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.

The Appeal Court judges ruled that it would not be in the best interests of the children to be returned to the birth parents. The interests of the children override those of birth or adoptive parents. The judges are right. As I said in a previous post - try telling my 4 year old DD that she's being taking away from us.

ellabella, what are your thoughts on the birth parents maintaining some form of contact, short of the children being returned to them?

I believe the Court of Appeal also admitted that there might have been a miscarriage of justice for the children to have been removed from the birth parents.

I assume your dd knows/will know she was adopted. Wouldn't it give her comfort, when she is older, to know that her birth parents loved her and did not hurt her.

Don;t get me on the subject of SS. Really don't. Half-witted incompetents. Not regulated. Of course there should be something done.

Blueshoes - I think the decision re. contact should be entirely up to the adoptive parents as it is their responsibility to decide what is in their children's best interests.

Remember - we don't have all the facts in this case and don't know if there were any other reasons why the children were put forward for adoption. However, if I were an adoptive parent in this situation I would consider letterbox contact i.e. I would send a letter/photos to the birth parents twice a year. But I don't think physical contact would benefit the child.

EllaBella are you seriously suggesting you could keep your 4 year old DD knowing she has innocent birth parents who deserve to bring her up . I assume you've done something wonderful and given a child without that opportunity a home but in different circumstances I couldn't live with that knowledge.

Interesting take on the story here , of course it's in the Guardian, the social workers' voice!
To correct a misapprehension, nearly ALL adopted children these days have written contact with birth parents, and many have face to face contact. Those who don't have personal contact, it's due to dangers and it being too distressing for the child.

You don't have all the facts of the case. I would be sick if my (adopted) children were returned to their birth parents. They would be set up for a life of drugs, benefits, violence and unemployment (I know, because I know their background). Yes, I know they deserve to know about their birth family, and may go looking for them.

Adoptions break down because children are too damaged by their early years abuse and negelect to be parented by anybody!!!!

Sorrento - my dd was adopted from abroad and her birth parents abandoned her so we have no information about them. However, if her background were that of the children in this case I would, of course, tell her about it when she was old enough to understand. And she isn't at the moment.

Are you seriously suggesting that these kids should be removed from the parents they love and trust and be returned to virtual strangers?

Blithedance, the social worker's case was based on 2 things: the 2 year old's broken bones - which the Court of Appeal already conceded could have been due to scurvy based on medical evidence brought in 2007 by the parents.

Note, only the 2 year old had broken bones.

Then a 4 year old sister who had all her rotten teeth removed by a dentist who described her as frightened. Apparently her father did not take her to the dentist when asked to. Huh? My 4 year old would not go anywhere near a dentist. She would have been observed to be 'frightened' as well.

Is that all?? I thought that this social worker could come up with more evidence than that. No history of bruises, violence, neglect ... Sounds pretty flimsy to me.

What is more chilling is how convinced she is that she is right. And no concern at all whether the medical evidence of scurvy is founded, save that it was all by the book at the time. And the children are settled now, so let's just leave things as they are. Truly pathetic.

They aren't strangers they are the parents, very different from the situation your daughter comes from, somebody's Mummy and Daddy want them home and they've done nothing wrong.

It strikes me that there is a huge difference between children being given up for adoption and those who are forcibly removed. Does anyone have any stats on what the split is? My friends have just adopted a little girl and her mother gave her up for adoption because she doesn't feel she can give her what she needs in life. Obviously they will keep in touch with her. If your children have been taken away from you, I can't imagine how traumatic it must be to have letterbox contact. I think I'd rather not know

Hold on - I would say that not taking a child to the dentist, even if reluctant and frightened, when their teeth are rotten enough to be removed, IS neglect.

Sorry if I was unclear, I was saying that the Guardian tends to give a view sympathetic to the social care profession, not that a social worker wrote the article, Beatrix Campbell is a journalist.

I repeat, we don't have all the facts. My heart goes out to the parents if they really were innocent of neglect but it was obviously a close call, as it so often is.

Hold on - I would say that not taking a child to the dentist, even if reluctant and frightened, when their teeth are rotten enough to be removed, IS neglect.

Sorry if I was unclear, I was saying that the Guardian tends to give a view sympathetic to the social care profession, not that a social worker wrote the article, Beatrix Campbell is a journalist.

I repeat, we don't have all the facts. My heart goes out to the parents if they really were innocent of neglect but it was obviously a close call, as it so often is.

There are ways and means though aren't there ? I've had to hold my child down in the dentist chair to have teeth removed but I took her to the hospital to have a general (gas and air) no way would I have allowed an local with a needle she would have been in a right state.

too much repeating there

I imagine it would need to be a very slow and gradual process but yes, if these parents are innocent then of course their children should be returned to them.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that these children should be wrenched from their (doubtless) loving adoptive families.

As others have said, how would an adopted child feel, when legally able to trace birth parents, to know that he/she was kept from the birth parents in such a cruel and unusual way.

Funny how that phrase 'the best interests of the child' actually seems to mean 'the best interests of the authorities, the adoptive parents and everyone EXCEPT the natural parents and the rights of the child to have a relationship with them'.

The whole system is riddled with double-think. There is tons of evidence, decades of evidence, that adopted people DO want to know their birth families, DO want to know where they came from and often search for their birth families. But the courts and SS don't give a stuff.

If you have adopted a child who it turns out is the victim of a miscarriage of justice, you have a very clear moral duty to promote some form of contact between that child and their natural parents.

Anyone who says different is self-serving and clearly not able to put the interests of the child before themselves.

I find it so alarming that, like in the MSBP cases, there is a (il)logical leap from - medic has difficulty diagnosing symptoms to - parent (usually) mother is abusing child.

Sorrento - to the children their adoptive parents ARE mummy and daddy. And the Judges have NOT said that the birth parents are innocent of abusing the kids or have been victims of miscarriages of justice. They have said they MAY have been. New evidence found by the parents might have caused the injuries to the two year old child, or they might have been caused by abuse.

I do not believe that abusive parents would spend the years these two have fighting to prove their innocence and getting back their children, do you, really ?
And the adoptive parents, who I feel very sorry for will probably be the ones the children blame for this when they find out the truth, the social workers will be long gone by then.

What edam just said.

That ball of cheese talks a lot of sense, IME.

Again, if these parents are proved to be innocent, the consequences for the adoptive parents are quite likely to be grim -if/when these children meet their innocent and heartbroken birth parents in years to come.

As the sister of an adopted child, can I just repeat what ellabella just said: that to the child the adopted parents would BE Mummy and Daddy. To the child, being taken from adoptive parents would be just as traumatic as for a child of the same age to be taken from its biological parents.

Also, that no adoptive parent in their right mind would actually have told a 3yo that their birth parents had hurt them- so there would be no question of setting their mind at rest by telling them that they hadn't hurt them. You just do not discuss these things with a small child.

I would think a solution that promotes contact would be the best thing. But to suddenly return the child- you could screw that child up for life.

I agree that a sudden return would be traumatic.