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.

Adoptive parents are vital in a society where children suffer at the hands of their parents and there are many, many instances when they do and are rightly removed. If these children did not have the opportunity of a family life with alternative parents who claim them as their own child, with all the emotional investment that that entails, they would be deprived of a basic human right. There is no comparison between an adoptive family for a child and that child remaining "a looked after child" in foster care-with the state as the parent.
That is why adoption has to provide finality. Not only for the child but importantly for the adoptors who are prepared to make that emotional investment into a child, not biologically theirs. If adoption was not final and could be revisited, how many people would be willing to make that emotional investment, knowing the child could be removed from them some years down the line?

This case is totally awful. There is no easy solution.

I fail to see how the Local Authority can be critisised for acting on the medical evidence then available to it in this case. Social Workers cannot ignore broken bones. They certainly cannot ignore them when the totality of the medical evidence indicates that they are non-accidental.

What the real solution to cases like these is must probably be a compilation of things, and is what makes law ever challenging and fresh.

But there needs to be some degree of flexibility involved in it then, and definitely loss of transparency, which is already well established in other countries.

I totally agree with greater transparency-so long as anonymity is maintained for the child and the reporting of these cases is full and fair. I think it would be useful for the general public to see the grounds upon which children are removed from their parents, the vast number of cases where there really is no other option for the child, the time and care taken before these cases are finalised and the chances that are afforded to parents to improve matters for their children before their future is determined.

ella....really...if you were completely down because you lost all your children...not just 1...because you followed stupid proffessional dietry advice....are you sure you would be the kind of person who would fight?
Tbh...if in the websters case they followed advie given to them dispite witnessing the ill-effect, it leads me to think that they may not be well-equipped enough to fight of bully tactics and the law and whatever....and that does not make the people less loving or caring...it makes them ill informed at best, not all that bright at worst....if that is the case they should have been given support with raising their Kids and not have them taken away...
However...those are only the snippets I picked up on this thread, so, as I said....I am by n means equipped to really know...

The Discussion, to me, is more a general one...

And tbh, in order to be able to adopt, whilst you must have been put through hell and back...I assume it was most certainly been checked that you have a level of reason and intelligence to raise Kids safely, therefore, you probably are also better informed and equipped to fight....however, Cory, who I believe rather intelligent, well...it occurred to me how daunting and terrifying the experience was to her....and fear can paralyse you...

'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.'

No, you cannot when you have people who are disadvantaged, be it by money, learning or other disabilities, etc. and therefore possibly misrepresented. When you have secrecy and the threat of being held in contempt of court and quite likely jailed if you dare to open your mouth a la Miss Lyon, who most fortunately had the benefit of education.

When you are young, shit-scared, not very well-educated perhaps, have a learning disability or other disability, know you may go to jail and/or lose your other or future children or the like, it is entirely possible that you become ill-informed.

Hence, why the Websters have gone to the European Court.

There must be a degree of ambiguity and flexibility in all legistlation, in the upholding and in the execution of the law or nothing, well aside from adoption law, can progress.

'I totally agree with greater transparency-so long as anonymity is maintained for the child and the reporting of these cases is full and fair.'

It is not only possible but also already well-established both in the UK (in rape cases) and in other countries.

I remember when I was working as PA to a very great and lovely criminal judge in the US (RIP, 'Nago' Alaniz), a man who himself became a father to three daughters via adoption.

And speaking with him about the law, about how he felt doing his job.

And he said, 'The day I cannot open my mind enough to clearly see AND be both sides of every case is the day I will step down.' (and judges are elected in the US)

what a great judge expat....

Why can there not be a relationship established? Why can there not, when the definition of a family is a changing thing?

Is it really best that those children never have contact with the birth parents in a case of a miscarriage of justice? And if so, why?

In the US at least, much legislation is tested in the judiciary branch. There is a reason things were set up like this, because of failings in the British system, as a direct reaction to them.

But that was 230 years ago, and we are part of the EU, so can we not go further, and test case?

Why is this such a threat to general adoption law? No one knows that, that's why it's an interesting test case.

And no, people shouldn't be tests.

But sadly, they are! Each and every day.

I can perfectly well understand why the Websters did not appeal within the time limit.

But at the same time, I can see that this explains why the children were freed up for adoption relatively soon. There was no hint that this case would ever be re-visited.

It's a hard one.

Oh come one! The Websters managed to put up a fight to keep their (unborn) 4th child so don't go painting them as disadvantaged.

According to an "exclusive" interview the Websters gave to the Daily Mail the adoptive parents aren't at the moment allowing contact. Mark Webster said "Perhaps it would be easier if the adoptive parents would work with us in some way over contact but they won?t".

And who can blame them when the Websters are now talking about taking this to the European Court despite the Appeal Court judge moreorless telling them it would be futile.

It's a hard one and that is all the more why it is important, IMO.

it is...
and sorry I used you as an example...just trying to make the point how scary it is for an educated person...but am so "glad" in the respect it was found early on to be not abuse...but not glad for your childs condition...iykwim...

'Oh come one! The Websters managed to put up a fight to keep their (unborn) 4th child so don't go painting them as disadvantaged.'

Ella, they had by then enlisted the press.

Why on EARTH are you such a hater of these people you don't even know? Why are they such a threat to you?

Why do you take this so personally?

This about EU law. This is about how miscarriages of justice should be dealt with in the law as a member of the EU!

My own mother doesn't know sometimes what is in my best interest because I am my OWN PERSON.

Even as a 13-year-old child I knew this and she allowed me some recourse to make my own decisions in such regards.

We do not know what is the best interest of each and every child in such instances.

There is no way to be black and white about it so that is why there is ambiguity in the law!

We have expanded our definition of family, thank Gaea!

We have rights for gay parents, we have rights for step-parents, grandparents, single parents, etc.

Why is a miscarriage of justice so different?

Why is it in the best interest of a child to be denied contact in the event of such a miscarriage, when it is fair and right that we have so many other definitions of what a family is - two mummies, two daddies, grandparents, etc.?

Why is it so wrong to even beg the question?

indeed

are we helping children by such, instead of enriching and broadening them?

Because isn't that why the European Court is there?

But thank you for your input, because Alaniz was right, you must be both sides if you have any hope in Hell of winning and if you can't then you need to step off the mike.

And I think, I think I'll go ahead and apply for that mature student place at that law school, 26 years after turning down a place.

expat...I think you should....apply for law school...think you would be fab

I don't hate them, I'm providing some balance to those of you who are painting them as matyrs to the evil adoption laws. One of their kids (aged 4, I think) had teeth so badly decayed that they all had to be removed. Mr Webster wouldn't even take her to the dentist so he was hardly father of the year.

The adoptive parents are being berated for not, at this juncture, allowing contact. However, given the Websters' conduct how do they know how the Websters would react if they were allowed access to the kids?

The kids might not want to see their birth parents. Would you want their adoptive parents to pressurise them into doing so?

I'd only apply for the foundation course first. Because heaven knows, after graduating in 1993 and then taking a few classes in 1995, I need it!

I'm rusty and old, but maybe there is life in the old dog yet.

didnt this happen to a MNer - her name began with B - very very sad. She was good chums with Beetroot. Where is Beetroot btw?

I've read all this interest. I have to confess a vested interest as I have an adored adopted son who has lived with us since he was 1 day old.

I've read loads on attachment etc, as have most adoptive parents, so I have views on this. I can also personalise it and imagine how I'd feel with respect to my son from both sets of parents' perspectives.

However I don't feel I should comment on the case for the very simple reason that I haven't sat in court through the original cases, appeals etc and heard all the evidence that the court heard. I'm wary of basing my opinion on what's reported in the papers (although I appreciate that many have read the most recent judgement). After all "Tragic parents shafted by the system" sells more papers than a more moderate viewpoint.

I am to read that the adoptive family of the Websters' children will not allow contact. To my mind, that is petty tyranny.

Bear in mind that the Websters fought to keep their 4th baby and won. There were psychiatric reports describing them has having bonded well with their baby and they are good parents.

Whatever their failings (if any) before, surely the adoptive parents can see that circumstances are now different.

Ella, I am surprised you think it is justified for the adoptive parents to withhold contact just because the Websters are now taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Websters are fighting for their rights, for their children! If the adoptive parents, as parents themselves, cannot put themselves in the Websters's shoes and show some empathy for the difficult situation that their child's birth parents are in, then I really wonder whether they are hiding behind the 'interests of the child' to disguise their own selfish interests.

Good on the Websters for going to the European Court of Justice. They have been left with no other option since the Court of Appeal has basically said, "sorry, even if we wanted to, we have no power to help".

It is because of this that I feel the law has to change. Where there has been a miscarriage of justice, there must be more options given to the wronged parents to enforce contact. Otherwise the only other solution is to overturn the adoption since the law does not offer a more flexible compromise.

expat, I find your arguments most compelling.

I am very touched by the wisdom and humility of judge 'Nago' Alaniz. And I will quote again from your post:

"The day I cannot open my mind enough to clearly see AND be both sides of every case is the day I will step down."

If we are talking about attachment theory, the Webster's children were not newborn babies. They would have been attached to their parents.

And I wouldn't use the teeth thing to beat them over the head. There's a story in the papers recently about a little girl who died after a whole bunch of health professionals ignored her dental phobia and refusal to eat following actual dental treatment.

Just saying the teeth issue may be more complicated than it first appears - and certainly NOT enough reason on its own to remove a child from loving, decent parents (which they have been proved to be by expert reports on their fourth child).