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.

Even where a child is happily settled with their adoptive parents, it is not impossible to see that 'interests of a child' can and should encompass contact with the birth family. And in miscarriages of justice like the Websters', this is even more so.

I can understand it is difficult to see why a settled 4 year old would want to know about their birth parents. But if you consider that child when they are a teenager or older, it would be important for their sense of identiy and belonging to know that their birth parents always intended well for them and would have loved them as their own. Adoption is sometimes described as the primal wound.

An adopted child might not understand at 4 why they are being asked to see the strange adults, and contact can be kept low key, but they will appreciate this increasingly as they get older for the chance to know their birth parents and siblings growing up. Can't the law build this up into a contact plan that birth parents can apply for as their circumstances change or new facts come to light (nooka's example, say, where the fractures continue into the adoptive family so it becomes clear that other medical factors are at work, rather than the standard of care or abuse).

It seems to be that the public policy route that the UK has taken that adoptions are final, is a rather blunt instrument that is not flexible enough to embrace the difference circumstances that could arise. Perhaps it is a function of the adversarial legal system in common law countries like the UK where winner takes all.

The system seems to give families only one bite at the cherry (trial, appeals within time) as it were before their children are taken away. It does not take into account that adoptions can fail, birth families can improve and of course, the miscarriages of justice where the family was beaten down or vulnerable or not given proper legal representation or emotional support to access all options available to them under the family justice system at the crucial time or mistakes were made by overworked and undersupported social workers.

After all, when parents divorce, the matrimonial courts in granting custody orders rightly looks at the interests of the children. But the court also recognises that whilst children need stability, their interests include the need to maintain contact with their mother and father, often granting, say primary custody to one parent and weekend contact to the other.

Why is it not possible for the family courts to similarly recognise that the interests of a child in an adoption should encompass the need to know their birth parents as well as their adoptive parents. And give birth parents a right to vary the contact order without limits on time, just like a divorced parent can apply for more contact if their circumstances change.

In certain cases, like abuse, yes, the contact with the birth family should be extinguished. In others, it is helpful to have a more flexible system.

Can anyone advise whether the Websters can apply to vary the contact order in their case?

Basically, edam, you are oversimplifying horribly. It is not 'ok' for SS to move kids through many foster placements. It happens, because there are NO ALTERNATIVES and it is better than returning the children to the birth family. Nobody EVER says it's ok, we recognise it is a scandal, shocking, damaging for children. But there is nothing else to do. In cases where there are alternatives (family, friends, returning home) these are, or should be, always pursued.

It's not 'one rule for one and one for another', that view is simplistic in the extreme. The fact is that for MANY adopted kids, no, ongoing contact with birth families is not a good idea, as it is likely to disrupt and undermine the adoption, which may be the child's only chance for a stable home and to repair the damage done by their early experiences. In cases where it is positive for the children, the adopters are encouraged to pursue it. However, once they are adopted, they become the parents as much as you are the parent of your own child. Nobody can force you to let anyone see your kids if you don't want them to, the same for adopters.

The fact remains that FOR THESE PARTICULAR KIDS it is better for them to remain with their adopters, their parents. As is the case for most situations like this.

noonka, thank you that was really intersting and helpful...
must admit, when nursing in Germany supervision was unheard off (not sure how it is now, though, I nursed last in 1995)...when working as an A/N in teh UK, supervision wasn't regularly at all, often not really pushed, and tbh, I worked in a ward for well over a year and never received a supervision...it was never seen as that important, so, if staffing issues arose (which usually did), than supervision would be postponed...
however, I am now on my first OT PLacement and the attitude towards OT is soo different and it's taken as a vital part of teh role, etc...so, does happen regularly (as I mentioned in the earlier post)...

Also, once qualified an OT Band 5 will usually have to go into a rotational role, where you change every 6 month, and whilst you of course are expected to be able to work autonomous (sp? looks wrong), but will receive loads of support and it is very much acknoledged that it is than you really learn, and it is of course expected of a new OT to be particularly motivated in further reading...but it is expected very much of any OT to continously educate themselfs further, etc...

Kat, but if the adoption was a miscarriage of justice in the first place, and the Birthparents were loving, etc...surely than the disruption caused by by removing the child from them would be on equal par with the removal from the adoptive parents back to the Birth Parents?
hy would that be worse and be not in teh childs best interest? That is the part I am struggling to udnerstand...
Obviously if the child was rightfully taken from teh Birthparents than this whole debate is not applyng anyway, iykwim?
Oh, and for me it is not so muhc just about this case, because noonka made very good points that as the general public we don't maybe know all the ins and outs...I truely am speaking from teh perspective where it truely was a miscarriage of justice...

Tbh, having read Stolen Innocence- The Sally Clark Story- A mothers fight for justice...it really has opened my eyes about what can happen, etc...(And I know the scenario isn't the same as in this case...but the book really explains the justice system very well, etc...and that is to someone who is pretty clue less about those things)

Fairlady
removing children from parents is traumatic for children. Doing it again when they are considerably older is not in their interests. Full stop.

Western understanding of justice is based on the principle if righting wrongs and this is no exception.

Where child has grown accustomed to new family, the transition of his care & custody to real parents should of course be slow and with utmost care.

The interest of the child is to be with his real parents, siblings, and extended family, if at all possible.

Cote, if that's what you think should happen you would have to petition parliament for a change in the law with regard to adoption, and remove it's final "as if the child were born to those parents" legal status. This would fundamentally change the adoption, and make it become a form of long term fostering in effect.

I've never lived in the UK so doubtful if your parliament would listen to me.

As I said before, if these children were kidnapped, they would be returned to their parents when found some years later, even if by now they think of these strangers as their parents. So clearly the trauma of separation from their 'adoptive' family is not so great as to warrant the continuation of the abhorrent situation where children are ripped from their parents for no good reason.

Unless the 'kidnapper' is the state. Is that what you are saying?

my child is a little more than "accustomed" to his new family and would be traumatised if removed and given to his "real" parents. I truly beleive that he would never be able to trust anyone again. I personally would do everything I could to maintain contact with his birth parents.

Most of you can obviously not appreciate that these chidlren are likely to be every bit as attached to their parents now as they were to their birth parents at the time (possibly even more given the time past and the age of the children). I know you can't imagine it, because you can't imagine it wiht your own child but these children are likely to be very traumatically separated from the only family they have known.

This is an exceptionally rare tragic case with no way to reverse the miscarriage of justice. I really don't beleive that traumatising the children for a second time to satisfy the birth parents understandable desire to get their children back is going to "correct" the situation.

What happens if the chidlrne resent their birth paretns for making them go back, what happnes if the return breaks down - do they go back to the adoptive parents again or new foster care?

I know most of you won't agree but I truly beleive that as long as the children are happy that the status quo remaining is in the best interests of the children. I personally think some contact should be agreed in the same way as in a divorce but understand that the finality of adoption making that parent the legal parent forever is necessary for the security of thousands of children.

kidnapper do not have any legal status as parents. That argument is bizarre.

If it were one legal paretn of the child who did the kidnapping then often they would be able to keep custody on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child. Provided of course they weren't in prison. It has happened in international child custody cases.

I am not talking about legal status.

I am saying the argument of "But we can't take children from people they think of as adults" is a false one, because we have no problem taking children away from adults they think of as loving parents if they were kidnapped.

I know you are a loving parent to an adopted boy, so this is no doubt an emotional subject for you, but if you read my post again I'm sure you will understand what I am talking about.

"as long as the children are happy that the status quo remaining is in the best interests of the children"

Why, because best interests of children always coincide with what keeps them happy at any given point in time?

Do we not have the privilege and the duty to see long term benefits that children cannot see when they are, say, 4 years old, and steer their lives in directions that may make them uncomfortable/unhappy for a short period of time but will be better for them in the long run?

Two posts down, the false argument is "But we can't take children from people they think of as parents". Hopefully that makes more sense now

Yes I do believe it would be every bit as traumtic for a child to be removed from any loving family after living within it for a number of years. If the best interests of the child is the ONLY criteria they should remain where they are. But it isn't the ONLY criteria - they is no facilty under UK law to remove happy healthy children from their legal parents.

But most kidnappers are prosecuted and jailed and they have no legal status wrt the child. However traumatic there really isn't any choice but to replace the children with their birth parents.

That is not the case here - the child are living with their legal parents who have also done nothiong wrong and (presumably) the children are happy.

I don't think its any more emotive for me as an adoptive parent than you as a birth parent. You are just as horrified by the idea someone would take your child away as I am.

you assume the return the their birth paretns will make then happier in the long run than being with their adoptive parents and that happiness with their adoptive family is a transitory thing!

I can only repeat that there really is no way back from this situation that is a guarantee of "fixing" the situation.

I agree with you that the best interests of the child are paramount, but don't see those "best interests" as equal to "leave well enough alone" or "if a toddler is happy today, nothing needs to be changed".

"Best interests" of a child has to take into account what is better for him in the long run, and sometimes necessitates difficult transition periods.

What we will possibly never agree on is whether an adoptive family is 100% as good as a child's real family. I believe it is at best a second best, only to be tried when there is no way he can live with real family. As such, when it turns out that the child's removal from real family was a mistake, that parents were innocent & are willing and able to care for him, he should be returned to his real family. Because it is in the child's best long term interests to be reunited with his real family.

Children are happy where they are safe, loved, and provided for. They are also incredibly resilient and have very good skills of adaptation. All of this makes it possible for them to love a second set of adults as their parents. After the initial adaptation period, it is not impossible for them to be just as happy, if not happier, when reunited with their real family.

And all of this doesn't even address the gross injustice done to the real parents, what is effectively a life sentence.

"you assume (...) that happiness with their adoptive family is a transitory thing!"

No. What I said was that the unhappiness of being taken from their adoptive parents is a transitory thing. Just like the unhappiness of being taken from their real parents was, in most cases, transitory.

No, I don't think anyone's assuming happiness with adoptive parents is transitory (see my posts below about my own mother's very happy childhood). Or that these issues apply to any but a very small number of cases.

But in those (hopefully extremely rare) cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice and an innocent family has been broken up, it can't be beyond the wit of human beings to create some way of at least partially addressing that wrong, with at least contact between birth parents and their children.

Blueshoes' post about contact post-divorce raises a valid point - there the courts go to great lengths to attempt to maintain contact with the non-resident parents ? even where there are allegations of domestic violence or other difficult circumstances. Why is it so important for the child of divorced parents, but not for children who have been wrongfully adopted?

I agree with friarKC. And as I said in my first post on the thread (and subsequently had confirmed in that Marcel Berlins article edam linked to), if you return the children to their parents in this case, you overturn the basis on which all adoptions are made - that the adoptive parents are now the parents and that their children cannot be removed from them unless they abuse them. And that must be right because how can a child possibly feel any security knowing that were there to be a change in their bio parents circumstances, those parents could fight to have them returned? The children have suffered enough trauma.

I disagree with Cote that adoptive families are necessarily second-best - am sure they are good, bad or indifferent just as birth families are.

But there is an undeniable human need to know where you come from and if at all possible to have a relationship with your biological family - that's why the law was changed to allow people to search for birth relatives, even recently to the extent of allowing children conceived by donor insemination to know about their biological father.

There are decades of evidence showing how important it is for many (not all, of course) adopted people to find their families and how traumatic a complete break is.

The law seems to fail to take this fully into account in these particular cases.

Psychological research shows that adopted children are much more similar to their biological relatives in personality, intellect and emotions than to their adoptive ones, even when adopted as babies. (That is not to downplay the very real and very important relationships people have with non-biological relatives, of course.) But biology has an importance that doesn't seem to be recognised by the family courts in cases of miscarriages of justice.

spice - it's not unknown for adoptions to break down and children to be handed back, although I don't know what happens wrt the legal status of those families. (Wonder if anyone here knows?)

So it's not as simple as 'adoption is permanent', even though that is the legal assumption when orders are made. Although of course one hopes it will be and I'm sure adoptive parents work jolly hard to help sometimes troubled and challenging children live happily in a family set up etc. etc. etc.

Fair point but the children cannot be taken away if the parents don't want them to go (unless they are abusing them obviously). That's what I meant.

I don't know what the situation is if the adoption breaks down from a legal perspective but I suppose it is the same as putting any child into care - they stay there until they're 16 when they get turfed out.

There are of course good, bad, etc adoptive parents just like there are good, bad, etc real parents.

But there is a reason why we don't swap babies around at birth, and that is also why babies mixed up at hospital are given to birth parents even if the mistake is discovered years later.

"children cannot be taken away if the parents don't want them to go (unless they are abusing them obviously"

Really? What are we talking about on this thread and many others like it, then?

Was Fran Lyon abusing her unborn baby?