Lisalisa (do you mind if I just put Lisa?),
You are right, it is awful, but if you read Yvonnes story it was much the same for her.
Unfortunately it is a fact that this has happened in MANY cases, and the Judge's always say, 'we are putting the best interests of the child first'
I wish this was true, how can it have been in my childrens interests to go from seeing me for 6 hours a week, to 2 hours once a month, (twice) and then every 3-4 months. Worse than that they were up-rooted from a foster home, placed with prospective adoptive parents, OVER NIGHT, no chance to say good bye to friends at school, nothing, and be sent 50 miles away and told you will call us Mummy and Daddy! This is your new home and these are our rules. No hugs, no cuddles and kisses at bedtime, but placed away from me and with the explanation 'We have found you a new Mummy and Daddy' until they received letters from the social services, written 15 years ago, based on Meadows evidence telling them that I tried to hurt my dd. I am not allowed to put my side of the story and if I try they will not allow me contact, that is the condition.
Interestingly this ruling occured on The 27th.
(sorry its a bit long), however the important part with relation to me is,
".......Children need to know the truth if the truth could be ascertained"
I have the documents, reports etc. I only want them to know the facts, not 'My' version or the Social Services, but the TRUTH
*Re K (children).
Cite: BLD 3108043769; [2004] EWCA Civ 1181.
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division.
Judge: Wall and Neuberger LJJ.
Hearing Date: 27 August 2004.
Representation: Michael Harrison QC and Valerie Sterling for the mother.
Jeremy Posnansky QC and Nicola Saxton for the local authority. Michael
Burdon for the father. Alison Grief for the grandmother. Pamela Lawrence for
the guardian.
Summary: Children Adoption Freeing order Revocation Mother appealing
against freeing order Further evidence Public interest considerations.
The mother and father were married in India in 2001. The mother, who was
aged 18 at the date of the marriage, came to England to live with the father
in his parents household. There were two children of the marriage, A and M.
In January 2003, A was admitted to hospital, where medical staff concluded
that she had suffered non-accidental injuries. The mother alleged that she
did not know how the injuries had been caused. Care proceedings followed and
A was placed with foster parents. In the care proceedings, the judge held
that A had sustained extremely serious non-accidental injuries and had been
shaken on at least two occasions. He concluded that A had been in the
overall care of the mother, the father and the paternal grandmother when
injured and any of them might have been the perpetrator of the injuries. A
care order was made in relation to A and she was freed for adoption. By that
time, M had been born and had been removed from her mother under an interim
care order. The court then made a full care order in relation to M and an
order freeing her for adoption. The mother subsequently left her husband and
took up residence at a refuge. She made statements, alleging that the
grandmother had been violent and cruel towards her and suggesting that the
grandmother had shaken A. She alleged, further, that she had been forced to
swear an oath not to disclose what had been going on in the house. The
mother appealed against the freeing orders made in relation to both children
and sought the replacement of the full care orders by interim care orders
pending a reconsideration of the question of the perpetrator of the injuries
to A.
The mother submitted, inter alia, that the hearing before the judge had been
materially compromised as she had been effectively prevented from giving
evidence in accordance with her wishes due to the influence upon her of the
father s family.
The appeal would be allowed.
It was in the public interest for those who caused serious non-accidental
injuries to children to be identified, wherever such identification was
possible. It was paradigmatic of such cases that the perpetrator denied
responsibility and that those close to or emotionally engaged with the
perpetrator likewise denied any knowledge of how the injuries occurred. Any
process which encouraged or facilitated frankness was accordingly to be
welcomed in principle. Moreover, it was in the public interest that
children, as they grew to adulthood, had the right to know the truth about
who injured them when they were children, and why. Children who were removed
from their parents as a result of non-accidental injuries had to come to
terms with the fact that one or both of their parents injured them. In
principle, children needed to know the truth if the truth could be
ascertained.
On the facts of the case, justice required the question of perpetration to
be revisited. The position to which the judge had been driven was manifestly
unsatisfactory. It would have required very powerful considerations to leave
that unsatisfactory state of affairs untouched if there was a realistic
basis upon which it might be rectified.
Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the orders
freeing both children for adoption would be set aside and the children would
be made the subject of interim care orders in favour of the local authority.
The question of the identity of the perpetrator of the non-accidental
injuries to A would be remitted to a judge at first instance for further
investigation and reconsideration.