Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
Why would the PH massive not support legal aid for any defence of any case? Isnt an imbalance in legal teams likely to lead to injustice. Why not stipulate that legal teams should be of similar standing so that if one side decides to throw a lot of cash at their case, they should also help fund the other side if they cant afford it
There - would that work
There - would that work
Breadvan72 said:
Er... did you read the first sentence in peaches' post?
Respect also, peaches. You people work hard in a thankless task and for mediocre pay, and get slagged off by the armchair experts and rubbish media whatever you do.
Erm...Yes, but it says "shocking and horrible" but does not say "unjust." Respect also, peaches. You people work hard in a thankless task and for mediocre pay, and get slagged off by the armchair experts and rubbish media whatever you do.
creampuff said:
Let's now pose a hypothetical question:
It's a sunny Saturday afternoon. You are a parent with a young child. Some accident happens at home and your child gets injured. It was an accident and the injury is consistent with both an accident and deliberate abuse. You think your child will probably be OK without medical attention, but you are not a doctor so you aren't 100% sure.
Do you take your child to A&E or not?
My 13 month old son fell down the stairs last week, it was a completely innocent mistake with the stair gate and we were/are absolutely devastated by it. He was absolutely 100% fine (stopped crying after about a minute and started playing normally after, my wife cried for a lot longer!), but we phoned 111 and went to A&E to be on the safe side.It's a sunny Saturday afternoon. You are a parent with a young child. Some accident happens at home and your child gets injured. It was an accident and the injury is consistent with both an accident and deliberate abuse. You think your child will probably be OK without medical attention, but you are not a doctor so you aren't 100% sure.
Do you take your child to A&E or not?
We wouldn't think twice about taking him to A&E, but we would both readily admit to being really concerned about how the accident would be perceived. Particularly as he is an active little monkey who is just about figuring out how to walk, so isn't exactly free of the occasional knock or bump anyway.
Unintentional injuries are the major cause of
morbidity and premature mortality for children
and young people.
There is a strong link between
unintentional injury and inequality, with children
from the most disadvantaged families far more
likely to be killed or seriously injured.
Death rates for injury and poisoning have fallen for
all social groups except the poorest: these
children are 13 times more likely to die.
Removal of teeth is the highest cause of
anaesthesia in under 5s
The average number of visits to the GP each year
by pre-school children is 6;
during school age this falls to 2–3.
Around 1 in 11 children utilise hospital outpatients
1 in 10–15 are admitted overall.
Around half of under 1 year olds visit an Accident
& Emergency department, leading to 1 in 3 being admitted.
from: Health Visitors information.
morbidity and premature mortality for children
and young people.
There is a strong link between
unintentional injury and inequality, with children
from the most disadvantaged families far more
likely to be killed or seriously injured.
Death rates for injury and poisoning have fallen for
all social groups except the poorest: these
children are 13 times more likely to die.
Removal of teeth is the highest cause of
anaesthesia in under 5s
The average number of visits to the GP each year
by pre-school children is 6;
during school age this falls to 2–3.
Around 1 in 11 children utilise hospital outpatients
1 in 10–15 are admitted overall.
Around half of under 1 year olds visit an Accident
& Emergency department, leading to 1 in 3 being admitted.
from: Health Visitors information.
TeamD said:
Breadvan72 said:
It's a post in a discussion forum, not a tax statute.
And as such is open to interpretation, is there an implied "but..." that we see so many times when politicians and spokespersons provide us with their "qualified" condemnation of this or that act?Social services do not obtain Emergency Protection Orders (which I presume they'd use in the hospital scenarios) lightly. Concerns are most likely to be slow-timed through the referral process unless there are serious immediate concerns and a belief of immediate harm.
I'd speculate parents trying to remove an injured child would be more likely to face such an order or the 'police protection' powers within the same act.
I'd speculate parents trying to remove an injured child would be more likely to face such an order or the 'police protection' powers within the same act.
ukaskew said:
My 13 month old son fell down the stairs last week, it was a completely innocent mistake with the stair gate and we were/are absolutely devastated by it. He was absolutely 100% fine (stopped crying after about a minute and started playing normally after, my wife cried for a lot longer!), but we phoned 111 and went to A&E to be on the safe side.
We wouldn't think twice about taking him to A&E, but we would both readily admit to being really concerned about how the accident would be perceived. Particularly as he is an active little monkey who is just about figuring out how to walk, so isn't exactly free of the occasional knock or bump anyway.
Do not be concerned. The staff are trained to look for signs of non accidental injury, but they do not assume that parents are guilty. Their primary concern is to help the child get better. A and E is not some robotic child snatching machine, whatever some of the paranoid types here suggest. We wouldn't think twice about taking him to A&E, but we would both readily admit to being really concerned about how the accident would be perceived. Particularly as he is an active little monkey who is just about figuring out how to walk, so isn't exactly free of the occasional knock or bump anyway.
Breadvan72 said:
I also love creampuff's entirely made up statistics, which will probably now solidify into "there's definitely a 1 in 35,000 chance that you kid will be snatched if you go to A and E". Even if that completely invented number was accurate, it would hardly support creampuff's assertion that your child could "easily" be taken away, or support the "get yer passport" paranoid types in supposing that people should be deterred from going to A and E because of the risk of snatchage. He also seems now to be fixating on infant rickets, retreating from his earlier broad assertions as to A and E, not specifying age or ailment.
I reiterate that the case in question seems like one that went horrendously wrong, but to the extent that we are now discussing the risk of such travesties occurring, we still don't have any data here to measure that risk.
Well Breadvan, you are an intelligent chap with apparently plenty of time on your hands. You specifically asked how often it happens, I answered, with the stated caveat that my numbers were gross estimates. If you want a more accurate answer, it would be much easier for you to look up the number of under 6 month old A&E admissions leading to removal of the child rather than making snide remarks when I address the question which you have asked, without actually researching anything yourself. I reiterate that the case in question seems like one that went horrendously wrong, but to the extent that we are now discussing the risk of such travesties occurring, we still don't have any data here to measure that risk.
You seem to think I am backtracking because commented about your example of your circa 11yo daughter. That removal only occurs in the case of infants is obvious. All the cases of similar removals involving rickets were in infants. I would have thought it was obvious to everyone that an 11yo as in your example is not going to be removed from their parents on the basis of suspected abuse due rickets or anything else where no abuse has actually occurred because the 11yo can talk. It seems though that this was not obvious to you, so I will say it: 11yo olds are not at risk of removal because they can talk and can explain what has happened to them.
Here is yet another similar case from a family law website:
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed97208
How is it that I am a layman and have been able to post about several similar cases, including from family law websites, when you are a barrister or solicitor with far greater access to case history databases and haven't posted anything, yet still keep asking me about it?
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.
htf, i really am beginning to understand the madness that has affected large swathes of people in the uk, particularly those supposedly running the "system".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.
here is the "mechanism". adoptive parents drive round to real parents house and give the child back, end of story. are there really people that will just do what the state tells them no matter what ? remember the law in this country is supposed to be based on consent .the real parents do not consent to this adoption and the law has absolutely no grounds to keep the child from them, none at all. who the f
k does anyone involved in this decision think they are removing a child illegally from a family based on a load of nonsense and the desire to dot i's and cross t's instead of completing the investigation in a timely fashion.you do realise the procedure almost worked correctly here. the length of time taken to carry out the investigation is really the only problem. the adoption would never have taken place otherwise.
as far as i am concerned having a child taken away by the state is not something you put down to experience and move on. it is a life changing/destroying occurrence . as far as i am concerned,whatever action the parents take and i mean any action, legal or otherwise, against the clowns that did this will be perfectly justified.
creampuff, he who asserts must prove. I am not here to do the research that you are too lazy to do. If you make an assertion, back it up.
Your assertion was about A and E, not limited to infants or to rickets.
The instant case remains very troubling, but your generalisations remain unsupported.
Your assertion was about A and E, not limited to infants or to rickets.
The instant case remains very troubling, but your generalisations remain unsupported.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 14:39
wc98, can you identify the illegality that has occurred here? The problem is that there may not have been any illegality. None has been made clear so far. Crappy decisions by those involved, yes, but not every crappy decision is illegal.
Do you have no sympathy for the adoptive parents, equally blameless and caught in a tragic cock up? If you had been yearning to adopt a child, had gone through the intrusive adoption process, and then been allowed to adopt a child, would you just give the child up? The birth parents have suffered a terrible wrong, but saying "just go around and give the child back" may be too simplistic a response. Some problems have no easy solutions.
Do you have no sympathy for the adoptive parents, equally blameless and caught in a tragic cock up? If you had been yearning to adopt a child, had gone through the intrusive adoption process, and then been allowed to adopt a child, would you just give the child up? The birth parents have suffered a terrible wrong, but saying "just go around and give the child back" may be too simplistic a response. Some problems have no easy solutions.
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.
Maybe try this place -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgaria
Oh, hang on a minute...
i have an excuse for being ill informed , i am a bit of an arse, had a fractured education and am probably a bit thick. what is your excuse for the grand exaggeration of points people make,where did anyone on this thread suggest thousands of children a day were being snatched, or is that just a pure figment of your imagination ? the first passports my younger siblings had were also non uk .Maybe try this place -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgaria
Oh, hang on a minute...
provided you have a bit of cash, the philippines is a lovely place to live with no hassle , particularly if you have well connected in laws .
leaving the uk without officialdom knowing is hardly difficult either.
Breadvan72 said:
wc98, can you identify the illegality that has occurred here? The problem is that there may not have been any illegality. None has been made clear so far. Crappy decisions by those involved, yes, but not every crappy decision is illegal.
Do you have no sympathy for the adoptive parents, equally blameless and caught in a tragic cock up? If you had been yearning to adopt a child, had gone through the intrusive adoption process, and then been allowed to adopt a child, would you just give the child up? The birth parents have suffered a terrible wrong, but saying "just go around and give the child back" may be too simplistic a response. Some problems have no easy solutions.
having watched a good friend see his marriage fall apart through a failed adoption attempt (apparently due to age was part of the final decision) that lasted over two years,i completely understand just how hard that process must be for any potential adoptive parents.Do you have no sympathy for the adoptive parents, equally blameless and caught in a tragic cock up? If you had been yearning to adopt a child, had gone through the intrusive adoption process, and then been allowed to adopt a child, would you just give the child up? The birth parents have suffered a terrible wrong, but saying "just go around and give the child back" may be too simplistic a response. Some problems have no easy solutions.
i accept i may think and reason differently to the majority, but my first reaction as an adoptive parent learning of the true circumstances of the child i had adopted would be to recognise the trauma the real parents were going through and make the right decision. any person that has had to face the reality of becoming a parent through natural means must surely realise the pain the real parents are going through in this case.yes i have sympathy for the adoptive parents, it must be nearly as bad an experience for them as the real parents. i would still return the child to the real parents.
the illegality for me is that a child has been removed from its parents for no reason , none at all.
it is all well and good saying lessons will be learned, but creampuff has posted enough links to similar situations to make me think they have not and will not be learned in the future. you know the machinations of the law better than most, and for me the middle management in the social services and police departments involved in these cases are the problem . full of career minded people that are focused on learning the latest buzz word/phrase to sound clever at the daily sound like you know what you are talking about meeting than actually resolving the real live life changing situations the workers at the coal face have to deal with on a daily basis. the same general malaise that has affected uk middle management for decades.
lack of real accountability is the problem. sling a few in jail for gross incompetence and that will focus minds in the right direction.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff