Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
Tycho said:
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.
That messes with the adoptive parents however and potentially would turn people off adopting children...The very existence of Ancestry,com etc shows we have a primitive urge to know where we "come from" I have traced parts of my family back to the 1500's and have even taken photos of distant relatives' headstones in other countries, and even got upset at the sight of one of my 5x Irish granddad that died in a poorhouse.
So my point is what about the child's right to know where he is "from"? How will he cope when he finds out he was wrongly removed from his parents? Same could also be said about the rights of his grandparents, siblings, cousins etc
None of this sits well with me and being 'sub judice" just seems like a cop out to me.
So my point is what about the child's right to know where he is "from"? How will he cope when he finds out he was wrongly removed from his parents? Same could also be said about the rights of his grandparents, siblings, cousins etc
None of this sits well with me and being 'sub judice" just seems like a cop out to me.
eldar said:
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?
This is obviously a fall out to the babyP case
In a normal system of justice where there's doubt the balance lies in letting the guilty go free rather than locking up the innocent
Here you might expect where theres doubt the balance goes with the childs parents i.e.where theres doubt leave the child with the parents rather than taking it away.
However the welfare of the child comes first so where theres doubt put the child with a trusted couple rather than normal parents you know nothing about.
Is that to the benefit of the child . At the end of the day if its not told will it know any different?
In a normal system of justice where there's doubt the balance lies in letting the guilty go free rather than locking up the innocent
Here you might expect where theres doubt the balance goes with the childs parents i.e.where theres doubt leave the child with the parents rather than taking it away.
However the welfare of the child comes first so where theres doubt put the child with a trusted couple rather than normal parents you know nothing about.
Is that to the benefit of the child . At the end of the day if its not told will it know any different?
TheSnitch said:
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.
I didn't mention this disease before as I thought it was unlikely, but apparently the child has Von Willebrand disease.
When I say unlikely, I assumed that they had discovered the child had a really rare condition, and Von Willebrand disease is not all that rare. It ought to have been one of the first things they suspected. So I don't know precisely what has gone wrong here, but if that diagnosis had been known all along it beggars belief that the adoption went ahead.
Breadvan72 said:
Open justice is mega important, but what to do when there is a child involved? That, and not the convenience of the CPS etc, is the basis for confidentiality in child care cases.
The child is the pawn, I fear. Already harmed by being wrongly taken from natural parents now has to face the prospect of being told the state in effect kidnapped him/her in error and gave him/her away. I believe the biological parents aren't bound by confidentiality, and the child has the right to identify its natural parents, so it won't always be secret.The welfare of all concerned - child, future children, parents, grandparents, adoptive parents - are playing second fiddle to a secretive process, which by nature has limited accountability and scrutiny, at least publicly.
How do we know where he truth lies where the facts are obscured, possibly spun or just buried?
I worry that a bunker mentality has developed.
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?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.
ked up than this one), but thinking about how it would look at A&E would be one of the first things I would consider. Would I be blamed for it? When my children were born, almost the first thing I did was get them a passport. But not a British passport, for that I waited until we were actually planning on going somewhere. For my kids, who have dual nationality through me, the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies, cannot touch them.
creampuff said:
I don't know if you have been walking around with a bag over your head with this and other very similar cases (albeit the other cases were slightly less fked up than this one), but thinking about how it would look at A&E would be one of the first things I would consider. Would I be blamed for it?
When my children were born, almost the first thing I did was get them a passport. But not a British passport, for that I waited until we were actually planning on going somewhere. For my kids, who have dual nationality through me, the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies, cannot touch them.
Your strangeked up than this one), but thinking about how it would look at A&E would be one of the first things I would consider. Would I be blamed for it? When my children were born, almost the first thing I did was get them a passport. But not a British passport, for that I waited until we were actually planning on going somewhere. For my kids, who have dual nationality through me, the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies, cannot touch them.
The Moose said:
That messes with the adoptive parents however and potentially would turn people off adopting children...
Not necessarily as lots of adoptive parents now foster on the basis they will adopt once proceedings have concluded. Better they don't have to move too often as all kinds of detachment disorders can manifest themselves if they are moved too much.Impasse said:
For wanting the best for his kids? Not really.
/You're/
the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies/You're/
say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 12th October 00:18
HarryW said:
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?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.
As for those of you who are so deeply paranoid that you would forgo taking your children to A&E for fear of being accused of child abuse...shame on you.
For the purposes of clarity, let me state that I firmly believe that this case is a complete and utter travesty and the end results should never have been allowed happen. As for those of you arguing about "balance of probability" type adjudication, you might as well just say, "Well, there's no smoke without fire", good grief! Guilt by accusation eh? We'll be having the reintroduction of the ducking stool next!
thepeoplespal said:
The Moose said:
That messes with the adoptive parents however and potentially would turn people off adopting children...
Not necessarily as lots of adoptive parents now foster on the basis they will adopt once proceedings have concluded. Better they don't have to move too often as all kinds of detachment disorders can manifest themselves if they are moved too much.The other issue that that would open up is if new information comes to light 5 years down the line (say) that exhonorates the birth parents, what happens in that instance? The were-foster parents, now adoptive parents then have to 'give up' the kid because the system failed.
I guess the reality is that no system will be perfect and the best has to be done for the child. The problem is what is best for 1 child is the worst thing for another...but that can only be known retrospectively!
The Moose said:
The other issue that that would open up is if new information comes to light 5 years down the line (say) that exhonorates the birth parents, what happens in that instance? The were-foster parents, now adoptive parents then have to 'give up' the kid because the system failed.
That's like standard miscarriages of justice. A new piece of evidence shouldnt need to come forward to exonerate them. The problem is the available evidence, or lack of, hadnt been tested enough.The Moose said:
I guess the reality is that no system will be perfect and the best has to be done for the child. The problem is what is best for 1 child is the worst thing for another...but that can only be known retrospectively!
In the end there was nothing new in the end. It just took 3 years for the cogs to churn.Stickyfinger said:
the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies
say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
or realistic.say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
Do you take it on the chin and argue it for 3 years as per this thread, then find that although youve won youve lost, or do you save any argument and go somewhere less repressive?
How many cases like this?
Edited by saaby93 on Monday 12th October 00:42
saaby93 said:
How many cases like this?
Quite a few. Here is a similar one:http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed97206
Stickyfinger said:
the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies
say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
Seems quite sensible to me, this is not exactly an isolated case.say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 12th October 00:18
Sir Humphrey said:
Seems quite sensible to me, this is not exactly an isolated case.
We were discussing this at work on Friday and a colleague said exactly the same thing about having obtained foreign passports for his kids for the same reasons.Although I am a strong anti-establishment type person and I have obtained foreign passports for my kids, I have never ever imagined or thought of a time it would be necessary for me to run away with my kids to escape the state's overbearing hands.
Maybe I am too naive but I simply got them the passport for ease of travel.
The Moose said:
thepeoplespal said:
The Moose said:
That messes with the adoptive parents however and potentially would turn people off adopting children...
Not necessarily as lots of adoptive parents now foster on the basis they will adopt once proceedings have concluded. Better they don't have to move too often as all kinds of detachment disorders can manifest themselves if they are moved too much.The other issue that that would open up is if new information comes to light 5 years down the line (say) that exhonorates the birth parents, what happens in that instance? The were-foster parents, now adoptive parents then have to 'give up' the kid because the system failed.
I guess the reality is that no system will be perfect and the best has to be done for the child. The problem is what is best for 1 child is the worst thing for another...but that can only be known retrospectively!
Tycho said:
The Moose said:
thepeoplespal said:
The Moose said:
That messes with the adoptive parents however and potentially would turn people off adopting children...
Not necessarily as lots of adoptive parents now foster on the basis they will adopt once proceedings have concluded. Better they don't have to move too often as all kinds of detachment disorders can manifest themselves if they are moved too much.The other issue that that would open up is if new information comes to light 5 years down the line (say) that exhonorates the birth parents, what happens in that instance? The were-foster parents, now adoptive parents then have to 'give up' the kid because the system failed.
I guess the reality is that no system will be perfect and the best has to be done for the child. The problem is what is best for 1 child is the worst thing for another...but that can only be known retrospectively!
I can't believe that some people are arguing that the natural parents shouldn't get their kids back. Every instinct that a parent has is to look after their offspring, there is no instinct stronger in nature, it's all about survival of the genes, 50 million years of evolution and they are being told by some petty officials that they have to give them up .
I would die a thousand times to protect my kids and have no qualms about killing for them. This can't end well
I would die a thousand times to protect my kids and have no qualms about killing for them. This can't end well
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff