Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

terribly sad story about wrongful adoption where the birth parents have been proved innocent

503 replies

edam · 12/02/2009 18:14

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.

OP posts:
LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 18:46

There is no way to do this using the law or social services as the children are not legally theirs.

Hopefully their new adoptive parents will consider this.

BonsoirAnna · 12/02/2009 18:47

This is terribly wrong. There ought to be a way of reversing adoption in this type of case. The lives of both those parents and those children are going to be destroyed by this; and God alone knows how the adoptive parents can continue to bring up the children knowing this.

FAQinglovely · 12/02/2009 18:47

is there a policy in such cases of SS getting a 2nd medical opinion before taking action? Or is it just taken on the opinion first given to them?

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 18:48

Because they have loved them as theirs for more than 3 years. That's a long time.

BonsoirAnna · 12/02/2009 18:50

If they really, truly love those children selflessly and want their best interests surely they will see in the end that it is just not right to carry on?

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 18:50

I don't think it should be reversed. These children now think their new parents are theirs - one of them was just 2 when adopted. It's not in the interests of the children for a sudden reversal though I wish there was a way to move them to it gradually over a very long period of time. Perhaps shared care?

The adopted parents will be in agony too

ilovemydogandMrObama · 12/02/2009 18:50

As this is really an exceptional case, couldn't the adoptive parents allow some sort of contact, with a view to getting to know the birth parents again?

BonsoirAnna · 12/02/2009 18:52

I don't know how anyone could adopt a child (or keep an adopted child) knowing that his/her parents were fit parents and wanted to bring up their biological children themselves.

One thing to keep an adopted unwanted child or a child of unfit parents, quite another to keep a child whose biological parents were crying out for him/her.

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 18:55

Yes they could but I understand if they chose not to as they would have thought the child was theirs after all this time. It's much different than fostering (which I do).

I know dd is not mine. I invest time in her and I love her as much as I can. She is someone else's daughter who she has some contact with. Adoption is different.

I hope Kew comes on here as her love for her children is different than my love for my foster daughter. I think she could put it better.

wahwah · 12/02/2009 18:56

Edam-To be fair though, the investigation was thorough in that it was examined in court and the parents representatives had the opportunity to question the medical expert witnesses and even request their own. What else can SS do in this arena?

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 18:57

At some point though they become yours. I'm quite sure after all this time it would have happened.

cory · 12/02/2009 19:12

It is one of those ghastly situations where you don't see how things can be made 100% right. The adoptive parents will have bonded with the child (trying to imagine how I would have felt if someone had turned up after 2 years and taken my adopted brother away and said 'no, it was a mistake, you can't have him'); on the other hand, the birth parents will never get over their loss.

RaspberryBlower · 12/02/2009 19:19

Does anyone know why the child might have had such severe vitamin and mineral deficiencies? A 'feeding disorder' is very vague but suggests to me that the child wasn't eating for some reason. Also, how did it get to the stage of the child developing scurvy?

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 19:20

They fed it soya milk and it suffered scurvy.

They said they fed it soya milk under medical instruction.

RaspberryBlower · 12/02/2009 19:26

I thought scurvy was vitamin c deficiency. Am confused now.

RaspberryBlower · 12/02/2009 19:28

Sorry, am being thick - was it a young baby?

CrushWithEyeliner · 12/02/2009 19:29

I remember this case - but didn't the documentary 2 yrs ago suggest strongly a genetic brittle bone condition? I am confused now.

Is this the family that went on to have a son in Ireland who was again taken away immediately?

NinkySWALK · 12/02/2009 19:32

I think the G.P told the Websters to stop buying soya formula and get ordinary soya milk from the supermarket, which isn't as heavily fortified with vitamins IIRC. The toddler wasn't eating well and not getting them from his solid food.

Most MNers would probably recognise that this wasn't the right thing to do, or would have questioned it repeatedly, but some people trust doctors implicitly and are not that knowledgable about infant nutrition. Certainly some doctors aren't! Heartbreaking

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 12/02/2009 19:37

It is, he suffered vitamin c defficiency from the soya milk and then developed bone problems

TheCrackFox · 12/02/2009 19:43

They were on This Morning today and what I find especially sad is that the children have been split up. The eldest 2 are still together but the baby was adopted separately. I don't know why, but I found this the saddest bit.

They said on the TV today that they have met one set of adoptive parents and they were lovely. The other set refused to meet up. The not knowing who and where they are would kill me.

I think it is such an awful situation for the DCs, natural parents and adoptive parents.

Original poster
edam · 12/02/2009 20:28

Oh, splitting the children up makes it even more poignant.

Bloody GP - one doc gives shit advice that harms your child, another doc comes along and calls you a child abuser for following that advice. And even when it's all untangled, the courts say tough shit.

If I were them, I'd be hard put to trust anyone in any position of authority ever again.

OP posts:
Sorrento · 12/02/2009 20:59

After watching the Magdalene Laundries last night, heart breaking as this absolutely is, it was interesting that all the children traced their birth mothers and had another 40/50 years with their birth and adoptive parents, so whilst this is horrific it's not the end of the road, they will be reunited.

blueshoes · 12/02/2009 21:44

FAQ, you asked: "is there a policy in such cases of SS getting a 2nd medical opinion before taking action? Or is it just taken on the opinion first given to them?"

The truly frightening thing is that once SS decides that they will remove a child from a family, the council has to apply to a court. In those family court proceedings, only one expert is allowed. In theory, the parents and SS have to agree to this expert. In practice, SS would supposedly appoint an independent expert but this would be a 'tame' expert who would toe the council party line just to ensure they continue to get a future flow of cases from the council.

Therefore, even if a prudent SS were to get a second medical opinion, once SS decides rightly or wrongly the balance leans toward removal, SS can pretty much appoint any expert they like and the judge (who is not medically trained) has no choice but to accept that expert's opinion.

Coupled with the secrecy of family courts means that even if the family wanted, they could not go to The Sun and shout out how they have been stitched up. It could be that lots of children get unfairly removed but we would never hear about it for this reason.

Stay well clear of SS. There are currently not enough checks and balances.

worley · 12/02/2009 22:00

CrushWithEyeliner - this was the family with brittle bone disease, they have a family history of it, even in their extended family.(sisters/brothers family etc) this family live with in my news region so it have been on our local new a lot over the past few years.

thingscanonlygetbetter · 12/02/2009 22:47

Really I don't know how some people can say that the adoptive parents would think of these children as theirs now and would be in 'agony' if they were returned to their birth parents. That would be incredibly selfish IMHO!

If they had any decency they would return them as a gradual process. The children may experience some upheaval but as the youngest would be about 5, I'm sure there would be a way for them to understand and the older ones would have some memories of their parents anyway. That would be far less damaging than them learning later that their parents wanted them but the adoptive ones would not give them back. If I was that child I would be extremely angry especially knowing that I had been separated from my siblings!!

Apparently adoptions can be reversed in extreme circumstances - can't really think of anything more extreme really, can anyone else??