustice to birth parents' being dismissed in what sounds quite a glib way. The legal system can't afford to be that satisfied with it)

No glibness intended.

I think we already put the emphasis on what's right for the child. We remove children against their birth parents' wishes when we think it is in the best interests of the child.

For me that has to be the prevailing principle otherwise the whole adoption system would be in chaos.

It isn't in the best interests of the child to be removed permanently from his non abusive birth parents, though, which is where it gets sticky.

Maybe I'm just vacillating at such high speed I find anyone else's certainty on the matter oddly worrying.

That's why I said when we think it is in the best interests of the child. The authorities might be wrong but they have to abide by that principle, surely?

Well yes, but

The child should stay with their birth parents - good
Except when there is abuse - also good
But when we thought there was abuse and actually there was not? What then?

This is the thread OP refers to:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2483590-No-legal-aid-baby-adopted

There have been cases where children have been removed or where parents have been under suspicion for years where the children have been returned to parents and mistakes acknowledged.

The other concern raised in the thread, as pps have said, was to do with the finality of adoption generally, and highlighting some of the many issues in relation to adoption and child protection, many of which are acknowledged by the courts.

So basically this case doesn't really vindicate any particular view - it has to be viewed on its own merits. And until it is decided, we don't know what the outcome will be in any event.

A highly unusual case wouldn't necessarily set a precedent though, especially one where everything hinged on what would be in the best interests of one child based on their unique circumstances.

It's obviously not in a child's best interests to remove them unnecessarily from their family. But it doesn't follow that it will always always be in their best interests to return them, especially after the passage of years when the child's life has moved on, for want of a better term. It might be, but everything (assuming an adoption order could be successfully challenged) would hinge on the unique circumstances and weighing up benefits and harms - a careful assessment of the child and their needs, and both sets of parents and their understanding and skills and so on.