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.

Leningrad: "Or does there come a point where people feel the odds are so stacked against them that they have no choice but to let an adoption go ahead? Or maybe you're persuaded or convince yourself that it really is for the best?"

I too found it quite difficult to understand why the Websters did not fight this tooth and nail all the way. The fact is, they did not appeal the care or adoption orders within the usual time frame.

My blood ran cold when I read what the Websters went through. Their second child 2 stopped using his legs. When fractures were discovered, he and their other 2 children were removed from them within a week and placed into care. 6 months' later, their application to have the children placed with their grandparents rather than foster carers was refused. 2 years' later, all 3 were permanently adopted. A year later, their 4th child was born and the local authority pursued them to Ireland to get him removed as well. But those proceedings took a different turn and they were allowed to keep the baby because there was evidence (this time) that they were good parents.

It is easy to ask why they did not appeal the decisions in a timely manner.

But if you put yourself in their shoes, one day, you have your 3 children, and within a week, you have lost all of them. You don't understand why one child has 6 fractures, and the doctors are adamant that they are non-accidental but you have no way of proving it beyond stabbing at brittle bones disease or scurvy, which the doctors are definite there was no evidence of. You are told by the guardian and the judge agrees that the 2 older children are emotionally damaged. You are bad parents. Perhaps your children will be better off with the adoptive parents. All is lost.

The judge removes all the children and frees them for adoption (stripping the Websters' of their right to consent) partly because that the parents' refused to accept his ruling to put the children into care. I mean, if you have no idea why your child has 6 fractures and are absolutely sure you did not harm the child, how else are you supposed to react to the judge's care order?

So yes, I do believe that if the Websters were indeed innocent, it is possible to take the fight out of them by hitting them with so many things at once.

I wonder whether they were properly advised by their lawyers, especially when they did not call for a nutritionist regarding the feeding disorder of their second child (who did not eat solids despite being 2 and was wrongly advised to switch from fortified to normal soy milk) or a second medical opinion about whether the bones showed signs of scurvy. Surely, their lawyer should have not taken the risk of a trial before the Websters could call at least one expert who could point to a non-accidental cause of the fractures?

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the case had been a disaster for the Websters and 'has been a worrying and deeply regrettable experience, not least because, in the result, a family which might well have been capable of being held together, has been split up.' But the Court of Appeal was powerless to help because of the way adoption orders are treated as final in the UK.

Thanks, spicemonster, I too hope that the Websters will be able to get face to face contact with the children they lost. And also for their children to know and have the comfort of their blood siblings, in addition to their birth parents.

Spicemonster makes a very valid point about the parents.

Having myself been in a position of having medical professionals suggesting over a period of time that my dd's condition was a direct result of inadequate parenting, I do know that it messes with your brain. You start wondering if you are in fact living in a different universe and seeing a different world to what everyone else sees. I can understand the Websters very well.

All I meant was that you cannot blame the social workers for not guessing that more medical evidence would be forthcoming and that the Websters would later change their minds and contest the order.

Leningrad: "So, if as a parent, you go public about these things at the time and flout the family courst rules, do you go to prison? What's the crime? What kind of sentences are given out?"

Family courts proceedings are conducted in secret, so the parents are not allowed to go public. If they do, I believe it is in contempt of court, which is a criminal offence that could attract a jail sentence. Not sure how long the sentence can be.

But there are reforms afoot to open up the family courts. Which I believe is long overdue, and the result of campaigning by journalists like Camilla Cavendish and John Sweeney and John Hemming MP. I would like to see how far these reforms go.

cory, "Having myself been in a position of having medical professionals suggesting over a period of time that my dd's condition was a direct result of inadequate parenting, I do know that it messes with your brain. You start wondering if you are in fact living in a different universe and seeing a different world to what everyone else sees. I can understand the Websters very well. "

. I cannot imagine how I would feel if every health profession was telling me I was a poor parent. It would surely take the wind out of my sails.

Cote - If in the case of kidnapping, the trauma of adjusting to real parents is not considered important enough to leave them with the new family, why should it be any different in this case?

Becasue the children are with their legal and in every practical way "real" parents now. Kidnappers may be their practical parents but they are NOT their legal parents. The trauma to the children of another change is not the main legal issue - it is that the adoptions were not contested and the children are living with their legal families. These parens took them on in good faith not knowing what kind of abuse these children might have suffered and have made a life for them whcih is hopefully happy and fulfilled.

However painful it is for any parent to acceptthe loss of their child, what is in the best interests of the child is ALWAYS the main factor in adoption. It is not about providing childless people with children it is about providing children who need a family with one as soon as possible. They are not to be passed backwards and forwards at any given point depending on who wants them the most or has right on their side. Its about what is deemed most appropriate for the children.

Anyone who thinks the solution is long term foster care should think very carefully about whether they might want their childraised by someone who doesn't adore every fibre of their being and who won't necessarily fight the authorities for any support they might need and who wouldn't lay down in front of a speeding truck for that child.

All children deserve to grow up assuming they are the most important thing in their parents life, long term fostering rarely even comes to the foothills of achieving that.

However much you might want to deny it the damage of being taken form their bitrth parents, being fostered and subsequently adopted has already been done. Taking these children away from what they think is their life will add more damage. How much more would be impossible to know without knowing the children in question and their current families.

I hope they can be given access to their birth families in a way which is helpful to them but I don;t think it any more selfish of their adoptive family to keep them than it is for their borth parents to want them back at any cost to the health of the child.

Why, oh why, oh why am I even posting this

leningrad, I hope I did not confuse you. I did not mean to say that if the parent does not consent to the care proceedings, their right to consent to the adoption can be removed.

My understanding (could be wrong) is that the birth parents have to consent to an adoption but that their consent can be dispensed with in cases of abuse. This is what the trial did, I think, when he 'freed the children for adoption'.

I would think that the Websters would be entitled to appeal the care order and/or the order freeing the children for adoption, but the time limit to appeal is 21 days, rather than years and years later, which the Websters were doing.

birth parent consent can be waived for any nuber of reasons. Death, cannot be found, abuse etc. Generally isn't undertaken lightly.

Leningrad, as things currently stand, the parents don't need to be found guilty of a criminal offence of abuse before their consent is dispensed with. The standard of proof is much much lower.

In fact, the local authority does not even need to show physical abuse, even emotional abuse is sufficient.

Hence, what Sorrento wrote below is so chilling:

"Define neglect though, my friend who used to be a social worker, openly admits when she was a 25 year old with no kids she made reports about new mums not making eye contact with the baby whilst feeding it as being a sign of lack of bonding, now as a mother herself she can see the poor woman was probably just bloody knackered.
She also admitted to being shocked a woman breast fed her 3 year old child, yet the WHO recommends up to the age of two and I know two parents who fed until the age of three, very wealthy, intelligent women who are model parents, yet in a young mother that was taken down and used against her.
It's all very sad for everyone involved, surely there are measures in place to help people even if they were neglecting the children it must be cheaper to show the parents the right way to do things ?"

I personally think that until social services gets their act together, they should concentrate on cases of physical abuse. Emotional abuse is too hazy a definition and open to so much misinterpretation and potential miscarriages of justice.

blueshoes - i am absolutely horrified by your last statement that you believe social services should concentrate on physical abuse as you believe that emotional abuse is too hazy.

please think about what you are saying - what about somestic abuse? bullying? do you think that emotional abuse is too 'hazy' a term to use in relation to domestic abuse and bullying too?

i can asusure you that emotional abuse can be every bit as damaging as physical abuse.

I personally think that until social services gets their act together, they should concentrate on cases of physical abuse. Emotional abuse is too hazy a definition and open to so much misinterpretation and potential miscarriages of justice.

• This is nonsense. Emotional abuse is real and it is damaging. SS should not bother with cases of emotional abuse? Are you serious?

Sorrento's post is undoubtedly worrying. I have read back files which are full of judgementalism and snobbery, which would never be countenanced by any decent SW or their manager now. Any opinion like that will always be challenged. I have been in a CP conference where the baby's SW stated that they were co-sleeping as if it was an example of their poor parenting and lack of routine. This was jumped on by the midwife (mother was pregnant) and HV who defended the mother. Judgemental and narrow minded views abound in SS but there are always many professionals involved in these decisions and it's never as simple as 'SW thinks they are bad parents because they don't make eye contact/don't give enough fruit and veg/whatever'.

Kew - "Why, oh why, oh why am I even posting this" - I empathise. I gave up several pages ago. What has saddened me whilst reading the ill-informed rantings on this thread is the disregard expressed for the love and mutual devotion in the relationship between adoptive mum and child. You and I experience this on a daily basis but many people on this thread can't even imagine it.

Kat I'm not suggesting that the report written by my friend was the nail in the coffin of that family but the fact that my friend could by her own admission be so wrong about that leaves open to suggestion what was taken into account which was also ill informed opinion.
I've met enough midwifes who think co sleeping, breast feeding and slinging babies is a load of hippy nonsense. It's too much of a risk that one of them in the meeting could seal your families fate.

Not everybody is unable to imagine it: some of us see both sides, ella.

I am both one of the siblings of an adopted child and somebody who has lived in fear of having her own dd taken away.

I cannot imagine it would have been anything other than devastating for my db to have been suddenly snatched from us after he had lived with us for several years and grown to believe that we would be his family forever.

But thinking of dd, I cannot imagine that it would have been anything other than devastating for her to grow up and think that the reason she had been snatched from us was because we were thought to have hurt her, that we had been found innocent, yet had not been allowed to have her back.

This is not being ill-informed: it's called knowing too much

Cory, I know this is your worse nightmare but honestly I think we both should step away from this thread.
I have been so terrified by what I've seen in 2 SW I've come across (not in a professional but in a personal capacity) I've been drawn to share those experiences with others but actually it just puts the fear of god into me and probably others and that's not helpful.

I was more trying to make the point that I could see the case from two sides, because I also know how well adoption has worked in the case of my db. That it's not that clear cut.

Losing dd might have been described as my worst nightmare. But so would losing my adopted brother (if there had ever been a threat of that). It cuts both ways.

I have also frequently mentioned that I personally have never once encountered inappropriate behaviour from a social worker. I have found them sensible people. And I fully understand why they removed the Webster children on the evidence they were given; hard to see how they could have done anything else.

It really is a very difficult case.

I think a significant concern (raised by the judge) is why the two lawyers for the Websters did not seek the opinion of a nutritionist, given that the child was on such a strange diet. You would have thought that a fairly logical step to take. I also wonder (as I often do in cases like this) how the children did in foster care, as in cases where there was some underlying reason for fractures you would expect them to go on having breaks in the different care setting. I've wondered this in other strange cases too, as surely this would be the best evidence of abuse vs underlying problem.

It is a significant concern, Nooka, but it appears that everybody at that time was thinking in terms of brittle bone disease, so it didn't occur to anyone to look for a different medical explanation.

Marcel Berlins (respected legal correspondent) writes about this in the Guardian today. "The Websters have been dealt a cruel blow. There is nothing the law can do about it."

He points out if the principal of 'the best interests of the child' is truly upheld, it means the competing claims of adoptive parents and innocent birth parents should be examined. "But it cannot be done if an adoption order is final."

sorrento - children are not removed on the opinion of one individual, regardless of whether they are a social worker or not.

during the course of an assessment information is gathered from a variety of sources. throughout the process information is discussed and analysed e.g during supervision, at case conferences etc.

social workers receive supervision from their managers where cases are discussed - this should include looking at how conclusions are drawn and challenging where appropriate e.g. your friend's opinion re. lack of eye contact, breast feeding a 3-year-old would be examples that should be challenged in supervision.

child protection conferences provide an opportunity for all involved in the case - e.g. parents, social services, education, health, police - to discuss the concerns and put their views accross. (occasionally parents may not be present e.g. where the risk of violence is too great). parents can ask to bring a friend/relative to the conference for support if they wish.

children may also be present at part of the conference depending on their age and where it is considered not too distressing for them to attend.

normally professionals write a report before the conference and these are shared and discussed on the day. everybody gets an opportunity to raise concerns and ask questions.

if a social worker such as sorrento's friend knew as little about child development as we have been told, and drew the conclusions mentioned by sorronto re. lack of eye contact and breastfeeding, then she would have written those views down, most likely in both the assessment and her report to the conference. it is unlikely that these views would go unchallenged by all concerned - e.g her manager in supervision, the parents at conference, the health visitor etc.

earlier in this thread i have explained how to find out more about social work regulation and training (gscc) and fostering and adoption (baaf). to find out more about child protection legislation and process just use google - local autorities publish leaflets explaining the process which are easily available online, the nspcc website is also useful.

ellabella, no-one has doubted that adoptive parents love their children, and vice-versa. I think you are missing the main point.

Birth parents love their children too - in cases where the children were forcibly taken by the state in a miscarriage of justice, what is the 'right' outcome? Two sets of parents, both love their children, the adoption was based on false principle - how is that to be sorted out?

My feeling, if the adoptive parents are loving (and some adoptions break down - you can't assume all adoptive families are perfect just as you can't assume all natural families are perfect) is that if you can't/shouldn't overturn the adoption, there should be a mechanism for promoting contact between child and natural parent.

And ceres - that sound fine in principle, but in practice group-think and prejudice can affect the process. It is run by human beings and human beings are fallible, even when acting as a group.

As I explained, one of the most eminent doctors in the country was threatened when he tried to challenge the group think around one of his patients. If the system is so perfect, that challenge should have been taken seriously. Instead they tried to shut him up.

It is simply not possible for any system to guarantee no miscarriages of justice, whether that's family law, criminal law or commercial law.

edam -

i am not suggesting it is perfect. i work in it, i do actually know what a difficult area it is thanks.

i have purposely not got involved in trying to defend social work. frankly, i care about the people i work to protect and the ONLY reason that i care about public opinion of social work is that it affects children and other vulnerable people in society - because people may believe the scaremongering and not report any genuine welfare concerns they may have to ss. and this is the reality, people on here have seriously suggested keeping away from ss at all costs.

the system may not be perfect - and as you point out in CANNOT be perfect as human beings are fallible - but the reality is that the system protects far more people than it fails.

I'm sure it does, but it also needs to react to any serious failures, just as the courts do and the NHS does, for instance. Miscarriages of justice in other legal arenas can be addressed. But it seems adoption is the only place left where miscarriages of justice stand, even when exposed. It can't be beyond the wit of human beings to do something about that.