Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Oldham mum losing 2 year old to adoption unfairly

117 replies

boysown · 18/03/2010 11:13

www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/38254/news-full#comments

Mum loses out in fight for her son
Reporter: COURT REPORTER
Date online: 16/03/2010

A 25-year-old Oldham mum was told yesterday that her efforts to change her life had come too late to ever have a chance of getting her two-year-old son back.

The woman, who can?t be named to protect the child?s identity, made an emotional plea to a top family judge.

She sobbed as she told Lord Justice Ward that she had not had a fair hearing last October, when an order taking her son into care and placing him for adoption was made.

The mother said that she had been in a psychiatric hospital prior to that court hearing, at Oldham?s Family Court, and had not been in the right frame of mind to make any decisions. But Lord Justice Ward, sitting at London?s Civil Appeal Court, said the case in favour of adoption was ?overwhelming? and the correct way to proceed.

He told the woman she had made her submissions to him ?passionately, eloquently and heartbreakingly,? but that the positive steps she had taken towards changing her ?chaotic? life had come too late.

Addressing her concerns about her state of mind at the hearing, he said: ?If she was unwell, a guardian would have been appointed for her, but her disability was never so grave as to reduce her to that state.?

He said the mother had tried to adjourn proceedings at the Oldham Family Court so that an assessment of her mental health could be carried out, but this had been refused.

A judge at Manchester County Court also refused her permission in January, this year.

Lord Justice Ward said those decisions were correct, and that both court hearings had been conducted in a ?careful and sympathetic? manner.

Describing the case as ?distressing?, the judge said: ?If I were to give permission to appeal for every litigant I feel desperately sorry for, I would be granting permission to everyone.

?The sadness for me is that this mother has demonstrated she is a loving mother and does have an ability to look after her child.

?She had lived a chaotic lifestyle, mainly due to the pernicious influence of the man who inflicted violence on her, and she has made great steps towards improving her position.

?The tragedy is that all of that has come too late for this little boy to be returned to her.

?If sympathy was the Litmus test for granting permission, I would give it.?

He refused the sobbing mother permission to appeal and told her he was ?very sorry? as he left the court.

Have Your Say

OP posts:
MathsMadMummy · 18/03/2010 11:16

Sad Sad Sad

SusieCarmichael · 18/03/2010 11:21

?The sadness for me is that this mother has demonstrated she is a loving mother and does have an ability to look after her child.

so give him back!!

luckyblackcat · 18/03/2010 11:24

OK, flame me, I'm ready. I'm also very sorry that she has had her son put up for adoption against her wishes.

BUT she was in a relationship with a violent man, her child was living with them in her 'chaotic' lifestyle.

She should have been given support and time to change this situation, we do not know that back story. Was she given a chance to pull her life around? Was she given many, many chances to get it together - we will never know.

Imvho a childs needs, wants and safety (including emotional & physical wellbeing) should be the priority.

wannaBe · 18/03/2010 11:28

what is the back story?

Why was the child taken into care? And how long ago?

How long did this woman have to turn her life around?

yellowcircle · 18/03/2010 11:29

What a sick society we live it. It should be a total last resort to take a child away and this woman "does have an ability to look after her child" so it shouldn't happen to her. Yes the child is the priority, but I think it would be in his best interests to stay with his mum who loves him . Although the child is the top priority, I don't think that his mother is some sort of rubbish to be tossed on the scrap heap - she has feelings too. Do people lose their importance when they reach 18?

luckyblackcat · 18/03/2010 11:33

'an' ability is different to 'the' ability.

My 10 yr old DD has 'an' ability to look after her 5 yr old DB in as much as she can make him basic food and drinks, help him dress, read to him and turn the TV on.

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 18/03/2010 14:15

FFS
the woman was unable to protect her child. The decisions taken at the time that the child was at risk were the right ones. The child was removed for its own protection and placed for adoption. The woman later made the changes she was unable or unwilling to make at the time.

The child is now adopted or close to being. Returning him at that stage is not the right thing to do. The woman had the chance to change her life at the time. This is not a miscarriage of justice, this is a case of a woman changing her life too late.

wahwah · 18/03/2010 15:50

Very sad that it's come too late for her child, but agree with Kat.

ajandjjmum · 18/03/2010 16:00

Terribly sad. But what would our reaction been if the headlines read 'child in known abusive family environment found dead'.

mobaldy2005 · 18/03/2010 16:35

Can I just clarify a few issues here.

  1. the child was never present when she was battered on many occasions close to death.
  1. the Police and domestic violence workers pleaded with the Social Services to move mother and they refused, if mother was removed she would loose all contact.
  1. the Chaotic life style was down on paper because of all the placements she lived in, moved from refuge to refuge.
  1. the Social Services even showed the violent ex details of the mothers complaints to the police, he found her and again was battered
  1. the police on several occasions said to mother that the EX would not get bail, every time he went to court sadly he did.
  1. the mother has a young daughter as well who she has regular weekly over night contact with, the courts and SS saw no issues with this.

The whole case occured because of the legal representations she had, it was the sols who told mother not to contest any flawed evidence.

zookeeper · 18/03/2010 16:40

I'm with the court on this one I'm afraid.

Lulumaam · 18/03/2010 16:48

not enough info in that article to comment, although the judge seemed very sympathetic but that is not enough of a reason

would like more info before commenting

serinBrightside · 18/03/2010 22:09

How sad for all concerned.

RuthBlackett · 18/03/2010 22:30

I don't think I understand which bit is unfair...

johnhemming · 18/03/2010 22:43

Read Mobaldy's comments.

hester · 18/03/2010 22:46

I don't feel I've got enough information here to know whether this child should have been taken into care, but I was very struck by SusieCarmichael's comment: "So give him back". We're in danger of losing the issue of time here: whether the original decision to take a child into care was right or wrong, the longer that child is away from the birth parents, the harder it is for that child to go back. There comes a point where it would be too damaging to disrupt the child again, however unfair that might be for the birth mother. Of course, once a child is adopted they can't be given back: adoption is final, and the child now has new parents.

It all sounds very

Goblinchild · 18/03/2010 22:50

The child gets to live, and to be with people who love him. Rather than with a woman who couldn't protect herself, or keep him safe.
No brainer for me. The child comes first, whether she loves him or not. I used to work in the rough end of that town, there are a thousand other cases that ended much worse for the child and the mother.

RuthBlackett · 18/03/2010 22:52

There's a rough end?

Goblinchild · 18/03/2010 22:55

All the other teachers lived in Saddleworth.

MrsPixie · 18/03/2010 22:59

I think they did the right thing. Sounds like the little boy had an awful 2 yrs, What if she messes up again with a new "wrong" guy?

I really hope he goes on to have a happy, stable and loving life despite his start.

AnyFucker · 18/03/2010 23:01

child comes first

end of

no question for me here

I expect the bleeding hearts on this thread would be very shocked at a repeat of headline news-type case

harimosmummy · 18/03/2010 23:05

It sounds dreadful, but if, at 2YO, the child is better off with an adopted family, I think that is for the best

sad though.

AgentProvocateur · 18/03/2010 23:06

I also agree that the court made the right decision, although I feel desperately sorry for the mum.

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 19/03/2010 07:49

I feel sorry for every mum I work with whose child is removed into care. Of course they love their children. That doesn't mean the children shouldn't be removed. Love is not enough when it comes to looking after children.

skidoodly · 19/03/2010 08:10

The state should not have the right to permanently remove a child from its parents.

To look at a mother and tell her that although she is a loving mother, competent to look after her own child, that the state will take her child away from her is a form of institutional evil.

"best interests of the child" is pernicious - it can never be more than a guess, and that guess is too often self-serving and conservative

this is the argument that says that children should not be adopted by disabled parents

this boy has a right to be brought up by his own mother who loves and wants him. How anybody can determine that it is in his best interests for the state to make that impossible is beyond me.

I would be traumatised to find out that I had been forcibly taken from a mother who loved and wanted me because state agencies thought it best.

How the fuck can it ever be too late?