Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
ATG said:
The unavoidable consequence is that some innocent biological parents are going to suffer. I don't see how you can avoid that unless you make the whole process much quicker end to end.
Oh the greater good argument. If it saves just one then it's worth it. s
t happens, if children get removed from their parents who have done no wrong, it's all worth it right?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.
social worker by any chance.that is pure bullst.ATG said:
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.
I would think at least until their parents court case is concluded, in these circumstances. La Liga
If there isn't enough evidence to convict then is it still enough to take the child?
Unless it was a pretty serious ommission from the reporting of this case they were neverfound unsuitable.
It seems to me to be a complete disregard of the presumption of innocence.
wc98 said:
social worker by any chance.that is pure bullst.
The number of people on here with not the blindest bit of understanding is startling.t.In an ideal world, parents would never be s
tty to their kids, and everyone would live happily ever after. This is clearly not an ideal world.The damage done to children who spend a long time in temporary care is well documented, as is the damage done to young children due to emotionally or physically abusive parents. As ATG said, there is no 'best' outcome in most cases. Certainly the best option for a child is to be in a stable situation with loving parents, and the sooner that is restored the better it is for the child. Keeping the child in long-term (or multiple short-term) foster care is better than leaving them with s
tty parents, but it is not the best outcome.Adoptions clearly have to be irreversible legally, otherwise the child's life would be one long court case and even more uncertainty.
As an adoptive parent myself, the thought that anyone could take away my daughter in the future is clearly as horrifying to me as the thought of someone taking your biological children is horrifying to you.
The Family Courts would have been through a number of steps in order to make a child available for adoption, and they would have been reliant on the expert testimony of medical and social professionals. Will these people (and the entire process) make mistakes - of course they will, as it involves human beings. Will some of those mistakes lead to tragedy in both directions (either children removed incorrectly, or children hurt/killed due to lack of removal) - yes, again of course they will.
Could it be improved - yes, with lots of money/resources to bring in multiple experts and speed up the court process around the parents to determine guilt or innocence in a quicker timescale. Mistakes would still be made though.
My heart goes out to these people, and I wish the outcome would have been different. However, I am almost certain that the adoptive parents will be entirely aware of who the biological parents are, and I'm almost certain that (unless there are court rulings to the contrary) that the parents will be able to maintain contact with their child throughout his life.
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.
From the original story, seems the child is about three years old, and has been with the adoptive parents no more than 9 months (and in foster care for max 2 years before that). Would obviously be difficult in the short term, but weighed against the knowledge that he/she is finally with his/her birth parents? No contest in my view. Wasn't there a story recently that was almost the opposite? The child had been adopted for quite some years, since birth, and the natural grandparents pursued custody through the courts and won.
Not sure if it was over here, but that would suggest that the adoption process can be overturned.
Not sure if it was over here, but that would suggest that the adoption process can be overturned.
Actually it was 10 months. Point still stands though:
http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/25/couple-who-adopted-b...
To me, today's story seems as much like an attempt for the natural parents to get their case in the public and political eye, before it goes to court. Not that there's any harm in that.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/25/couple-who-adopted-b...
To me, today's story seems as much like an attempt for the natural parents to get their case in the public and political eye, before it goes to court. Not that there's any harm in that.
AJS- said:
La Liga
If there isn't enough evidence to convict then is it still enough to take the child?
Unless it was a pretty serious ommission from the reporting of this case they were neverfound unsuitable.
It seems to me to be a complete disregard of the presumption of innocence.
We can't say that risk only exists if we can prove a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt and then only act if it is proven. Care proceedings and non-criminal child protection is done on the balance of probabilities, which allows much greater scope for protection. Again, I am not suggesting that is specifically relevant here, it was in response to the proposal that no conviction = no child taken as a default. If there isn't enough evidence to convict then is it still enough to take the child?
Unless it was a pretty serious ommission from the reporting of this case they were neverfound unsuitable.
It seems to me to be a complete disregard of the presumption of innocence.
Swervin_Mervin said:
Actually it was 10 months. Point still stands though:
http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/25/couple-who-adopted-b...
To me, today's story seems as much like an attempt for the natural parents to get their case in the public and political eye, before it goes to court. Not that there's any harm in that.
In this case, the child was not actually adopted yet. If the adoption order had already been signed, it would not have been possible for the court to reverse it.http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/25/couple-who-adopted-b...
To me, today's story seems as much like an attempt for the natural parents to get their case in the public and political eye, before it goes to court. Not that there's any harm in that.
I'm not familiar enough with the case in the OP, but I'm presuming the adoption order has already been signed in that case and so their is absolutely nothing the birth parents can do.
mattmurdock said:
In this case, the child was not actually adopted yet. If the adoption order had already been signed, it would not have been possible for the court to reverse it.
I'm not familiar enough with the case in the OP, but I'm presuming the adoption order has already been signed in that case and so their is absolutely nothing the birth parents can do.
Surely there must be some redress to a higher court to see if the adoption can be reversed? For once would the European Court of Human Rights have something useful that could be leveraged? As the child is still very young, speed would need to be of the essence so I don't blame the parents one bit for getting this into the media. After all, everyone here can see what a tragedy this case represents and is discussing. It can only be to the benefit of both the parents and the child to see them back together as a family.I'm not familiar enough with the case in the OP, but I'm presuming the adoption order has already been signed in that case and so their is absolutely nothing the birth parents can do.
wc98 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.
social worker by any chance.that is pure bullst.I'm hearing a lot of hand wringing on this thread, but not seeing any answers to the questions about how long the kid is stuck in limbo.
creampuff said:
ATG said:
The unavoidable consequence is that some innocent biological parents are going to suffer. I don't see how you can avoid that unless you make the whole process much quicker end to end.
Oh the greater good argument. If it saves just one then it's worth it. st happens, if children get removed from their parents who have done no wrong, it's all worth it right?redrabbit 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.
From the original story, seems the child is about three years old, and has been with the adoptive parents no more than 9 months (and in foster care for max 2 years before that). Would obviously be difficult in the short term, but weighed against the knowledge that he/she is finally with his/her birth parents? No contest in my view. ATG said:
wc98 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.
social worker by any chance.that is pure bullst.I'm hearing a lot of hand wringing on this thread, but not seeing any answers to the questions about how long the kid is stuck in limbo.
Breadvan72 said:
No legal aid. Many here couldn't care less when legal aid cuts were made, but this sort of thing is what can happen when legal aid is cut to the bone.
Unfortunately this. The same troglodytes who appeared quite happy when legal aid was decimated now want quicker process. And those social workers 'jobsworts' their 'heads should roll'. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff