terribly sad story about wrongful adoption where the birth parents have been proved innocent

[edam]

Today programme look at 2hrs 10mins in this morning had a segment on the case of parents who were accused of abuse, their children were taken away and adopted. Now it's finally emerged that the parents are innocent but the Court of Appeal says the adoption order is permanent and can't be overturned.

I do understand that adoption has to be solid and safe but surely the courts and social services could promote some form of contact between innocent parents and their children?

In what universe does the 'best interests of the child' = refusing to recognise and address a miscarriage of justice? Surely the child has a human right to a relationship with their birth family?

Just makes me even more fearful of SS after the stream of stories about miscarriages of justice and heavy-handed tactics. I would NEVER ask them for help.

I saw this on the news last night, can't believe the poor parents can't get their children back, truly awful

news story here

I really don't get how judges and social workers don't have the wit to promote some form of contact. All these apparently intelligent professionals can't see outside the tramlines of the system and are determined to continue doing a terrible injustice to the children and parents.

that is so sad.

Like edam I understand that overturning the adoption may well not be in the children's best interests - especially given the time that has elapsed, however there should surely be some form of contact arranged for them.

Edam, this case has nothing to do with SS being heavy handed-again the courts made the decision based on medical evidence at the time.

Whether you approach SS for help or not is up to you, I'm sure local authorities would be delighted not to have their resources stretched any thinner. I get a bit fed up with this sort of knee jerk reaction-it was the medical opinion that was wrong, are you avoiding all health staff now?

It was the medical opinion that may have been wrong, according to the court.

Surely it doesn't matter WHOSE fault it was - it wasn't the fault of the parents. Or the children. This is like giving them a life sentence when they are innocent.

Surely it is better to open the lines of communication whilst the children are younger? What will they be told about their parents later on?

Yes, you're right TFM, so the 'innocent' claim might be a bit premature.

What's a knee jerk reaction, thinking this case is terribly sad?

My point is surely even if adoption orders can't be overturned, it must be in the best interests of the children, and of justice, for there to be some form of contact with their birth family.

As for blaming the medical evidence - clearly that was decisive but it's a bit rich for SS to blame the courts and say 'nothing to do with us, guv'. SS brought the case, they have a responsibility to investigate thoroughly and not leap to conclusions.

Surely it doesn't matter WHOSE fault it was - it wasn't the fault of the parents. Or the children. This is like giving them a life sentence when they are innocent.

Surely it is better to open the lines of communication whilst the children are younger? What will they be told about their parents later on?

That is so sad.

And I gather the current medical thinking is that things that were assumed to be injuries may have in fact been the result of scurvy. Vitamin C deficiency is hardly unknown to medical science - why on earth wasn't this properly investigated at the time? Terrifying.

Leap to conclusions based on medical opinion?

Portofino, you are quite right - it is like a life sentence for parents and children.

Personally I wouldn't trust SS to tell the children the truth - in one of the infamous cases involving Roy Meadows SS gave the child in question a 'letter for life' making very horrible claims about the birth parent despite knowing full well these claims were being challenged AND that the government had instructed SS to review all cases involving that evil, arrogant man.

Edam, you're not listening. The knee jerk was blaming SS, although I accept that's fashionable in some circles...Anyway, can't be bothered and I agree it's sad if the parents had done nothing.

Yes, there's a lot wrong with how the courts handle medical opinion, as demonstrated in the Roy Meadows cases. Some judges seem incapable of understanding the nature of medical evidence or of judging disputes between experts.

I know a woman who had her 4 month old son taken off her after takin ghim to hospital with a fracture. Doctors at the time decided the only way for it to have happened was through abuse, SS took her DS away (although left her DD with her) and he was fostered for 18 months, thankfully further investigation (and more injuries to the child while in foster care) revealed that her DS's fractures were due to a medical condition and he was returned to her - but not after 18 months of her family being ripped apart when she was totally inccocent.

just to clarify - as TheFallenMadonna says, the parents haven't been "proved innocent", it's just that a medical report has emerged which says that the injury may have been accidental.

Agree though it's a terribly sad case with no right answers.

I can see why there needs to be some form of finality and security in adoption - but like others, if the parents are innocent then contact at least seems desirable - and I also can't see why they can't have a retrial so that at least it could be established whether they are likely to be innocent or not, which might well affect whether their children choose to seek contact at a later age.

wahwah, I merely asked perfectly politely whether you could explain what you were on about as it wasn't clear to me. There is no reason to be rude, or patronising. We may have different opinions but it should be possible to express them without hostility.

There but for the grace of God...

That could so easily have been us.

When dd's joint troubles started, the paediatric consultant who saw us at the hospital was adamant that there could be no physical reason for her pain (because nothing was showing up on X-rays); and he felt that such serious psychosomatic problems were bound to be the result of sexual abuse. Dd was kept in hospital and not allowed to go home.

Thankfully, we had an appointment already made to a rheumatologist who diagnosed her. Otherwise, I am sure from the way the consultant was speaking that she would not have been referred but that social services would have been sent in. And of course I could never have shown to their satisfaction how I would keep dd safe from future abuse as I was refusing to accept that abuse had happened in the first place (it hadn't).

And no, it wouldn't have been their fault.

But it was such a close, close shave...

And I still do have to take a deep breath before I go in to speak to a doctor. (but I'm ok with social workers)

Ok sorry. I will try and be clear. I get fed up with blame being apportioned to social workers when they have not failed in terms of acting in good faith. If they had not removed these children in the light of the medical opinion of the time, then they would have failed them. They did what society charges them to do.

Oh Cory, that must have been more than terrifying. So glad it was stopped before the first consultant had screwed up.

One of the problems with some specialists is they have tunnel vision and only see their own area of expertise. It's barking for a paediatrician to say 'nothing else could possibly have caused this injury' when a rheumatologist can spot the problem at 20 paces.

The problem is the law and that the way the adoption has been finalised means that they are now not the parents. The legal parents are now the adopted ones.

I think there is an argument in this case for the adoption to have been open and for it to be have been done more slowly as it seemed even from the beginning to be not as clear cut. However there is also an argument that the children need a final home asap to feel secure.

I think it may have moved through too fast. And now there is no going back legally.

very, very

sure, wahwah, although I'd question whether they investigated thoroughly and checked the opinion of their expert who said it was abuse against another.

But now SS should be thinking of the best interests of the child in relation to the new evidence, and supporting some form of contact, rather than washing their hands of it and saying, too late, sorry?

But do they have that discretion in the case of adoption edam?