Oldham mum losing 2 year old to adoption unfairly

[boysown]

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

How the fuck can it ever be too late?

Well said, Skidoodly

It's never, never too late

skidoodly - never? Not even if the child is being horribly abused or is being put at risk of it? Children aren't the possessions of their bio parents - if you can't keep them safe, you don't deserve to keep them.

what I would say is "too late" is that it was too late for cases like Baby Peter and the girl that was starved etc etc ad infinitum

they weren't removed early enough

frankly, I trust the authorities to know that in this particular situation (that we only have the sketchiest details of, remember), the boy was best served elsewhere than with his mother

Im from Oldham and the things ive seen would make your hair curl .

We dont know enough about this to comment or at least I dont but think how the boys adoptive mum must feel.

They have to do what is best for the child. However sad it is for the mum.

I don't know what age the child was taken away from his mum or how long ago. But if he's only 2 now he may barely remember living with is mum and be bonded to the other family he's living with. In which case isn't it better to keep him with them rather than put him with a woman who may to all intents and purposes be a stranger to him?

Feel very sad for the mum.

AF - I didn't mean that children shouldn't be removed. Obviously, if it's felt the children are unsafe / at risk, then they must be.

But, It's never too late to try and make amends with your kids.

I'd hate to think of any mother just giving up on her kids. You only have one mother.

Yes, never.

I don't think it should be in the gift of the state to remove a child permanently from its parents. Children are not the possession of anyone, but there has to be a presumption that they belong with someone and to my mind that is with their parents.

Clearly a lot of people on mumsnet think that children rightfully belong to the state and that their "bio-parents" have no rights to them because the state ultimately decides what is in their best interests.

Even using the reductive term bio-parent to describe someone, who is fighting to keep their own child that they love is chilling.

Skidoodly - I think that's a by product of our current labour government. The nanny-state-police DO make lots of people feel irresponsible for thier own lives / actions.

I'm coming at it from the perspective of friends who have adopted a child and of adopted friends who are grateful the state stepped in to save them. Just being related doesn't make you a competent parent, sorry.

I want to know what's happened to the man who created this scenario with his violence. Why aren't people blaming him, rather than social workers trying to do their job?

This case sound horribly sad. I do think women should be more aware of what can happen though when they decide to stay 'for the sake of the children', or hope that a violent man will change. How awful for everybody. I hope the kid gets a chance of a decent life.

And if this woman is no more than a stranger to this little boy, then I presume we'll be repealing all the laws in place to make sure adopted children can contact these strangers who are so obviously unimportant?

Ffs you can't even wank into a cup without any resultant offspring having the right to hunt you down to find out about their "family", but you can carry a child, give birth to him, love him, want to keep him, get away from horrific abuse to give him a safe home and be told that you are no more than a stranger to him and deserve no more consideration.

FFS
again
a child is abused and neglected from birth. At some point this becomes known to the authorities. They try to support the parent/s to change their behaviour so that the child can remain with them. If they are not able to do so then the child is removed and placed with (hopefully) permanent carers who support the child to form a healthy attachment, probably for the first time, provide love and security and safety. The child attaches to the new parents and starts to heal from their awful experiences. The child has a chance at developing normally.

Later, the parent/s finally make the changes necessary to parent the child safely. By this time the child has moved on. They are healing, and bonded with their new parents. They are moving on from their early trauma of poor attachment and abuse. They are starting to learn, for the first time, what secure and loving parenting is, and what a normal parent relationship is.

Then they are removed, again, from that stable and safe home. Returned to parent/s who they have no stable and healthy attachment to. Their healthy attachments are disrupted and they are even further damaged. Their only chance of developing secure and positive attachments is destroyed.

This is not in the child's best interests. It just isn't. And those who insist it is the right thing to do are thinking of parents' right over childrens' (most of which parents have behaved in ways that should mean they forfeit the title of parent) and have no idea of the reality of abuse and attachment.

harimosmummy - actually, when a mother has abused/failed to protect her children, and they are adopted by someone else, then they do have another mother.

Very clearly explained kat thank you.

skidoodly, you clearly don't know much about adoption.

Reading this makes me .

Also reminds me of a lady on here, I don't think she posts any more. She had a DD who was no longer living with her, due to a previous violent partner, and the new one - with whom she had a baby DS - was appalling. I hope she has a better outcome.

I didn't know adopted children moved on from their natural parents. Must mention that to all the adopted people I know who are desperate to know them despite being given up at birth by willing parents.

I think parents should have rights to their own children.

skidoodly it's a good thing you have fuck all to do with social policy then isn't it.

I think children should have rights to grow up in a safe and loving environment.

But, Kat, (And I'm not trying to be argumentative here, really I'm not)

You Don't, do you?

You always have one mother. Others may love you. You may love others. But you will always have a bond with your mother.

Mine drove me mental for years. I still wonder whether she is toxic and several people have told me to not contact her.

but she is my mum.

And yes- adopted children, hopefully, do 'move on' from their birth parents. Hopefully they attach to their new parents and have the chance to grow up feeling secure and loved and with the chance to form healthy relationships of their own.

That doesn't mean they have no interest in their birth parents. That's natural. Adoption and attachment is far more complicated than you seem to comprehend.

harimosmummy
I think that's very offensive actually. Try talking to an adoptive mother and see whether she feels she is just 'someone who loves' her child.
Your relationship with your mother was developed and cemented over the years that she parented you. It might be disfunctional but it is deep rooted. You have no idea what it is like to be adopted and attach to an adoptive mother so using your own experience to extrapolate how others might feel is pointless.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you - adopted people do have more than one mother, and most of the time the adoptive mother is more of a mother than the birth one ever was or could be.

Being a "mother" or "father" is an accident of DNA.
Being a "good" mother or father is something different.
Agree with comment from, I think, Kat, "love isn't enough".

Also depends on the individual wrt adoption and "needing" (or not) to find natural parents. My father was adopted and my grandparents asked him if he wanted their help in contacting his birth mother. As he said at the time, why would he? She didn't want him all those years ago. He had 2 parents who did. They didn't give birth to him, that's all.

I sincerely hope that skid's policy of always putting the needs of inadequate parents before the needs of a child are in the minority

I am glad that Social Service's and the Courts policy is child centred...

I have very right wing views on this (unusually for me...am more of a bleeding heart liberal normally)...but I believe giving a child a chance in life is paramount

if that is not with the birth mother (proved by her own actions, obviously and not decided before she gets a chance to prove she can do it) then so be it

Well, we will have to disagree.

No, I've never been adopted, but I know two people who have (very different circs) and both still felt a need to 'know' their biological parents.

And, as a Step parent, I do understand the different roles adults (in parental roles) can play.

But, I still think most people have a natural affinty to their birth mother. Whether that's a good thing or not.

I wasn't trying to be confrontational