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

[anonymous-user]

All you "grab your passports and run" types, assuming that you can somehow evade the patrols of Government child snatchers that prowl every street 24/7, taking children willy nilly at a rate of thousands a day, where are you going to find somewhere that has the freedoms and relative prosperity of the UK and also its array of healthcare and educational and cultural resources? Montana? You could get some guns and canned goods and join a nutjob survivalist smash the State militia, but you'd have to whistle when it comes to healthcare unless you have some bucks.

Maybe try this place -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgaria

Oh, hang on a minute...

[anonymous-user]

vanordinaire said:

...
I would die a thousand times to protect my kids and have no qualms about killing for them. ...

Sometimes this place becomes that column in Private Eye with bazonkers comments from the net. "U tuch my kidz en Ill do time I swear i will" etc.

Extreme statements tend to be a bit daft. You can test them by extreme scenarios: Suppose that your child was convicted on the clearest evidence of being a serial killer, escaped custody, and came to you for help. Would you still kill to protect the child from arrest?

[vanordinaire]

Breadvan72 said:

vanordinaire said:

...
I would die a thousand times to protect my kids and have no qualms about killing for them. ...

Sometimes this place becomes that column in Private Eye with bazonkers comments from the net. "U tuch my kidz en Ill do time I swear i will" etc.

Extreme statements tend to be a bit daft. You can test them by extreme scenarios: Suppose that your child was convicted on the clearest evidence of being a serial killer, escaped custody, and came to you for help. Would you still kill to protect the child from arrest?

Absolutely, as I said in my previous post, there is no instinct stronger than that of a parent to protect it's offspring and I tend to follow my instincts to decide on how to live my life. Yes there are practicalities to consider but I'd find some way of protecting my child. Every option would be considered.

Edited by vanordinaire on Monday 12th October 08:26

[Axionknight]

How would you go about this murder, out of interest? By giving them a stern warning on social media, or some such?

[gruffalo]

Amazing?!?

[AJS-]

Breadvan72 said:

All you "grab your passports and run" types, assuming that you can somehow evade the patrols of Government child snatchers that prowl every street 24/7, taking children willy nilly at a rate of thousands a day, where are you going to find somewhere that has the freedoms and relative prosperity of the UK and also its array of healthcare and educational and cultural resources? Montana? You could get some guns and canned goods and join a nutjob survivalist smash the State militia, but you'd have to whistle when it comes to healthcare unless you have some bucks.

http://forced-adoption.com/get-your-children-back/

Or France, Spain, Italy or just about any other European country which doesn't have our draconian social services and secretive family courts.

[anonymous-user]

vanordinaire said:

Breadvan72 said:

vanordinaire said:

...
I would die a thousand times to protect my kids and have no qualms about killing for them. ...

Sometimes this place becomes that column in Private Eye with bazonkers comments from the net. "U tuch my kidz en Ill do time I swear i will" etc.

Extreme statements tend to be a bit daft. You can test them by extreme scenarios: Suppose that your child was convicted on the clearest evidence of being a serial killer, escaped custody, and came to you for help. Would you still kill to protect the child from arrest?

Absolutely, as I said in my previous post, there is no instinct stronger than that of a parent to protect it's offspring and I tend to follow my instincts to decide on how to live my life. Yes there are practicalities to consider but I'd find some way of protecting my child. Every option would be considered.

Edited by vanordinaire on Monday 12th October 08:26

Fruitloop is fruitloopy. You are Hitler's dad AICMFP.

[anonymous-user]

AJS- said:

Breadvan72 said:

All you "grab your passports and run" types, assuming that you can somehow evade the patrols of Government child snatchers that prowl every street 24/7, taking children willy nilly at a rate of thousands a day, where are you going to find somewhere that has the freedoms and relative prosperity of the UK and also its array of healthcare and educational and cultural resources? Montana? You could get some guns and canned goods and join a nutjob survivalist smash the State militia, but you'd have to whistle when it comes to healthcare unless you have some bucks.

http://forced-adoption.com/get-your-children-back/

Or France, Spain, Italy or just about any other European country which doesn't have our draconian social services and secretive family courts.

Do you have an evidence base to support the suggestion that the family courts in those countries are better than they are here, or that social services departments never make mistakes there? The legal systems in those countries are more State oriented than ours is. They follow the Code Civil model, and that is a product of the Louis XIV/Frederick the Great/Napoleon Bonaparte approach to Government - top down, State knows best, citizens only have such rights that the State permits them. UK Government has drifted towards that model, but is still based on the bottom up, State should be challenged, citizens have freedoms that they may choose to cede to the State approach.

I have some experience of (non family related) civil litigation in France, Spain, Italy and Germany, and haven't found their courts to be fast, efficient, or particularly fair as compared to ours, for all the faults that ours undoubtedly have.

[AJS-]

No evidence of it at all, no. Though that site seems to think so in a few places. It's hard to cite them as it tends to be big long lists of articles but a couple of snippets.

Ms Wileman fled with him to Spain, Sweden and then the Republic of Ireland, pursued at each stage by the Abduction Child and Contact Unit. In each country the authorities found her to be a good mother.
From http://forced-adoption.com/reforms/ About 1/3rd down

On the continent in France, Spain, Italy etc. children are only taken from parents if they have suffered severe physical harm. The concepts of “emotional harm” and “future risk” quite rightly do not exist there!
From http://forced-adoption.com/reforms/ about 2/3rd down

Anyway, regardless of how good or otherwise their social services and legal systems are, the point is you can escape the clutches of our own overbearing SS without moving to the backwoods of Montana.

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

Sometimes this place becomes that column in Private Eye with bazonkers comments from the net. "U tuch my kidz en Ill do time I swear i will" etc.

Extreme statements tend to be a bit daft. You can test them by extreme scenarios: Suppose that your child was convicted on the clearest evidence of being a serial killer, escaped custody, and came to you for help. Would you still kill to protect the child from arrest?

I'd suggest that the number of parents in the situation of having to decide if they should or should not protect a child they know to be a serial killer would be a tiny, tiny proportion of the number of parents who know they want to protect their child against unwelcome state intervention. How often have parents been in the situation of protecting their serial killer child? I wonder if it has even happened in this country. OTOH the state taking children from what turns out to be blameless parents seems to happen quite regularly.

[creampuff]

Breadvan72 said:

Do you have an evidence base to support the suggestion that the family courts in those countries are better than they are here, or that social services departments never make mistakes there? The legal systems in those countries are more State oriented than ours is. They follow the Code Civil model, and that is a product of the Louis XIV/Frederick the Great/Napoleon Bonaparte approach to Government - top down, State knows best, citizens only have such rights that the State permits them. UK Government has drifted towards that model, but is still based on the bottom up, State should be challenged, citizens have freedoms that they may choose to cede to the State approach.

I have some experience of (non family related) civil litigation in France, Spain, Italy and Germany, and haven't found their courts to be fast, efficient, or particularly fair as compared to ours, for all the faults that ours undoubtedly have.

This is the practical application of what does happen vs the theoretical notion of what could happen. You don't need to find a country where human rights are cherished, you just need to find one where the rights you may not have compared to the UK are less important for your particular situation. I can't think of any country where the state is more likely to take a child from the parents against the will of the parents than the UK; this includes in authoritarian one-party states. One-party states tend to concern themselves with other things, not taking children (practical experience of this: about 7 years living in authoritarian one-party states).

You could also look at Ashya King - his parents (correctly as it turned out) believed he could get better treatment abroad outside the NHS. The full force of the British state was brought to bear against the parents. The police called a news conference in which a number of blatantly wrong accusations were made for example that Ashya's feeding machine was going to run out of battery power and his food supply was going to run out. Queue the King family some days later releasing on Youtube a vid of the feeding machine which it seems you could plug into a wall socket and food could be prepared with stuff from the supermarket and prepared at home. The police and the BBC first reported that Ashya was "removed without permission" from hospital where no permission was required. Then we had the border alerts and the European Arrest Warrant out on the parents. Even just last month, the NHS concluded that Ashya King was "put at risk" by his parents by removing him from hospital. As an FYI by "putting him at risk" Ashya King is now free of cancer. Under NHS care he would now likely be dead.

Edited by creampuff on Monday 12th October 10:58

[The Moose]

vanordinaire said:

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

For the record, if that was directed at me, I'm not suggesting that at all and I would return the kid back to the parents, however there are many facets to the issue here, and it would be counter productive if people stopped adopting kids because they worry that at some point in the future the kid would be taken away.

[creampuff]

The Moose said:

For the record, if that was directed at me, I'm not suggesting that at all and I would return the kid back to the parents, however there are many facets to the issue here, and it would be counter productive if people stopped adopting kids because they worry that at some point in the future the kid would be taken away.

Not half as counter productive if parents started to think that a simple trip to A&E could result in their child being adopted out against their will !!!

[AJS-]

Something else that might be telling as regards our adoption practices, if you have the inclination to trawl through it:

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/adop...

5,910 domestic adoptions for 2002 versus 450 for France, 1,020 for Italy, both with similar populations, 3,749 for Germany with 80,000 million.

So are we significantly more likely to be unfit parents than these countries? Are they badly failing neglected and abused children? Is there some other explanation in the systems of those countries?

Interestingly France had 3,995 international adoptions in the same period compared to our 329 - almost the mirror image. Germany had 1,919 and Italy 2,177. This could point towards adoption being driven by demand from adoptive parents rather than the need of the children involved.

Edited by AJS- on Monday 12th October 11:20

[anonymous-user]

AJS- said:

No evidence of it at all, no. Though that site seems to think so in a few places. It's hard to cite them as it tends to be big long lists of articles but a couple of snippets.

Ms Wileman fled with him to Spain, Sweden and then the Republic of Ireland, pursued at each stage by the Abduction Child and Contact Unit. In each country the authorities found her to be a good mother.
From http://forced-adoption.com/reforms/ About 1/3rd down

On the continent in France, Spain, Italy etc. children are only taken from parents if they have suffered severe physical harm. The concepts of “emotional harm” and “future risk” quite rightly do not exist there!
From http://forced-adoption.com/reforms/ about 2/3rd down

Anyway, regardless of how good or otherwise their social services and legal systems are, the point is you can escape the clutches of our own overbearing SS without moving to the backwoods of Montana.

Looks like a slightly loony website populated by people with axes to grind, who naturally find their biases confirmed and post only the stories that for them are good news. Another internet echo chamber, in other words. Denying the concepts of emotional harm and future risk is pretty fruitloop. OK to terrorise a child or subject him or her to all sorts of emotional abuse so long as you don't physically harm the child, eh? Why say "regardless of how good or otherwise"? Out of frying pan into fire is not a good strategy.

PS: Describing social services as SS - overkill, much?

[anonymous-user]

creampuff said:

... the state taking children from what turns out to be blameless parents seems to happen quite regularly.

Define "quite regularly", please. It happens, it shouldn't happen, but does it happen often? I don't know.

[saaby93]

What I dont understand in the system is why adopted children need to be told theyre adopted and who are their real parents. Doesnt it add to confusion when they find out?
Arent there tens of thousands of kids, who knows the numbers, where mum has had an affair but brought up the child within the family as if dad is dad. Whats the benefit in letting the cat out of the bag?

[anonymous-user]

A few years ago some adults who had been adopted as children sued the Government for the right to know who their birth parents were, and won, invoking the right to family life protected by article 8 ECHR. I can't recall for sure offhand, but think that a right to be told you were adopted may have popped up in one of the cases. Article 8 has a very extended scope these days (too extended in many ways, I think), and can be applied to some rather amorphous concepts such as personal identity.

[TeamD]

saaby93 said:

What I dont understand in the system is why adopted children need to be told theyre adopted and who are their real parents. Doesnt it add to confusion when they find out?
Arent there tens of thousands of kids, who knows the numbers, where mum has had an affair but brought up the child within the family as if dad is dad. Whats the benefit in letting the cat out of the bag?

And you reckon this is good, why? It surely opens the can of worms that is "does the fake-dad know or not", which is an entirely different moral dilemma. But to address your opening question, it is the childs' right to know if they are adopted and nothing good ever comes from sweeping stuff under a rug.

[Burwood]

TeamD said:

saaby93 said:

What I dont understand in the system is why adopted children need to be told theyre adopted and who are their real parents. Doesnt it add to confusion when they find out?
Arent there tens of thousands of kids, who knows the numbers, where mum has had an affair but brought up the child within the family as if dad is dad. Whats the benefit in letting the cat out of the bag?

And you reckon this is good, why? It surely opens the can of worms that is "does the fake-dad know or not", which is an entirely different moral dilemma. But to address your opening question, it is the childs' right to know if they are adopted and nothing good ever comes from sweeping stuff under a rug.

I think a lot of people want to know where they come from. What they do with that information is a different matter. I can think of some practical advantages with medical history. To some that could be critical. What if you had siblings.