Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
What's in the best interest of the child? To continue living with its adoptive parents with whom it has now bonded, or go through yet another separation and be returned to its biological parents from whom it has been separated for most of its life? The kid's interest trumps everyone else's including the biological parent's however tough that is for them.
REALIST123 said:
UK law, doesn't it make you proud?
It's not the law that is necessarily at fault here. I'm sure a few vindictive jobsworths had a hand in this. I hope they manage to raise enough money to acquire the best legal team available and get their child back.This wouldn't happen to someone of better means.
don4l said:
This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who follows Christopher Booker. There are dozens of such cases. We don't get to hear about them because the family courts are held in secret.
+1 The UK family court system is broken and continues to f
k up people's lives with no recourse or redress; social services depts make mistakes but it takes family court to fk it up permanently.DonnyMac said:
I've read nothing more on this than written here, but as described, how can this be seen as natural or logical justice?
For those of us with children, can you imagine?
Which is the most pleasant country without an extradition treaty with the UK?
No, I really can't. I think I'd be consumed by some kind of all encompassing rage tbh. Just a horrifying situation. For those of us with children, can you imagine?
Which is the most pleasant country without an extradition treaty with the UK?
You'd like to think the adoptive parents would be seeing/reading this in the news today and - with all the anguish it would undoubtedly cause them - be thinking about 'doing the right thing'.
They presumably don't know the identity of the birth parents, but the combination of adoption date / rare medical condition would surely be enough to figure out if theirs was the child in question. Assuming there are no other factors in play, surely they couldn't carry on as if nothing had happened, no matter how desperate they had been to adopt? Objectively, it's not like they've had the child for years / the child is of an age where returning him would present any psychological complications etc. In those circumstances I'd be surprised if they could honestly do nothing.
They presumably don't know the identity of the birth parents, but the combination of adoption date / rare medical condition would surely be enough to figure out if theirs was the child in question. Assuming there are no other factors in play, surely they couldn't carry on as if nothing had happened, no matter how desperate they had been to adopt? Objectively, it's not like they've had the child for years / the child is of an age where returning him would present any psychological complications etc. In those circumstances I'd be surprised if they could honestly do nothing.
hidetheelephants said:
don4l said:
This doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who follows Christopher Booker. There are dozens of such cases. We don't get to hear about them because the family courts are held in secret.
+1 The UK family court system is broken and continues to fk up people's lives with no recourse or redress; social services depts make mistakes but it takes family court to fk it up permanently.roachcoach said:
I would venture not being permanently torn from its parents whilst they hold the presumption of innocence.
Some manner of interim caregiving, certainly in case they are indeed guilty, but this? This is bullst of the highest order.
What if the parents had in fact been mistreating the kid and it still took 2 years to get a conviction? Would you want kids to be left with their parents in those circumstances?Some manner of interim caregiving, certainly in case they are indeed guilty, but this? This is bulls
t of the highest order.ATG said:
roachcoach said:
I would venture not being permanently torn from its parents whilst they hold the presumption of innocence.
Some manner of interim caregiving, certainly in case they are indeed guilty, but this? This is bullst of the highest order.
What if the parents had in fact been mistreating the kid and it still took 2 years to get a conviction? Would you want kids to be left with their parents in those circumstances?Some manner of interim caregiving, certainly in case they are indeed guilty, but this? This is bulls
t of the highest order.ATG said:
What if the parents had in fact been mistreating the kid and it still took 2 years to get a conviction? Would you want kids to be left with their parents in those circumstances?
Surely then the child goes to foster parents until the outcome of the case. Of guilty, then child can be put up for adoption. If not guilty then child returned to parents. Why on earth was this child allowed to be adopted (which apparently is not reversible) if the case was still in process? Can't imagine what the parents must be going through.ATG said:
roachcoach said:
I would venture not being permanently torn from its parents whilst they hold the presumption of innocence.
Some manner of interim caregiving, certainly in case they are indeed guilty, but this? This is bullst of the highest order.
What if the parents had in fact been mistreating the kid and it still took 2 years to get a conviction? Would you want kids to be left with their parents in those circumstances?Some manner of interim caregiving, certainly in case they are indeed guilty, but this? This is bulls
t of the highest order.Imagine that conversation when the kid is older
"Why was I adopted, didn't my parents want me?"
"No Son/Lass, because the law is f
king stupid."Can't say I'm surprised though. I remember on the news one day years back when social workers swooped on a house to remove a child "in danger"...yet left they the sibling(s?) there!! Either they're all in danger, or none.
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.
Enforced adoption without a secured conviction is a shocking move, lose/lose for all involved.
And how long should a child remain in foster care? Should there be a cutoff point after which they can be adopted or should the child potentially be left permanently in foster care? Obviously foster care is a poor long term alternative to adoption as the former gives the kid no certainty.
ATG said:
What's in the best interest of the child? To continue living with its adoptive parents with whom it has now bonded, or go through yet another separation and be returned to its biological parents from whom it has been separated for most of its life? The kid's interest trumps everyone else's including the biological parent's however tough that is for them.
What happens when the child finds the truth out? The child should never have been adopted until the final outcome. The best interest is for the child to be with it's perfectly innocent natural parents in this particular set of circumstances.
My guess is this has all come about because of Baby P and other kids who have died from lack of intervention from social services. They want to look like they're doing something about it, so are quick to pounce on anyone who's kid looks like they've been abused. Unfortunately what they've done here is just as bad!
Spookily enough, there was a fictional TV show three or four years ago that had almost the exact same condition as part of its storyline, although their story had a happier ending. Parents accused of abuse but the bruising and fractures were caused by some condition or genetic anomaly - I was sure it was Silent Witness but I can't find it described in the episode guides.
So it's not like it was a totally unknown situation, if it had already made it into mainstream TV...
So it's not like it was a totally unknown situation, if it had already made it into mainstream TV...
blade runner said:
Surely then the child goes to foster parents until the outcome of the case. Of guilty, then child can be put up for adoption. If not guilty then child returned to parents. Why on earth was this child allowed to be adopted (which apparently is not reversible) if the case was still in process? Can't imagine what the parents must be going through.
It could never be as simple as that. People could be found to be unsuitable and a risk after an investigation even if they do not acquire a conviction. Remember a conviction is pretty much 98ish out our 100 to be proven. I'm not suggesting from the brief article that has occurred here, but it would need to be considered.
Ste1987 said:
My guess is this has all come about because of Baby P and other kids who have died from lack of intervention from social services. They want to look like they're doing something about it, so are quick to pounce on anyone who's kid looks like they've been abused. Unfortunately what they've done here is just as bad!
I doubt it'll have anything to do with that. A non-mobile baby has been presented with 'injuries' it cannot do to itself, so they would have followed their protocols to let the relevant authorities know. This isn't anything new. WinstonWolf said:
ATG said:
What's in the best interest of the child? To continue living with its adoptive parents with whom it has now bonded, or go through yet another separation and be returned to its biological parents from whom it has been separated for most of its life? The kid's interest trumps everyone else's including the biological parent's however tough that is for them.
What happens when the child finds the truth out? The child should never have been adopted until the final outcome. The best interest is for the child to be with it's perfectly innocent natural parents in this particular set of circumstances.
ATG said:
WinstonWolf said:
ATG said:
What's in the best interest of the child? To continue living with its adoptive parents with whom it has now bonded, or go through yet another separation and be returned to its biological parents from whom it has been separated for most of its life? The kid's interest trumps everyone else's including the biological parent's however tough that is for them.
What happens when the child finds the truth out? The child should never have been adopted until the final outcome. The best interest is for the child to be with it's perfectly innocent natural parents in this particular set of circumstances.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff