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.

Hmmm that's not strictly true though is it, I have had phone calls asking why I've missed vacinations (when the child was ill), miss school for a week, the phone rings even if you've informed the school already. We're all monitored, I just would have thought that adoption cases would still require some contact to see how it's all working out.

No, you aren't 'monitored' in the way that foster carers are, or the way that parents of children with child protection plans are. Adoptive parents get the same level of involvement from authorities that we all do - any more and they would be discriminated against as parents, which would be wrong, don't you agree?

kat - Nobody said "adoptive parents = kidnappers" and getting all explosive about something that has never been said is intellectually dishonest. (Actually, it is a Logical Fallacy called "Straw Man")

If you read the last two pages or so, you will have a better understanding of what is actually being said.

So the interests of the parents, who have conceived, carried, borne, raised and loved the children are absolutely meaningless. And adoption should be pursued as quickly as possible even in cases where the birth parents are contesting decisions etc.

This is frankly terrifying.

kat - the 'kidnap' analogy is not disparaging adoptive parents, it's exploring why the trauma of being parted from primary carers is considered OK in some circumstances but not in others.

FWIW my mother was adopted (in the olden days when it was routine for illegitimate babies) and had a wonderful childhood with adoring parents.

I just wish we had been able to trace her birth mother to let her know that it all worked out. Sadly our attempts were in vain and the lady in question is, in all likelihood, not with us any more.

tumtumtetum - they usually try and place children with adoptive parents within 2 years as far as I know because foster care isn't intended to be long term. I think this is a hideous situation but once the adoption decision has been made (which it has been in this case), it cannot be reversed. These children weren't adopted recently incidentally - the orders were made in 2005. So they've been settled for at least 3 years.

Does anyone take my point about reversing this setting a dodgy legal precedent or am I a lone voice?

I don't think you can crucify three children and their parents just to avoid setting a precedent. And adoptions have been overturned in some extreme circumstances so it wouldn't be the first time.

I still don't understand why SS cannot work to promote some form of contact between the children and their biological parents. OK, the adoptive parents are legally and in practice the parents now but if they are indeed putting the best interests of the children before themselves, they could hardly refuse, could they?

Sorrento what Stewie said Sun 15-Feb-09 16:05:11
now off to read all the new posts.

edam - the simple fact is that in this case, they have already suffered trauma in being separated from birth parents - so to do it again would be more than they could cope with, and very cruel.

I can't work out what to think as I can see all sides. I just feel sorry for everyone involved.

Wanted to add my congratulations to them though as she is currently pregnant again (if shes reading)

Edam - social services have no jurisdiction over the adoptive parents.

No, I know they don't, but they could at least ask.

I think everyone should read the appeal judge's findings on this case. It gives a really good history of the case and of the case law around overturning adoptions. It is also worth noting that in this particular case there was a gap of two years between the children being removed and them being adopted. The judge noted that the parents had not contested the care order (they may well have felt that it would be impossible to do so as everyone thought that they had inflicted terrible injuries on their small child) and that the court actually has very very limited power to set aside the adoption order without changes to the law which would probably have a huge impact on adoption (fundamentally changing the status of adopted children).

I think it is interesting that the only reason that the scurvy issue was revisited was because of the issues around whether or not the last child could safely stay with the parents. So this appeal was not in the timescales of the original case, but several years later. The issue here I think is more to do with ensuring that there is access to the right expertise - actually the judge (and the specialists) made it very clear that there was no blame to the original medics. The issue is more why was a nutritionist not asked for an opinion by the parents lawyers. There is the suggestion that the brittle bone aspect was a red herring in this case and distracted from the more likely problem.

I still think it is an incredibly sad case, and if something similar happened to me of course I would fight with all my might, but as the law stands in similar circumstances I would lose. For those who think it should change then the route to redress would come in lobbying parliament.

My only wonder is why there wasn't a criminal case? I wonder if it was because both parents denied any harm and they (at that pint) could not have been charged together (the law has changed now). I am not saying that they were culpable btw, just that a different legal process might have brought about the new evidence earlier.

I'm not saying the rules on adoption should be changed.

I am saying that in cases where the birth parents are still in the process of contesting findings the adoption process should be put on hold so when (and it is when) birth parents are exonerated they can have their children back.

I have to say if anyone took DD from me I don't like to think what i would do, but I suppose that means I am short sighted and selfish.

If DD for some reason comes to the attention of the authorities and is removed even though I have done nothing wrong I should sign the adoption papers and smile?

Another case that has what seems to be quite a few similarities here
They must be reading cases like this one and thinking we havent got a hope in hell

You wouldn't be asked to sign any papers, tumtum. That's the tragedy - that the state can seize children and force them to be adopted without the parents' consent.

I am fairly sure one set of adoptive parents have agreed to some contact. I really don't think we can judge their actions without knowing the circumstances though. I would suspect like most parents they are acting in what they perceive to be their children's best interests. It may be that they are acting on advice that it would be traumatic to have contact, or that it would be better when the children are older (bearing in mind the older children at least may have attachment issues). Or it could be that they are scared that if they let any information slip the birth parents might snatch the children. All sorts of things could be going on, and I think at least from the perspective of the children things will be far from black and white.

I am loathed to say it but it does sound as though the social workers and judges with the information available to them at the time did the right thing.
However now information has come to light to change that opinion, we have one of two choices, either the adoption laws are changed and can be reversed or else children when taken from their parents for whatever reason should not be put up for adoption at all.
Personally I feel the first option is better on the basis that hopefully they so rarely get it wrong it should affect a tiny minority.

yes edam I know. I was making a point about how ridiculous this is.

tumtum at the time of the adoption there was no legal contest from the parents.

tumtum - they don't hold off because no one knows that new medical evidence will turn up, and it usually doesn't. And because the children need a permanent home.

The adoption here wasn't particularly quick. And if you read the judgment, even the parents (who have all the facts available to them, unlike us) felt for 12 months after the new evidence came to light that the adoptions shouldn't be disturbed.

sorrento how do you know they rarely get it wrong? Cases rarely make it to the press because the courts are closed.

I will try and find the thread on here by the MP bloke who campaigns for all this...

No I don't but I would imagine on a law of averages there must be more cases where the child is protected than not, or at least I bloody hope so.

But in cases where children are abused or neglected would you want to hold their lives fortune against whether or not parents would sign papers (which they probably wouldn't unless under some sort of pressure). That would mean those children would never have another chance at a family again. The system has to be focused on the needs of the child. I think a better reform would be to ensure that the resources are there to better ensure the right decision is taken. I'm not sure it would have helped in this case though, because however well we try and structure any system there will always be flaws. The problem is that adoption has too much in common with a death sentence in terms of finality. However I'm not sure what alternative there is given that we know spending long periods in foster care (even the best) is not good for small children, and assuming that in most (but obviously not all) cases remaining with parents has a high potential of danger to the child.

You don't sign adoption papers though tumtetum. If your child was removed due to risk of abuse or neglect the court may dispense with your consent. You would contest the case with all the support you could find, and appeal immediately if it went against you. This medical case of scurvy is so rare it is one in a million.

What about situations where the children are rightly removed from neglectful/abusive homes, but later on the family get it together and become perfect parents to subsequent children? Should they be able to say, hey, we can have the kids back now?