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.

StudentMadwife on Sat 14-Feb-09 22:20:18
"I think this is sad but something that none of us can possibly comment on because none of us know the facts. children are seldom taken from there parents for no reason and I think there are things that the professionals and the parents know that we as general public dont."

Seldom does not equal never. Or are you saying there is no such thing as a miscarriage of justice?

Have just read the transcript and realised that this was the same year in which I too took a small child suffering from a painful ankle to A&E... .

But we walked free after a few very traumatic days, thanks to the fact that we already had an appointment with another consultant who could give a second opinion.

I need to stop reading now, don't I?

Yes, I think that would probably be a good idea, Cory. So glad you managed to see the back of crappy God-complex consultant.

Well fortunately for the children the law doesn't agree with you.

'Well fortunately for the children the law doesn't agree with you.'

And unfortunately for the adults those children will become the law doesn't agree with you.

I really and truly don't understand how a person can know the truth behind an adoption like this and sleep at night and look at that child and lie, because every day they keep the truth from that child, no matter what 'it's in the child's best interest' mask they hide behind, it's a lie, and everyone knows it, including that child who will one day find out no matter what other lies the other family constructs to hide the truth.

And I'm not talking about adoptions in which the parent voluntarily gave the child up or couldn't cope, I'm talking about this particular situation and these kids in particular.

Yes, it's so fortunate for them that their entire lives were built on lies.

I'd feel really good about that, as an adult. So forgiving of the people who brought me up hiding the truth from me out of their own interests, all the while pretending those interests were mine.

Oh, hell, hope those kids don't turn out as ballsy as I am.

expat: Who has said that the children will be lied to? Who has said they won't be told the truth?

Kerry: it's in the children's best interests not to be removed from the parents they regard as mummy and daddy. They haven't lived with their birth parents for over five years.

The children were taken into care at end of 2003. They were placed with their adoptive families in the summer of 2005. That info is from the judgment not a newspaper article.

Ella

seems to me you are letting your own adoption experiences cloud the real issue here

no one thinks its in the children's best interests to whip them from their beds and send them back to their natural parents

but as the parents did nothing wrong they should not be deprived of some sort of a relationship with their children

all parties involved need to find a workable compromise in the best interests of the children

The only way to overturn this case would be for a change of law at the parliamentary level. Once an adoption order is made the children are held to be a part of their new family as if they were born to them. For that to change would be a fundamental change to adoption. These children have been with their new families for three years. Prior to that they were in specialist foster care for two years, whilst the case was being drawn up. This was not a quick decision the children were removed in Nov 2003 and adopted in Dec 2005, and the view of the Appeal Judge was that the time to challenge the decision was many years ago. There were four expert medical advisors, and they all gave the same opinion, so I really don't think that it was a shaky case. It may well have been a wrong decision, and it is clearly awful for the poor parent, but this is more a case of a very unusual medical condition rather than the failings of SS, the courts or the medical profession. Reading the judges statement this little boy had six major fractures (both arms, both legs and a rib), and the nature of the fractures was very highly associated with abuse (very unlikely to have been cased by normal accidents). Scurvy is very very unusual in the UK. The specialist who ultimately diagnosed it said that it was not at all surprising that it hadn't been picked up as a possibility.

The children have now spent more time in their adoptive families than their birth family. The eldest was only three when removed. It is not unreasonable to consider that they believe their adopted parents are their parents. I think all we can hope is that they are happy and settled there.

So, seriously, Stewie and nooka, if this happened to you and it were your children, you'd be content to just let the matter lie now?

I don't see how it's in the best interest of these children to have no relationship with their birth parents.

And the family tried for years to get SS to listen to them regarding their family history of broken bones. SS failed to do this.

Cory - you gave a statement from the judgement to say that the parents agrees to have the children adopted:

"Judge Barham made care orders in relation to all three children. He also freed the children for adoption and in that respect dispensed with the consent of the parents."

I'm not a lawyer but to me that reads that the judge decided he did not need the consent of the parents. Can anyone say whether that's right?

Either way it seems that the parents would have had difficulty going against what SS and their lawyers wanted...

The other viewpoints boggle me.

Isn't it always the case that when things go badly wrong all the agencies blame each other. It seems to be the medical people who are being blamed here, and that everyone else acted excellently.

The fact is though, that two parents have had all their children removed from them and given permanently to someone else when they had done nothing wrong. How anyone can defend this action is amazing.

While appeals and court proceedings are in place, why not hold off any adoption? it just deosn't make sense. This is not the first time and it will not be the last. Innocent people are effectively having their children stolen. it's like something out of a different age or time - unbelievable that it's going on in this country in this day and age.

And I still maintain that is this had happened to me, I would want my DD back, damn right I would.

I'm not defending it, tumtum, I think the whole thing is shocking. And that adoption happened far too quickly. And as somebody who has lived in fear on very similar grounds, I'm hardly going to shrug my shoulders and go 'oh well'. Of course I would want my child back.

I am also not saying the SS come out well out of this; just that the initital messing up was by medicals- yet, people always start shouting about the social services when something goes wrong, ignoring the fact that other people can mess up to. The ss were told on what must have seemed like very good medical evidence that this child had had his bones broken. What would you have done in their place- let the child stay in the family?

Where they went wrong was in pushing the adoption- but surely not in removing the child?

The posters who think the judgment should not be rescinded (not sure I am one of them btw) are not defending the judgment itself. There are two reasons for not rescinding : the first is that you would have to change the adoption law which would risk messing up the whole concept of adoption to the detriment of other children later on. The second is that these children are thought to have bonded with their adopted parents and have been told that these are their parents for life and will always be there

What they are saying is essentially: what happened was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I am not saying that the law shouldn't be changed, but I can understand why the judge can't simply go against the law.

Cory it was only the first part that was to do with you - i just interpreted that statement from the judge differently to you and think it would be interesting if anyone knows for sure if which way it means as it makes quite a difference.

Of course children shouldn't be left in situations deemed dangerous - I have never said that - but neither should they be adopted while appeals and actions are still in progress by the parents for the return of their children.

There was another thread on here about one of these cases which had been taken up by an MP (I think) and he was posting too - these things do happen and not infrequently.

That man was campaigning to have the family courts opened up as while the parents can't talk about any of it they have very little recourse and can't garner support/get publicity even when what the court has done is clearly wrong.

I can't actually see that they have been proven innocent.

Not to mention long term therapy for the parents...

If I were in their boat I think my mental health would be up the spout.

If a child was kidnapped and was identified some years later, would there be any doubt about giving him back to his parents?

Good point cote.

Ditto when they have these awful babies switched in hospital cases - a lot of the time they get switched back I think...

That is a good point, if Madeleine turns up tomorrow would it not be in her interests to keep her with her kidnappers under the same arguments used here, after all what does she care about DNA they'd be Mummy and Daddy to her

I wonder if the children have new siblings that will also be fucked up in the whole thing.

I've followed this case for years, living in the area and having a mil whos involved in family courts its something thats come up a few times.

I have to say I've been terrified everytime I've watched anything to do with it as you get that feeling of hopeless dread like you get in those nightmares where you can't get anyone to listen to you.