Baby Preston Davey - Content warning concerns CSA (added by MNHQ)

[Sadmamma35]

I’ve just read about baby Preston Davey and I cannot stop thinking about him. I have a 13-month-old of my own, which is probably why this has hit me so hard — I can really relate and my baby is my everything.
I’m crying as I write this. Why does it hurt so much for a baby I’ve never even met? Has anyone else felt this way?
How do you cope with the negative thoughts that follow when you read something like this? 💙

I think the problem is that if checking hard drives became a part of the adoption process people would use a burner phone to access stuff and keep what they were going to show the adoption people clean

Their hardware will have all been seized and searched following arrest and unless it hasn’t been reported nothing to indicate an interest in CSA before they got Preston has been found, so in this instance that wouldn't have made any difference.

I don't mind the name Preston but I don't know the town at all. The court case is taking place in Preston so to the child it's a local town. I live quite near Croydon and probably would prefer to rename a baby with that name

Quick google and apparently it's quite common in America. Britney Spears has a Preston. Someone on Big Brother in the 00s was called Preston.

I thought that Preston was born at Oldham hospital and his family came from around that area.

Certainly makes sense. 40 miles apart. His adopters wouldn't have liked Preston as a name.

I wasn't sure where he was born. I think his adopters lived near Preston

I don't mind the name but was making the point you'd probably prefer to change a name of a baby you adopted if it was the name of a local town.

Exactly.

Do you think prospective adoptive parents should have to submit all their devices to be analysed before being approved?

But Preston’s name was Preston. If raising a baby with the same name as a local town is a deal breaker for them, they could have adopted another child with a name they liked more. But changing the name of a nine month old who would have known his name and has already had so much disruption to his life because it’s not to their taste is off to me. It’s really hard to find old posts from the trial because the website crashes if I scroll down, and there was the first trial which collapsed, but I’m sure I remember a point about a social worker who disapproved of the name change.

No I don’t because I don’t think it would help. Even if the police have the resourcing for that, it would depend on that person handing over the devices to the police, not a search and seizure. So if there was anything compromising on a device, they just wouldn’t hand that over to be searched and the police and adoption services would have no way of knowing there’s another laptop or phone at the property. In this case, I don’t think there’s been a suggestion that either defendant owned or viewed CSAM prior to adoption. All the abuse charges relate to Preston, so even if this were in place it wouldn’t have helped Preston.

Just basing that on my assumption that the police would put considerably more effort into finding and thoroughly scrutinising devices for a murder investigation than a pre-adoption screening, and that they would have wanted to add as many charges as possible if there was any CSAM found before the adoption. So if nothing was turned up following Preston’s death, there’s even less chance anything would have been found before.

Another poster also pointed out above that there needs to be a balance in the intrusiveness of assessing adopters but to be totally off putting. If the pre adoption checks are too intrusive, then the adopter pool will reduce which also has an impact on child welfare. It’s a delicate balance but given that I don’t think this check would be useful anyway, and it’s incredibly intrusive I don’t think it’s worth it.

I agree

I agree

When was the first trial? I thought this was the only one.

In April a trial began but was abandoned after a few days. The judge said that the trial could not continue with the original jury but the reasons why were non reportable. A new trial (which is the one which is currently concluding) started the next week. We’ll probably never find out what happened with the first trial, but I was surprised at how much was released (like the interrogation and hospital footage of the suspects) given that one trial had to be abandoned.

Thanks @Paddingtonscare I've nothing but respect for adopters - I know a couple who adopted two boys with attachment disorders and both lads, now men, say they feel day they were adopted was their real birth date.

It must be hard for you going through that the intrusion for the good of the child. I think that's why it seems so astonishing that Varley and Fazackerly were approved.

I've gone and watched Varley's police interview and have read the transcript of their evidence in court and the level of odd, phoney language use is high (Varley obviously not keeping up the pretending in the police interview). Maybe because I work in an area where people are skilled in Higher Bullshit I'm twitchy about it but it makes me wonder how the adoption assessors saw these two.

Re forensic digital screening - it's not easy to hide your digital footprint if the resources are there (I'm sure they aren't). Would pick up illegal or extreme porn use and I think 'extreme' was mentioned by the police in this case (choking type material perhaps?) but as pp say - very intrusive.

I think I'm just very resistant to the idea of two men, without women and not even in a long-lasting / formal relationship, being in this process. Sure I can be scolded for thinking that.

I remember a mumsnetter saying they'd adopted a baby who'd been born to a drug addict (like Preston was i believe) who'd given the baby a ridiculous, embarrassing name in the throes of their addiction.
Can't see why keeping their identity (of the child of a drug addict) is more important than them not being saddled with an embarrassing name

I’ve been sitting on my hands and avoiding posting here. But, I can resist no longer. I’m a single adoptive parent of two non-birth related children. I’m 20 years in to my adoption journey now. I think it’s so interesting that several posters have picked up on the name change. On balance, it’s a big no-no as it is seen as ripping the child’s identity away from them. I think a lot of strength of feeling on this issue comes from the experiences of historic adoptees (the children of shamed birth mothers) who often only found out when they were adults that they had a previous name and identity.

Children are so much more than the sum of their name. Also, there is a significant move now in the world of adoption and family courts to promote lifelong links and direct ongoing meet-ups with birth family members, where safe and in the best interests of the child.

My eldest daughter is now 18 and was given such a highly irregular first name that would have led to her becoming no traced easily that her social worker insisted that I change it. I simply moved her given middle name to her first name and then added a second name of my own. With my second daughter, I amended her middle name to a longer version (think Marie to Marigold, for example) to honour both her family of origin and my family. Her social worker was fine with this. My younger child meets up first family time with her birth mother about ten times a year; they go bowling, to the cinema, do cookery classes, dine out and go for dog walks in the park. Normal family activities that are positive for my child’s identity, wellbeing and self-esteem. Birth mum and I have a good relationship which I don’t believe would have been possible if I had disrespected her by changing the name of the child who was removed from her, mainly because she herself was a victim of multigenerational poverty, neglect and abuse.

Also, those suggesting that all adopters should be forced to hand over their devices, sod off! Why should adoptive parents be held to higher standards and accountability than birth parents? Statistically, significantly more children are murdered by the adults who make them and birth them. Adopters are the most highly vetted parents in the UK.

The timeline does seem quick from the couple meeting in 2018 to starting the adoption process in 2022 and getting a baby in Spring 2023.
But there is a big shortfall of potential adopters now and hundreds more children waiting for adoption than available families.

Same sex adopters are generally considered (by adoption agencies) to be among the most ‘successful’ adoptive parents.

Drug addicts love their children. They are punished for their addictions by having their babies and children removed by the state. Every adopted child wants to know that they were loved by their family of origin also. It is important for children to have a sense of their identity.

My younger child meets up first family time with her birth mother about ten times a year; they go bowling, to the cinema, do cookery classes, dine out and go for dog walks in the park. Normal family activities that are positive for my child’s identity, wellbeing and self-esteem.

I love this. I know it’s not always safe or possible but I wish this was more the norm for adopted children.

Agree with you to a point. As I’ve said earlier I adopted and I changed my child’s name as it was unusual and very telling. He was also only a few months old. But I was open and honest in my adoption process and would have let them root through my knicker drawer to prove that I was capable of taking care of this human who had already been through unimaginable instability in such a short space of time.

Yeah interesting @ThePieceHall I think lots of people in different circumstances have taken on children not their own, formally and informally, and made a success of it. I don't know what criteria the DEA uses to measure success in formal adoption. In terms of stats, the pool of same sex adopters will be smaller than traditional couples - I'm guessing more male couples apply because it's frankly easier for female couples to have their own children.

I don't know whether the idea that gay male adopters are valued by agencies fed into the credibility and acceptance of Varley and Fazackerly? They were given a lot of credibility I think, including during the period of multiple hospitalisations.