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.

That is a salient point, nooka, getting input from adults who were adopted as children from foster care and ask how they feel about it now and how they felt about it then could provide vital input into determining what really is in the best interests of the children.

There have been other adoptive parents on another thread who did indeed recognise the role of the birth parents in their childrens' lives as those children grew.

There has been one poster on here who shared her own experiences as an adoptee.

agree with expat, that's an excellent point nooka. IIRC the right to trace your biological parents was fought for by adopted people - not something the state came up with. Ditto for people conceived by AI IIRC.

We can't rely on the state to do the right thing, every time, for everyone. It is run by fallible human beings. And has an inevitable tendency to privilege the views of those in authority, rather than ordinary people - in this case, parents of whatever type and children.

If the adoptions of these children are overturned it will set a very dangerous precedent indeed. In fact, you might as well just do away with adoption altogether.

As an aside though, are the experts for the defence in this case arguing that the several undisputed fractures of the long bones of the child in question were caused by scurvy, or merely that the child had scurvy and was therefore more vulnerable? Because I think it's a stretch to argue that scurvy can cause fractures of the long bones, and a bet for every expert that calls scurvy in this case there's five that don't.

why wouldn't scurvy cause fractures in the long bones, if one of the symstoms is bone disease?

I know that bruising is a symptom. I'm not sure about fractures.

hm...bone disease tend to make fractures more likely, i.e in cases of osteoporosis or brittle bone diseases just mild knocks that can happen completely naturally in day to day life, i.e. no vicious force applied, can lead to fractures.

So, the logic, to me is, that if scurvy can cause some kind of bone disease, than it can mean that a child with scurvy can attain injuries without being abused.

Tbh, when you said that you doubt that one could find experts backing up the theory of scurvy being the cause....well...I kinda thought you might know a fair bit about scurvy, which is why I asked...
after asking I actually googled it and it doesn't seem unlikely at all!

I disagree that just because there are exceptions to the finality of adoptions, we should do away with the adoptions altogether. If you read the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Webster's case, there are already exceptions - under current law, adoptions can be overturned if the parents did not properly consent to the adoption or if their consent was obtained by fraud. It is a small step to extend these exceptions to the Webster's situation where their consent was wrongfully dispensed with because of a miscarriage of justice.

bobbysmum, you are right that the Court of Appeal did not conclusively decide that scurvy caused the fractures. As the Court of Appeal explained, that is not their role. What the court effectively decided was that they were bound by legal precedent based on the finality of adoptions such that they were powerless to even order a re-trial so that the Websters' could produce fresh medical evidence to prove that the fractures were due to scurvy.

The Websters were saying they have new medical evidence to prove it. But the court said that they were not even allowed to prove it because adoptions are final, even though it was likely that if there was a re-trial, the Websters are likely to succeed in proving it.

In this case, I disagree that for every 1 expert, there are 4 experts who will say the opposite. The court recognised that scurvy was so rare nowadays that the original medical professionals missed it. In fact, the consultant radiologists and paediatricians who in the original trial insisted that the bones did not show scurvy subsequently changed their tune in the light of the new medical evidence produced by the Websters.

I know nothing about scurvy. I do know that osteoporosis is frequently used as a defence in cases of alleged non-accidental injury, and a quick look at Google would seem to confirm that scurvy is being cited in these cases now also.

I think this is a complex case and not one that can be dismissed as based on questionable science, as per Shaken Baby Syndrome. Perhaps the kid did have scurvy - his diet was appalling. But frankly, what sort of parent allows their child to get scurvy in this day and age?

parents that trusted their GP blindly....I suppose...parents that tried to do it right, but sadly got it very very wrong...

bobbysmum: "But frankly, what sort of parent allows their child to get scurvy in this day and age?"

Before you go on trying to blindly cast blame on the Websters, could I suggest you read the judgment of the Court of Appeal. You will find that the child had a serious eating disorder for which the parents had consulted their GP and HV. Despite being 2 year's old, he has never eaten solid food. 9 months' prior to the fractures, the parents were wrongly advised by their doctor to switch his diet from formula soya milk for infants to normal adult soy milk.

His parents did not let him get scurvy. The doctors could not even diagnose it FGS.

I think even if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt a causal link between the child's injuries and scurvy in this case, you could still not prove that these people were suitable to parent these children at the time this case was heard.

I bet there were a hundred other factors in the case.

And I'm not saying they might not be suitable now. They've obviously got some support behind them, been on parenting courses, etc.

But imagine this scenario. A baby is taken away from a drug addict mother and adopted. Few years down the line, the mother's clean, wants the kid back. She's a different person now - she's married, has emotional and financial stability. And she can prove that she didn't batter her baby, her boyfriend did. She's the biological mother, the kid's HERS and why shouldn't she get her back?

You overturn the adoption laws in this country and adoption will become meaningless.

bobbysmum...but that isn't the same at all?
That drug addict mum would ahve been proven to have taken drugs at the time...

the Websters were accused of somehting they didn't do and because of this they ahd their Kids taken away...

Fairlady is right. Without the fractures, there was not enough evidence of neglect to justify removing the fractures. If there was, the Court of Appeal would not have gone on to consider the cause of the fractures as pivotal.

bobbysmum, it sounds like you have a deep need to convince yourself that the Websters deserved to have their 3 children taken away from them. A miscarriage of justice that cannot be rectified even in part is utterly irreconciliable with a civilised society. That does not mean they do not happen.

removing the children

I know that miscarriages of justice can occur and in instances of alleged shaken baby syndrome where retinal bleeding HAD to mean abuse, I think there have hundreds of people wrongfully convicted.

But I am not convinced that this case is as black and white as you are making out. Yes, the doctor advised the parents to give the child the wrong type of milk, but at 2 years old milk should not have formed the main part of his diet. The parents were ultimately responsible for making sure that the child was fed properly. They weren't able to do that, and who knows what else they weren't doing right?

I read in a newspaper interview a couple of years ago that the parents have a low IQ. This shouldn't be a barrier to successful parenting with appropriate support (which they are obviously receiving now). But the scurvy alone (if it was scurvy) is evidence to suggest that the child (children) was not being parented properly.

The trouble is that this is a Solomon's child situation. If the children were restored or even if their adoptive parents were forced into contact then I imagine that the adoptive parents would have a very good case to make for breach of the Right to Family Life. Adoptive families would live in fear of their children being taken away, and far fewer would come forwards in the first pace.

Would you take on a child, quite possibly with many issues, who was going to require a huge amount of love and support with the fear in the back of your mind that this was not forever? How could you believe that the child was truly yours? If you felt that their early childhood had already put them at a huge disadvantage, could you hand them back especially if you believed that they were starting to overcome those disadvantages?

and yes Bobbysmum I do think it is extraordinary that anyone could go on feeding a two year old milk alone, see that their growth was not at all normal, and apparently do very little about it. I understand that the doctor's notes are too scanty to corroborate this story, and no one seems to have questioned the midwife (or it's not recorded anyway) who thought they were great parents as to why no onwards referral was made. Either the parents never came back after initial advice was offered, or there is some professional misconduct issue. There are good reasons why the scurvy diagnosis was missed. Diseases of malnutrition should not happen in the UK.

nooka, I understand the concern about reluctance to invest in the upbringing of a troubled child only to have at the back of your mind the fear that you will have to hand that child back. It is a public policy reason to encourage adoptions that they are made final in the UK.

Well, not exactly ...

Adoptions in UK are said to be final. Actually they are not - not absolutely anyway. The law already allows adoptions to be overturned when the parents did not properly consent to the adoption (because they were not properly served with notice of the adoption proceedings) or if the consent was obtained by fraud.

So there are already exceptions based on natural justice why adoptions can be overturned in the UK. I don't see why miscarriage of justice, in the very rare instances it could happen, should not also fall within the existing exceptions.

I don't buy the floodgates argument.

Many people on this thread are arguing that there has NOT been a miscarriage of justice in the Websters' case and that could very well be.

But I won't rest until I know that IF and WHEN a miscarriage of justice does happen (in the very rare instances that it does), that there is some way of restoring or ordering contact between the children and their birth parents.

nooka, both the birth parents and the adoptive parents have a right to family life. So they are quits in that sense.

But there should also be a public policy reason why the adoptive parents, who only got the opportunity to establish their family life out of a miscarriage of justice, would very very sadly have to stand down their rights. No one should be allowed to profit from a miscarriage of justice (even unknowingly as I am sure adoptive parents would fall within).

I am not saying that the children should be returned. But there must be some way to force contact at the very least. I am talking about the very rare instances of miscarriages of justice.

bobbysmum, this case is by no means black and white. All I am asking is for the Websters to be given a retrial so that they can prove they were victims of a miscarriage of justice. They are not even allowed this dignity at present moment.

I have no intention of trying them by media or on this thread.

I had a case today where a mother has clearly changed, but the authorities are still moving heaven and earth to remove her baby and have him adopted.

The alternative would be to try to put some effort into supporting her.

Also today I did a 2 hour interview which should go out on satellite later this week looking at these issues.

The case today is a complex case of judgment. The issue I have with Norfolk on the Websters Case was pressurising the Health Visitor to change her mind. That was wrong and drove the wrongness.

There are cases, however, when what the social workerws, cafcass and family courts are doing is just evil. The one on the other thread where there is a 6 year old happily living with his mother in Ireland and going to school. Then they want to take him off his mother and put him in foster care in Devon. That is because they want to win not because they want to do what is best for the child. That is just dreadful.

Do you believe any children should be removed?
It's just that those of us who work on the coal face come into contact with parents who frankly ought not to be in charge of themselves let alone children.
I sense that you do not accept that.

bobbiesmum, to me the discussion on this thread is not just purely about the websters case...for me it is more about the way miscarraiges of justice are generally dealt with, tbh!

Litchick....I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that there is never a reason to remove children....of course there are many children that are better of away from their parents.

Do you believe any children should be removed?
Yes

We had a meeting about these issues in the House of Commons on Wednesday. A video recording was kept, the sound is appalling, but can be understood in a quiet room. There are nine videos that can be found via here:
johnhemming.blogspot.com/2009/02/agony-aunts-and-journalists-bad-video.html