Adoption, fostering and a bit complex!

[zeebrugge]

I was adopted as a baby in 1971 and lived with my adopted parents until March 1987 when they were both drowned in the Zeebrugge Ferry disaster. I was put in short term foster care and then long term foster care until I timed out on my 18th birthday.

I was allowed to visit my former home, on the day after the funeral, to collect my belongings but never stayed there again. When my aunt and uncle came back from Denver in 1989 they lived there for a while.

Now I can sort of understand why I wasn't in the will, being adopted rather than a birth child. But as somebody told me over Christmas, and why I am writing, surely I was left something. Did I really matter so little.

NAME CHANGED

In the 1980?s it would not have been legal for a child to be left destitute or homeless by intention or oversight when both parents are killed.

It was and still is quite usual to include a "disaster clause" in a will where some nominated person takes on the responsbility of bringing up the child to the age of 18 sometimes in exchange for money, sometimes not. It looks as if there was no such clause here. Readers might care to act on this today.

It's certainly made me think about returning our will forms - have had them for 2 months! Fortunately neither families are money grabbing and have already asked guardians and executor if they are still happy to act for us.

NAME CHANGED

I agree that the local authority should have protected the OP?s financial interests. It might be that the local authority felt they had discharged their duty, either because that was really the case or because they were misled. If there is blame to be distributed they will certainly claim the later I am afraid to say.

There seem to be some points of substance not picked up elsewhere. The second foster home for example was, I believe, acting illegally in demanding money from the OP and might well have been in breach of LA guidelines in using corporal punishment. I am also intrigued by the role of the aunt and uncle who prima facie appear to have appropriated a major part of the estate. There are any number of intriging possibilities here and I wish the OP well.

Both her aunt and social worker were then when she asked for items and told they were not hers to take........

I am really horrified that in the 1980's someone could treat a orphaned child that way.

Once you've looked at the will etc it may be worth seeing some solicitors for advice on a fixed fee basis to see if you can take it further, I wonder if any would take it on a "no win no fee" basis

I contributed to this discussion earlier on and although I am a solicitor, I do not practice in the probate field and defer to the comments of others about that. However, one action that may be open to you is a claim for negligence against the local authority. Although you probably were a child in care prior to your adoption, this would have ceased once the adoption order was made and the local authority would cease to be involved at that point. Upon the death of your parents the normal course would be for family members to step in to care for you, often set out in the parents' will if there was one, but as it appears that your aunt and uncle did not accept the legal effect of your adoption, it appears that they abandoned you, which meant that the local authority had to step in again and placed you with foster carers.
The Children Act did not come into force until 1991 so this would have fallen under the old law and in a case such as this, I would have expected a local authority to have made you a Ward of Court to place you in the custody of the Court. The Court would then have been involved in dealing with every aspect of your upbringing and would have been keen to ensure that you received the inheritance to which you are clearly entitled, especially after such a major tragedy. I can only assume that the local authority failed in its duty to ensure that you were properly legally protected and that you therefore have an action in negligence against them. It seems to me that part of this claim would include what you should have received by way of inheritance as well as a claim for placing you with violent and unpleasant foster carers. So if all else fails, I would suggest you see a solicitor who specialises in negligence claims arising out of the care system.

The more I think about this the more worried I become. I think there is more than your parents' estate to worry about here.

I presume compensation was paid to the relatives of those who died in the Zeebrugge disaster. I haven't been able to find any details of the compensation payments online but I would have thought you should have received something. Who received compensation for the death of your parents?

Then there is the matter of any life insurances your parents had, including pensions that paid out on death. Such policies are often written in trust to avoid inheritance tax liabilities. That means the insurers decide who will receive the money, although they will usually follow the wishes of the insured. Your parents would probably have named each other as beneficiaries. In the circumstances I would have expected that most, if not all, of any payout would have gone to you, although it may have been put into trust for you to receive when you were 18. Were there any life insurances or pensions? If so, what has happened to that money?

It may be difficult to find all the details and, after all this time, you may never manage to get all you were entitled to but I hope that you manage to get some justice.

prh you are so right

I was unhappy at my second foster parents and once I got into real trouble with them. I was supposed to give them half of my wages from my part time job but when I did some overtime around Christmas I didn?t tell Mrs McNulty. When she found out she hit me three times with a tawse (she was Scottish) on each hand, as hard as she could and said she would write to Social Services about how dishonest I was.

I do remember sitting in my bedroom nursing my sore hands thinking that less than a year ago I had had a Mum and Dad and lived in a nice house with a room of my own and how little I had left. Pam who shared with me was a good mate to me later on.

I too am very unhappy about what I am reading. In my experience Local Authority staff are fairly effective in cases like this and this makes me suspect that they were unaware of the situation. It occurs to me that perhaps the aunt and uncle initially agreed to accept responsibility for the child but later changed their mind. Perhaps the LA knew of their first decision but not their second?

The status of the second foster home is indeed curious. It is hard to imagine that the LA knew the OP was in one of their homes when she was also recorded as being out of the system, living with her aunt and uncle. Thus I suspect that this was some unofficial arrangement but at whose behest? The proverbial finger of suspcion must surely point at the aunt and uncle?

I am a Scot myself and 6 "as hard as she could" blows with a tawse is a fearful punishment! I think that this too reinforces the idea that this second foster home was unofficial.

Finally, at least for today, how and why did the aunt and uncle subsequently come to be living in the OP's family home. And without the OP?

Even more finally can I say to the OP. There are many legal folk out there who would chase this case to the "hot end of hell". It is very, very, very rare for a case to "get at me" emotionally but this one has. There but by the grace of God go I or my children.

legaleagle2 glad it's not just me who feels like that.

Zeebrugge you will probably need some emotional support through this, I cannot imagine how much it hurts to have been treated so badly by your relatives.

It sounds to me like the second home was unofficial and arnged by the aunt. Hope you get on well with the solicitor on Tuesday - this all sounds very, very fishy. There is no way a dependant child should be left with nothing

Did you know the SW? Just wondering if they were a SW. Or if SS thought Aunt was looking after you & she arranged the FC?

Hope you get some answers

I am hoping for some collective wisdom on this case which is somewhat praying on my mind despite the New Year celebrations. I hope my professional colleagues here agree that dis-entangling all these matters is going to be something of a Gordian Knot.

However it does occur to me that there could be grounds for a complaint to the police? Obviously this depends on what a detailed examination of the available documentation reveals and I am not over optimistic about either the quality or quantity of the material the OP might be able to gain access to. But I digress. Obtaining money/property by decception comes to mind. The CPS might also take a dim view if, for example, the aunt and uncle accepted money, perhaps via a conditional bequest, to raise the OP and then promptly "dumped" her into an abusive "foster home".

I have been pondering on this second foster home. Having the OP moved to a town some distance away would greatly reduce the chance of the OP discovering that her Aunt and Uncle had moved into her family home. Even a teenager, no offence intended to the OP, would think this was very strange and might well complain. At a distance the child would be far less likely to find out exactly what was going on and they would be most unlikely to visit without an invitation. An invitation that I assume OP was never forthcoming?

Why did the ?evil? aunt and uncle not sell the house to eliminate this problem? Because they couldn?t. They were not the legal owners and would not have had any of the required documentation. I wonder if we will find that they sold their own house, quite legally, and then just moved into the OP?s house?

Was there checks on children in care back then? Social worker visits/ independent reviewing officers etc? These people should have queried the finances & ensure the Op had memories in the form of photos etc.

I was waiting until I had more to say.

The fist short term home was OK. I was encouraged to talk about my Mum and Dad and my feelings. I still went to my old school and had my friends. I knew it was only short term but I thought it was funny that Aunt and Uncle never visited.

The second home as I said was horrid. I had to cry in secret and I got hit for all sorts of silly things. I a bit think that taking half my wages was like stealing from me. Aunt and Uncle didn't visit but the lady who ran it did know them I'm sure.

I agree with legaleagle2 that disentangling this is going to be difficult. It may not be possible after all this time to determine exactly what the OP should have got. If cash has been spent or assets sold and the proceeds spent it may not be possible for the OP to recover all that has been lost.

As I see it there are a number of possibilities. It is possible that the parents did not own their home, so aunt and uncle have simply taken over the lease. Perhaps more likely, it is possible that aunt and uncle paid a fair price to buy the house from the estate but after paying off the mortgage and other debts there was nothing left to distribute. However, it is also possible that the OP has been deprived of her rightful inheritance. I would agree that this is the most likely scenario and the information we have so far points towards possible culprits, but there is some digging to do before anything can be said for certain.

Regarding the estate, has probate been granted? If probate has not been granted the Inheritance Act comes back into play as the clock hasn't started ticking yet. If probate has been granted, has the estate been administered correctly? Have all the assets been identified and have they been distributed in accordance with the wills? Depending on the answers to these questions there may be grounds for action against the executors. There may also be grounds for a complaint to the police.

Then there is the question of compensation paid for the Zeebrugge disaster. I would imagine that P&O would be able to confirm whether the OP's parents are listed among those lost at Zeebrugge, the terms of compensation paid and hence how much the OP should have received. I would hope they would also be able to confirm whether or not compensation was paid with respect to the OP's parents, although they probably won't say who received any payout on data protection grounds. If compensation hasn't been paid will they pay out now? If it has been paid there may again be grounds for a complaint to the police.

It may not be possible after all this time to track down all the life insurances and pensions the parents had in force at the time of death. Did they pay out? If so, who received the cash? If they haven't paid out but have simply been allowed to lapse it may be very difficult to determine how much should have been received.

Then there is the matter of the OP's treatment at the second foster home and possible negligence by the LA.

I just hope there is some justice for the OP at the end of all this.

Have you heard of Disaster Action?

They were set up in the early 90's and based on Wiki's explanation one of the founding members lost family on the Herald of Free Enterprise. They appear to have support groups and offer advise to survivors and bereaved.

I hope that 2011 is a year that has some answers for you and wish you luck in finding them.

prh47bridge makes some good points and I would have been quite content to go along with the "it is possible that aunt and uncle paid a fair price to buy the house from the estate but after paying off the mortgage and other debts there was nothing left to distribute" scenario had the OP been living with Aunt and Uncle.

But she wasn't - the OP was placed in a foster home about which I have the most serious reservations! If the Aunt and Uncle purchased the family house why did they choose to not have the OP with them?

On a personal note. I am outraged by the physical punishment the OP suffered. I have checked with my brother and 6 "as hard as she could" blows with a tawse is far in excess of reasonable.

It does seem that we have a collective body of professional lawyers contributing to this debate which is very good news and I hope will stand you in good stead as you tackle this injustice!
Zeebrugge, you do of course have the appointment with the family's solicitor on Tuesday but with all due respect to him, I would urge a degree of caution when you go to see him because he may well have been involved in what, at best, appears to be a major cock up and at worst, something that has turned out to be bordering on the criminal. I am not suggesting that the solicitor is, or has been, dishonest but he may be very defensive if there has been a serious error made in all of this. So you need to be clear about the questions that you require answers to and also clear that you understand all the issues. I do not mean that to sound patronsing but this is a very complicated situation and as others have said, requires a lot of careful thought to unravel it.
It seems to me that the first enquiries that can and should be made are (1) with the probate registry as has already been said and; (2) at the land registry to see who is the legal owner of the property in question. Both these enquiries are quick and cheap and very revealing. If the house is registered in the aunt and uncles names, you will then know when that happened. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, it is possible that the house belonged to them all along and that your parents were simply renting from them and if that were the case, it is probably perfectly reasonable for them to move into their own house. Cynically, I think that this is a very unlikely scenario but the point is that the land registry will answer that question. If the house is still in your parents' names, it is unlikely that probate has taken place and part of your inheritance is sitting there in bricks and mortar. I should add that I completely agree with others' comments about compensation for the disaster itself, life insurance and pensions all forming part of the estate of which you appear to be the principal beneficiary.
Last but not least, I can only echo what all the other contributors have said. This is a truly tragic story, made so much worse by the cruelty and brutality of others. I hope that you have the strength to fight for what you are entitled to and that you acheive the justice that you deserve. All the best,

I can't offer you any advice but wish you strength.

I am both pleased and relieved that troylawyer shares my concerns about the family solicitor. I had hesitated from further burdening the OP but on reflection the caveats identified did need to be aired. I greatly fear if the family solicitor discovers serious error in his own performance or, worse still, was actively involved in this sorry business then the meeting on Tuesday might not be particularly productive. I do wonder if this will turn out to have been a reasonably substantial estate that has been systematically plundered?

That said it is hard to see how the various asset classes (house, compensation, pension to name but three) could have been diverted to a third party unless we can add forgery to the list? Surely the OP would have been required to sign all kinds of documents and the signature witnessed?

Any comments?

Although I am trying to be fair minded and not point fingers, I agree that everything we have heard points to the OP having been deprived of her rightful inheritance and suggests possible culprits.

I am concerned that the OP has already told us that, while she was in short term foster care, the social worker and another man came to the school and the Head Master witnessed her signature on some papers. We don't know the nature of those papers. Was she signing away her inheritance? She was still a minor at that stage.

I am relieved that the family solicitor volunteered the fact that he acted for the parents in drawing up their wills. I hope that means he was not actively involved in whatever has transpired. However, as troylawyer and legaleagle have said, he may be less than totally forthcoming if he has made mistakes which have contributed to the situation.

We really need to know if probate has been granted and, if so, whether the wills held by the probate registry match those held by the family solicitor.

I am about to go out for the day so of necessity, this will be short.

It seems to me that a 16 year old is not competent to give a valid receipt and therefore not competent to sign away an inheritance. Had the local authority acted properly at the time of this disaster and made you a Ward of Court when they should have done, the Court would have been required to sign documents probably through the Official Solicitor (if the cobwebs that I am trying to dust off from that part of my brain are functioning correctly!) Otherwise, it would have been a Court of Protection matter I would have thought (or whatever the equivalent was in those days). Either way, it seems to me that if you did sign something while still at school, this is unlikely to be valid in my view and surely would be open to challenge.

I agree with both the previous posters.

I do have a theory which, if I may, I would like to bounce of the group.

What if the aunt and uncle became legal Guardians of the OP (perhaps these were the papers that were signed?) AND were also Trustees and Executors of the Will? Would this enable them to loot the estate in the way we all suspect? I feel certain that in the past I saw an Will along these lines and that I argued cogently but unsuccessfully to my client that it was a bad idea.

I wish I could rid myself of the growing suspicion that there was a third person involved, probably with legal training!

Whilst this does all sound very suspicious (and the OP certainly needs to get to the bottom of things), I just want to highlight three points

1. 1987 was not a good year financially and it is quite possible that most/all of the value of any assets were wiped out during the course of the year. Would any compensation have gone to the OP or the estate?
2. OP mentions that her aunt and uncle were living overseas (or at least talks about them coming back from Denver later). That's a very valid reason for her having been placed in foster care initially.
3. The behaviour of the aunt and social worker after the funeral sounds very, very odd and I think (discounting the idea of an evil aunt on the level of cruella de'vile) suggests that there was in fact no money left in the estate ie everything was going to have to be sold.

OP def needs/deserves an explanation regardless.