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.

Well they are welcome to fight, if they want to, and if they come up with some legal way to do it good luck to them.

But if it undermines the permanency of adoption, or makes it harder for children to be removed from genuinely abusive situations, they will have left a poor legacy. Not their problem, I guess.

Fairlady, that's not how I see it but you're entitle to your view.

why would it undermine the permanency of adoption...no more than the permanancy of Birthparent hood, surely?
And why would it be harder to remove children from absuive households?
I don't understand your logic, tbh...

blithedance, in cases of miscarriage of justice, I disagree that any contact arrangements should be voluntary and dependent on what the adoptive parents consider to be in the child's interests. If that is not currently the law (no one is able to explain to me yet), then that should be the case.

In such a case, the appropriate contact plan should be decided by a court, in the same way a court decides on custody arrangements in a divorce as to how much time a child spends with each parent, whilst taking the child's interests into consideration.

Whilst a child's interests are undoubtedly important, of equal importance are the rights of the birth parents to a fair hearing as well as to a right to respect for their private and family life (enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The right of the parents to bring up their flesh and blood can only be eroded by an adoption in accordance with the law. But where there has been a miscarriage of justice, it is arguable whether the adoption was lawful to begin with because it was based on fundamental medical evidence that was flawed in a trial that was not fair because the parents did not have competent legal representation

Therefore the parents' rights under Article 8 were not rightfully abrogated, meaning that it now falls to a court to decide how best to strike the balance between the interests of the child (which can encompass contact with their birth family and adoptive family) as well as the still existing and real rights of their birth parents.

Quite apart from family court cases, a result of a criminal trial is normally final. But a court will in exceptional cases allow fresh evidence to be adduced years and years later which could lead to a re-trial and a conviction being overturned.

There are very specific tests that have to be satisfied which would warrant a case being re-opened such as the fresh evidence was not available at the time of the trial and it would have an important influence on the case.

But the Websters' Court of Appeal faced an additional difficulty in adoption cases - in that the law on adoption was phrased so categorically that adoptive parents became the legal parents for all intents and purposes. Therefore, even if the Websters could fulfil the tests for adducing fresh evidence, the Court of Appeal was bound by the adoption law and legal precedent not to disturb the adoption.

There is a public policy reason why adoption is so final in the UK (as described by the Court of Appeal). It is to avoid discouraging people from putting themselves forward as adopters. This is quite apart from the interests of the child. It is a public policy reason, in the same way it is public policy decision why criminals who plead guilty are given lighter sentences - to encourage people to confess and not tie up court time in a drawnout trial.

I feel it is an important discussion whether or not it is right for adoption orders to be so final in the UK. The Court of Appeal recognised that it is not so in other countries.

More from the Court of Appeal judgment ...

Notwithstanding adoption orders are final in the UK, as the law currently stands, there are nonetheless limited exceptions in which adoption orders can be overturned (which the Websters did not fulfill). One of these is where the birth parents did not give proper consent eg because they were not properly served with notice of the adoption proceedings or if that consent was obtained by fraud.

In the Websters' case, their consent as birth parents was dispensed with by an order freeing their children for adoption because of the abuse. But if there was a miscarriage of justice in that the dispensation was based on abuse which quite likely did not exist, surely one can argue that there wasn't a valid dispensation and the Webster's consent was still required.

The Webster's case does not fall squarely within an existing exception but it is very closely related to the existing exceptions where consent was not properly obtained.

If the Court of Appeal felt bound by legal precedent not to extend the exception to the Webster's case of miscarriage of justice, it is a small step for Parliament to extend the exception to cover the Websters' case.

That is alternative way of striking the balance between the interests of the child and those of the birth parents, which would only apply in very limited cases of loving birth parents who have suffered miscarriages of justice.

There is no reason why extending the exception in these miscarriage of justice cases should open the floodgates. Exceptions for miscarriage of justice are a small extension of existing exceptions already currently allowed by adoption law where the birth parents did not properly consent to the adoption.

This IMO would help to restore public confidence in the care/adoption system.

indeed blueshoes...that really does make sooo much sense. Why can't this be introduced?

"because the Kids are of course not at all damaged by been taken away from loving Birthparents, they would be far more traumatised by being taken away from their adoptive parents..."

do you truly beleive thats what a single adoptive parent has argued here. Really?

Why do I waste my time writing posts (and others not just me) explaining how the child has been damaged by leaving their birth family and how exacerbating that damage by removing them again from the only family most of them are likely to remember is unlikely (obviously only in my very humble opinion) to be in thebest interests of the child.

To imply that any adoptive parent on here is not acutely aware of the damage caused by such separation when many of us live with it on a daily basis is crass in the extreme.

At what point do you think it reasonable for a child to be given back to the "real" parents (lovely phrase for those of us with presumably imaginery friend status), after 6 months? 15 years? 10 years? 5 years? Who decides?

The argument about whther the children should have knowledge of and contact with birth family is a differnt one to whether the childrne should be returned.

Would be interesting to know how many of you would feel the same way if it were discovered that your newborn was swopped with another in the hospital - sadly the other child died bit obviously it would be in the best interests of your child to leave you and everything they know and go back to their birth family.

and indeed those countries where adoption orders are not absolute have resulted in reduced numbers of adopters coming forward.I couldbe worng but I beleive this is the case in Ireland.

And anyone who thinks a better alternative for these children is long-term foster case needs their heads tested. Or alterntively needs to become a long term foster carer.

kew...it is not that I don't get where you are coming from, but I still think that in cases of true miscarriage of justice the Birth Family should have rights, sorry...

And why is longterm foster care so much worse then adoption? Surely many Foster Carers are also wonderful and truely caring? Are you saying that all foster care is bad?
It's not ideal, but neither is a scenario as these where people were wrongly accused...

Oh, and if it was me that said real parents instead of Birth parents, I do apologize....very thoughtless and not meant it that way...

I think the UK could benefit from more creative solutions in this area.

Apart from adoption and foster care, how about half-way houses like supervised care within the birth parents' home, boarding, social pedagogues like in Sweden as described in an earlier post. Even parenting classes and more support for vulnerable families. This is particularly important for older children who are harder to adopt.

I can see it would be ideal for a child to just have one set of parents. But so often many children live in blended families when their parents separate. Why does it have to be only one household can be recognised as having parental rights and responsibilities. In certain circumstances, it could be that the best solution would be for the birth families and adoptive families to share their upbringing.

Clearly more research is in order. But in the fluid area of children and families, it is better to have more flexible solutions rather than one-size-fits-all.

no it wasn;t you.

Foster care varies dramatically in quality.

But even good foster care is not having a parent. Not having someone who would throw themselves under a train for you, adores you beyond imagining, is ridiculously excited when you pass your exams or have your first kiss.

Would you like your children to grow up knowing that they are not the most important person in anyones life? That they are always outranked by someone elses Dh or DC's or parents or ... and if push came to shove you would just be moved to another carer. What if foster child became allergic to foster carers much loved dog - who would go? That the question might even cross a childs mind is a horrible way to live through your childhood.

There are some fantastic carers (though not even close to being enough) but I suspect that even they would agree that a permanent home with someone that a child belings with forever is always better.

Those who keep saying that the children should have been fostered while the case was being looked into overlook one vital aspect:

The case was not being looked into. It was finished, a judgment had been made, the Websters had chosen not to appeal.

Noone could have guessed at that time that the case would be reopened a few years later.

So how long should they have been keeping their options open and left the children in foster care? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years?

There was no suggestion at the time that the Websters did not accept the judgment. They did not insist on calling in a second opinion, nor did their defence lawyers.

The difference between adoptive parents and foster parents is that your adoptive parents are yours forever. Foster parents cannot promise that they will always look after you, that is not their call. You may be moved on tomorrow if another child needs that foster family more. Foster parents can be wonderful and loving and make a huge difference. But they can't promise they will be your parents next month. Or next year. Or when you're grown up.

presumably options like supervised care within a birth parents home would come with a tax rate the equivalent of Swedens!

The hard truth is that the majority of birth paretns who relinquish (voluntarily or not)their children are not capable of looking after them. Parking the children in no-mans-land in the hopes that one day they might is cruel for the children and in the vast majority of cases deluded.

The Websters had 'chosen' not to appeal? I doubt very much they had any choice at all. What appeal mechanism exists once your children have been 'freed' for adoption (horrible Orwellian euphemism) or actually adopted?

My bet would be the Websters had been told there was nothing else they could do, no new avenues to explore and very possibly no money and no energy either. They had a new baby that they had to defend from the state.

And now the legal system turns round and says, oh, you are too late. Shameful.

I do know that... and I wasn't specifically talking about the Webster case...

And oh, there just isn't going to be any winners....
And of course I wouldn't want any child growing up with anyone to love them...I have experienced the issues this can bring whilst working in a residential care setting for children with challenging Behaviour, which generally come from broken homes, abuse /neglect histories, etc...and it is very sad....

I just wish there was a better way....iykwim....I really don't think that an adoptive parent has less rights than a Birthparent....just think it is terrible in cases of miscarriage of justice...

oh am warbling on now...

you are all trying to find a solution to "put right" this case and there isn't one. Your view is coloured by whetehr you think less damage will be done to the children by returning them to their original family or by leaving them with their current family.

I'm afraid that I think that either sets of paretns is irrelevant. What is in the best interests of the child should prevail, In this particular case I agree with the court.

no, it was Cory's post that said the Websters chose not to appeal.

like I said my opinion is case specific...because I don't know enough about it....
more general ramblings really...

I think there should be contact made and a gradual relationship established.

AND that the family courts need to lose their transparency and this ridiculous 'you go public you go to jail' policy.

AND procedure and policy put in place when you do have mistakes made, or at least some flexibility (although I suppose the EU court allows for this?).

Because when you have cases like the Websters, like Fran Lyon, like the Roy Meadows' ones alongside failures to remove the Victoria Climbes, Baby Ps, Brandon Muirs, Carla Nicole Bones, Danielle Reids, et all, you've got a problem.

And as with any problem, you have to first own it to even suggest making things better.

AND that the family courts need to lose their transparency and this ridiculous 'you go public you go to jail' policy. - you won't find me arguing with that Expat.

Is there any evidence that the adoptive paretns have actually refused contact?

My ILs did adopt from foster care. They were foster carers for SIL and she was adopted formally when she was 4.

They did all they could to keep contact with the birth mother.

She had very clear and serious problems with heroin addiction that ultimately claimed her life.

And sadly, a lot of cases are like this. But they usually go hand in hand with circumstances like substance addiction, criminal history and the like. Elements which were not involved in cases like the Websters, Miss Lyon, Roy Meadows (he merits a special place in hell, IMO).

I don't know that there is, Friar.

I certainly hope so.

I hope the kids were adopted by people like my ILs, who wouldn't dream of not establishing contact with parents like the Websters if they did indeed find out their adoption had been a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal stated that the Websters did not show due diligence in appealing. If I had been wrongfully accused of abusing my daughter and she had been taken off me I would have fought for her - one could argue that the Websters couldn't be bothered. Does anyone know if their eventual appeal was funded by Legal Aid - even though their Counsel warned them they had bugger all (legal term) chance of winning? The Judgment states that the adoptive parents do not have access to the public purse. And the Websters haven't been cleared of any wrongdoing BTW.

They are now talking about taking their case to the ECHR; is it any wonder the new parents aren't falling over themselves to encourage access when the Websters are putting them through this torture when they have been told that the adoption order will not be revoked?

What fascinates me is how expat, edam and others believe they know what's best for the children, that they can decide this and not the parents who have loved and cared for them for the past three and a half years. What makes you lot the experts and not their mums and dads?