Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.

[blueg33]

Regardless of how much of s crisp job social work is. You would have thought it was basic common sense not to commence with an irreversible adoption until it was proven that the parents were guilty of neglect or abuse and that the neglect or anise couldn't be prevented in future.

[Halb]

roachcoach said:

I have huge sympathy for the adoptive parents too, terrible situation to be in. They can't very well hand it back and expect to ever get another one, but not doing so much eat away at them. Can't practically live as a 4 parent household either, that is no life for any side involved.

I think that might be possible in the future for more, as our society (hopefully progresses).

[blueg33]

Regardless of how much of s crisp job social work is. You would have thought it was basic common sense not to commence with an irreversible adoption until it was proven that the parents were guilty of neglect or abuse and that the neglect or anise couldn't be prevented in future.

[Hackney]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

creampuff said:

Presumably the new adoptive parents love the child, but this was preceded with 2 years of foster care which isn't real great,

Yet there are people on here complaining that the period in foster care wasn't long enough, and should have continued indefinitely until the parents were either found guilty or not.

But can't you see the real complaint is not that the child spent not long enough / the right amount of time / too long in foster care, but that the legal process took so long that the child had been adopted before it was complete. The foster care period should last as long as it needs to last to ensure that no final decision is made until the parents are found guilty or completely exonerated.

Something is very broken with part of parts of this system because PARENTS WHO DID NOT ABUSE THEIR CHILD have had their child PERMANENTLY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM. Your "so the child should have been fostered for years?" question is missing the point by a country mile. Whether you choose to see that or keep posting the same argument is entirely up to you.

[Hackney]

Father of an 8 month old son here and this is a truly horrible story.
I can't imagine what the parents are going through contemplating the loss of their child.

One small consolation is that the child is alive, in good health and will be cared for but even so it must be, well, horrible for them.

[TheSnitch]

Breadvan72 said:

The rickets angle is interesting. I know almost nothing about rickets (other than that you can get it from eating Greggs, obvs). I have no idea whether the parents here had been negflectful in some way, but would be interested to hear more of the condition from people who actually know about it.

I think it has been established that the parents were not neglectful.
Rickets is a bone condition which can affect both adults and children, but can have more than one cause. In the past, a lack of dietary Vit D or insufficient exposure to sunlight were the most likely causes in the UK, and probably still are, but with the limited information available here, it appears that this infant had a metabolic cause for their bone development problems. It's impossible to say what precisely - some metabolic diseases are incredibly rare and thus not always picked up in newborns - but I would hazard a guess that this was a malabsorption disease, where the diet contains sufficient nutrients but they are not properly absorbed from the diet. For example, a child could have an hereditary deficiency in Vit K which could cause the bleeding described and which can also cause problems with developing bones. The Vit K deficiency itself could be due to numerous causes, including a defective liver enzyme.

I'm not saying that's what was wrong with this child, I am just giving you an example.

[saaby93]

blueg33 said:

Regardless of how much of s crisp job social work is. You would have thought it was basic common sense not to commence with an irreversible adoption until it was proven that the parents were guilty of neglect or abuse and that the neglect or anise couldn't be prevented in future.

Surely everything is reversible if a mistake is made?

[TheSnitch]

saaby93 said:

blueg33 said:

Regardless of how much of s crisp job social work is. You would have thought it was basic common sense not to commence with an irreversible adoption until it was proven that the parents were guilty of neglect or abuse and that the neglect or anise couldn't be prevented in future.

Surely everything is reversible if a mistake is made?

No it isn't, I'm afraid. The child has been adopted, and there is no mechanism which can overturn that.
In some adoptions contact is maintained with the birth parents; I have no idea if that has been explored here. I cannot see that the harm, distress and disruption now is potentially any greater than the potential harm later when the child discovers or is told the circumstances surrounding their adoption.

[saaby93]

TheSnitch said:

No it isn't, I'm afraid. The child has been adopted, and there is no mechanism which can overturn that.
In some adoptions contact is maintained with the birth parents; I have no idea if that has been explored here. I cannot see that the harm, distress and disruption now is potentially any greater than the potential harm later when the child discovers or is told the circumstances surrounding their adoption.

Cant the current parents put the child up for adoption and the real parents adopt the child again?

[saaby93]

TeamD said:

No, because they don't get to pick where the kid goes.

The relevant bodies make that choice. Wouldnt putting the child back with its true parents following a mistake be pretty high on priorities?

How do they sort out children being given to the wrong parents at hospitals?
I guess many of us will never know

[HarryW]

Absolutely horrible thing to happen to any parent. I find it very hard to understand the imperative to proceed with adoption when the 'case' was pending. More than one mistake made here from beginning to end. Given the absolute that is adoption in law perhaps it needs to be looked at in light of this case. I'm sure the House of Lords could look into this, law is full of precedents, perhaps one should be made in this case.

The other thing that worries me about this case is the 'safety' of other children going forward, I can imagine there are those out there that will think very hard about taking a child to A&E with this kind of judgement hanging in the air.

[TheSnitch]

HarryW said:

Absolutely horrible thing to happen to any parent. I find it very hard to understand the imperative to proceed with adoption when the 'case' was pending. More than one mistake made here from beginning to end. Given the absolute that is adoption in law perhaps it needs to be looked at in light of this case. I'm sure the House of Lords could look into this, law is full of precedents, perhaps one should be made in this case.

The other thing that worries me about this case is the 'safety' of other children going forward, I can imagine there are those out there that will think very hard about taking a child to A&E with this kind of judgement hanging in the air.

The imperative is due to government targets, and I think it's appalling.

I think your second point is very well-observed. I am quite sure it will cause some pause for thought, which is entirely the worst thing possible.

[saaby93]

TheSnitch said:

I think your second point is very well-observed. I am quite sure it will cause some pause for thought, which is entirely the worst thing possible.

Hasnt the horse already well and truly bolted on that one? what parent takes their child to A&E without first thinking can this be construed?

[alfie2244]

I'm not one that uses the term "human rights" very often but IMO not having your children permanently and irrevocably taken from you without a cast iron reason must be one of the most fundamental of them all.

[Halb]

TeamD said:

saaby93 said:

blueg33 said:

Regardless of how much of s crisp job social work is. You would have thought it was basic common sense not to commence with an irreversible adoption until it was proven that the parents were guilty of neglect or abuse and that the neglect or anise couldn't be prevented in future.

Surely everything is reversible if a mistake is made?

Hmmm...Execution?

Jesus?

[anonymous-user]

HarryW said:

... I'm sure the House of Lords could look into this, law is full of precedents, perhaps one should be made in this case.

The other thing that worries me about this case is the 'safety' of other children going forward, I can imagine there are those out there that will think very hard about taking a child to A&E with this kind of judgement hanging in the air.

If by "House of Lords" you mean the Judicial committee thereof, that no longer sits as a Court. It was replaced by the Supreme Court a few tears ago. The Court would only get involved if their appeared to be a legal error in a decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court doesn't determine policy or change a lower court's decision just because the Supreme Court might disagree with that decision on the facts.

As to your second point, I doubt that any parent concerned about the health of a child would hesitate to seek medical help if the child's condition appeared to warrant doing so.

My daughter once fell off a playground swing and banged her head quite firmly. Her mum and I were sufficiently concerned about the knock to take our daughter to the local hospital. I was impressed by how carefully and appropriately the staff satisfied themselves by question and answer and examination that the injury was likely to be accidental, but theor pripomary cincern was to care for our daughter's health.

[HarryW]

TeamD said:

saaby93 said:

TheSnitch said:

I think your second point is very well-observed. I am quite sure it will cause some pause for thought, which is entirely the worst thing possible.

Hasnt the horse already well and truly bolted on that one? what parent takes their child to A&E without first thinking can this be construed?

First, I though you were naive.

Second, I thought you were hard of thinking.

Thirdly, I declare you a troll. No parent would refrain from taking their child to A&E for fear of being accused of child abuse unless, that is, they were guilty.

Not sure of the background to your comments, but I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself.

[Eclassy]

For the clowns who tried to blame the real parents of basically not giving their child a proper diet; the baby was taken away at 6 WEEKS OLD!

There is no diet at 6 WEEKS OLD! Babies at that age drink MILK. If you think the mother is a criminal because her breast milk didnt have enough vitamin D, I cant help cure your foolishness.

A complete disgrace this whole situation.

[eldar]

Breadvan72 said:

Good question, but we may not find out the answer, because the prosecutors and social services teams will be bound by confidentiality.

Very handy in the event of a cockup, makes covering it up quite convenient.

All the parties in this case - parents, child and adoptive parents - deserve a clear account of what has happened, why, and what, if any, errors were made. And if there were, who is accountable.

The great unwashed public also need to know at least the latter if confidence in this concealed part of the justice system is to be maintained. There would appear to be some indication that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Are the parents not entitled to the same level justice as everyone else?

[Tycho]

What should happen is the child should be adopted with the caveat that this is reversible should the parents be found not guilty. This way the child is given a stable home and the parents get their lives back if not guilty.