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.

Those child death figures are so sad.

johnhemming, thank you for your efforts to gather more information in this area. The government must be confronted with the stark figures and not be allowed to claim they are doing a good job if the reality is different.

What hope is there of change and improvement in child protection if the government is not even prepared to admit there is a problem and even covers up the true story.

One reason I want a list of Serious Case Reviews is to identify when Serious Case Reviews are not commissioned when they should have been.

Another issue I am studying is the number of mothers who commit suicide or have abortions because of care proceedings and they way they are treated. There are a small number of fathers, but quite a few mothers.

Obviously PND has some effect, but I am looking particularly at the issue of pregant mothers.

Until we know more precisely the full picture and start doing some analysis as to what is happening, there is insufficient information to say.

Oh John, the point about abortions and suicides is one I hadn't considered. So terribly sad.

If my three children were taken from me, I don't think I would have enough life left in me to have another

There are a number of women who continually have babies in the expressed hope that the local authority will run out of money to take them into care and allow them to keep one. It is a form of bereavement response.

john, that is heartbreaking

I recently watched the movie Ladybird, Ladybird, and it is about a woman who had her children taken from her and goes on to have more...it is a very upsetting movie.

I can't help thinking about this, and I think that if my children were taken away from me, I would fight forever to get them back, and I don't think I would be able to say "oh, they have been with someone else for 4 years, it is in their best interests to stay there, I will just walk away from them."

It's all very well to say that someone else should walk away from their kids but could you walk away from yours?? To be outside a situation, to not love the children concerned, to be distanced. But put yourself in it...I couldn't do it. I couldn't walk away from my children, even if the argument used to stop me is that they might be best to remain 'settled'. I can't imagine anything more painful, short of their deaths.

If someone took my kids off me, I'd steal them in the night and run away.

That sounds selfish I know, when you are all talking about the needs of the child to not be disrupted etc etc, but I don't think I could do anything other than fight for them back, no matter how long it took.

Johnhemming - it is sad if some women do that but in my expereince the women I've represented who had several babies removed simply hadn't addressed the initial behaviour
-drug addiction
-alcoholism
-partners on the SOR
-persistent criminal behaviour resulting in custody.
I had one lady who kept allowing her house to be used by working girls. I couldn't get through to her to just stop.
Not every case is a miscarriage of justice.
There are tens of thousands of kids looked after by the state because their parents couldn't or wouldn't change their behaviours.

"If someone took my kids off me, I'd steal them in the night and run away"

and it's this fear that is possibly stopping the adoptive parents allowing any kind of access.

The time for the Websters to fight for their kids was before the adoption order was finalised. That's what is is now - final. The Websters' counsel advised them they had little chance of winning their case but they should have been honest and said they had no chance of winning. Likewise at the European Court. I empathise with both the birth and adoptive parents but the law says that the adoptive parents are now the legal parents.

'The time for the Websters to fight for their kids was before the adoption order was finalised. '

Good grief, ella, you've been informed at least five times on this thread alone why the Websters probably acted as they did.

You have no idea what the final outcome will be in the European Court because a) you're not on it b) case hasn't even been heard.

You wouldn't sit back and smile if someone removed your child for you and yet you expect others to do so.

Good grief, expat, you've been informed MORE than five times that this adoption is final. You might not like it and be more than happy for the kids to be taken from their new families but the law will not permit it.

Cannot hide behind the law. The law needs to be changed IMO for exceptional cases of miscarriages of justice. The Websters going to the European Court of Justice, even if they don't succeed, might trigger a change of law.

ella, what makes you so sure they didn't fight the adoption order at the time? Fact is the authorities got it wrong. The Websters and their children are the victims of a miscarriage of justice. It should not be beyond the wit of man to address that - and I do hope the European Court has something to say about it. Seem to recall UK practice is quite different from other nearby countries.

so, those that feel that all is well and as it should be...so, if you were wrongly accused and lost your child (adopted or biological child), and than suddenly were found to be innocent...can you honestly say you would not fight to get your Kid/s back...really

Litchick...but no one assumes that there is always a miscarriage of justice...people just say it can happen and does happen and that there has got to be a way to address this...

'Good grief, expat, you've been informed MORE than five times that this adoption is final. You might not like it and be more than happy for the kids to be taken from their new families but the law will not permit it.'

I don't like it? Unlike you, I'm not actually taking this entire thing personally and getting ranty about it.

In case you haven't noticed, over time, laws changes and/or their interpretation changes.

Sometimes, it can overturned entirely.

That is why they are usually written with a degree of ambiguity.

I'm sorry you have so many personal issues surrounding how you feel about complete strangers that you can't seem to contribute to the discussion in anything other than a rather ranty matter.

It will indeed make for an interesting test case, edam.

It would seem self-evident to build into family law a way for dealing with miscarriages of justice, but of course that would require acknowledgement that such instances occur.

Miscarriages of justice in family law, of course, can also occur in custody battles, too, for example, between two divorcing parents who are splitting up and/or gay parents who are splitting up.

A friend of mine is a social worker, and she said one of the most difficult thing she had to do was work with mothers who continually had babies who were removed pretty much on birth to be treated for the drug addiction that had been imposed on them during gestation (and quite a few also had FAS caused by excessive drinking). This despite intensive support to quit drugs and change lifestyle often offered repeatedly over long periods of time. Social care do not remove babies for fun, there are always reasons why it happens. Those reasons might be misguided, or even wrong, but that doesn't mean they can't be addressed. If your children are removed because it is judged you cannot look after them for whatever reason, surely that should provide a huge incentive to address that? The Websters case actually demonstrates that, as they were judged fit to care for their fourth child because they committed to and completed a very intensive parenting support programme. Given that at the time the authorities thought they had abused a child that suggests a certain amount of flexibility in judgement IMO.

I am not saying that they always get it right by any means, nor that the resources that are needed for supporting families are in any way sufficient (I've too much exposure to the support available for children with special needs to think that for a minute). Just that it is not a black and white picture of SS=wicked/incompetent and parents=good/victimised. Mostly people are trying to do their best on all sides, but underlying issues and systems (resources, time, circumstances, knowledge) allow things to go wrong.

You're the one who's ranting, expat, and have done so throughout this thread. The contribution to this discussion that I am making is that of an adoptive parent. I don't have any personal issues with the Websters but feel that it's in the best interests of children if adoption orders are final.

But those cases do not involve removing parental rights and bestowing them on alternate parents. I can't see how the concept of forever families would survive. However I guess the only people in a position to say how much that truly matters are adults who were adopted as children, those who were in foster arrangements or other care scenarios. A comparison of jurisdictions with different forms of care would help too, to say whether changes would impact on the number of people coming forward to provide care in the different circumstances. The fact that we have a chronic shortage of foster parents in the UK doesn't suggest to me that moving further down that route is the way to go, but of course there may be a whole variety of reasons why fostering is in crisis.

I did have a friend who trained to be a foster parent, and she told me how painful it was to let go children she had nurtured and helped in a small way to heal into circumstances that were far from ideal. Last time I talked to her her family were thinking very hard about whether they could continue doing it (their alternative was to adopt instead).

but ellabella, would you still feel that wya if you were wrongly accused of abusing your adoptive child, that you obvioulsy love very much, and your child would be taken away and adopted out, and then a few years later you were found innocent...do you really feel you cold just let go and would not try to fight, etc...

Okay, ella, whatever you say [irrational emoticon].

I never once called for children to be whipped from their beds but have engaged in what for hte most part has been a rational discussion, trying to see both sides of the case, about what to do in the situation that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in the case.

But on you go. Carry on.