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

[TwigtheWonderkid]

zedstar said:

Unbelievably sad situation, how people aren't getting sued and losing their jobs etc is beyond me.

Were they negligent. Kid presents with bleeding, bruising and seemingly recent fractures, what are they meant to think. I very rare condition probably not at the top of the list.

I'd hate to be a social worker. They are either over interfering busybodies who should but out of people's lives, or they stood by and watched a kid die and did nothing. All whilst managing a stupid caseload designed to be managed by 5 people. And going face to face daily with some complete scumbags, all for £22K a year. fk that for a job.

[ATG]

WinstonWolf said:

So it's *your* child that has been adopted forcefully against your wishes. I assume that's OK with you as due process seems to be more important?

Christ on a bike. Get a grip on your emotion and think.

Let's say you think there's a real risk that I'm abusing my kid.

What do you do?

Do you leave the kid with me while you investigate me, or do you get the kid away from me first?

If you separate me from the kid, how long do you do that for without making a proper home for the kid?

These are real, practical problems. You can't duck them unless you're prepared to put the kid's interests behind those of its parents. Any decent parent would say "put my child's interests before mine".

So rather than say "it's a disgrace", "heads should role", blaming social workers, etc., how about some practical suggestions that avoid this sorry of tragedy while still putting the children's interests first?

[WinstonWolf]

ATG said:

WinstonWolf said:

So it's *your* child that has been adopted forcefully against your wishes. I assume that's OK with you as due process seems to be more important?

Christ on a bike. Get a grip on your emotion and think.

Let's say you think there's a real risk that I'm abusing my kid.

What do you do?

Do you leave the kid with me while you investigate me, or do you get the kid away from me first?

If you separate me from the kid, how long do you do that for without making a proper home for the kid?

These are real, practical problems. You can't duck them unless you're prepared to put the kid's interests behind those of its parents. Any decent parent would say "put my child's interests before mine".

So rather than say "it's a disgrace", "heads should role", blaming social workers, etc., how about some practical suggestions that avoid this sorry of tragedy while still putting the children's interests first?

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

[blade runner]

WinstonWolf said:

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

About sums it up.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

ATG said:

WinstonWolf said:

So it's *your* child that has been adopted forcefully against your wishes. I assume that's OK with you as due process seems to be more important?

Christ on a bike. Get a grip on your emotion and think.

Let's say you think there's a real risk that I'm abusing my kid.

What do you do?

Do you leave the kid with me while you investigate me, or do you get the kid away from me first?

If you separate me from the kid, how long do you do that for without making a proper home for the kid?

These are real, practical problems. You can't duck them unless you're prepared to put the kid's interests behind those of its parents. Any decent parent would say "put my child's interests before mine".

So rather than say "it's a disgrace", "heads should role", blaming social workers, etc., how about some practical suggestions that avoid this sorry of tragedy while still putting the children's interests first?

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

But these cases can drag on ages. How long do you keep a child in the care service and in and out of foster homes and care facilities when they could be adopted into a secure loving family?

I very much doubt any of the decisions in this process were taking lightly, yet keyboard warriors with the benefit of hindsight are telling us how it should have been done.

They're crying out for social workers in some of our major cities. If you lot could do it so much better, perhaps you should apply! It's not a job I would touch with a bargepole.

[ATG]

WinstonWolf said:

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

What do you mean "OK"? Seriously. Do you think the problem here is that people can't empathise with the parents?

You say we should always wait for "due process" to complete. What happens if that takes years? As I've asked a few times, are we really saying the child should be stuck in limbo indefinitely rather than be given a stable, long term home at some point?

If there's some way of making all these difficult issues evaporate, we'd all be glad to hear them. But it seems to me that this is just an extreme example of the difficulty that is inherent in a child protection system. Better to face up to that target than run round looking for scapegoats every time something traffic happens.

[mattmurdock]

blade runner said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

About sums it up.

So if due process takes several years? What then?

Medical evidence shows the damage that sort of uncertainty can do to a child. Unless you want the government to pay a fortune to ensure each child has continuous long-term foster care?

Of course the system isn't perfect, and in this case it has almost certainly resulted in a tragic set of circumstances. Magical money trees do not exist to ensure it cannot happen again though.

Whilst I am clearly biased in this, anything that rocks the precedent that removing adopted children should be as difficult as removing birth children is an extremely dangerous step to take, and will most likely result in much poorer outcomes for children in general.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

ATG said:

WinstonWolf said:

So it's *your* child that has been adopted forcefully against your wishes. I assume that's OK with you as due process seems to be more important?

Christ on a bike. Get a grip on your emotion and think.

Let's say you think there's a real risk that I'm abusing my kid.

What do you do?

Do you leave the kid with me while you investigate me, or do you get the kid away from me first?

If you separate me from the kid, how long do you do that for without making a proper home for the kid?

These are real, practical problems. You can't duck them unless you're prepared to put the kid's interests behind those of its parents. Any decent parent would say "put my child's interests before mine".

So rather than say "it's a disgrace", "heads should role", blaming social workers, etc., how about some practical suggestions that avoid this sorry of tragedy while still putting the children's interests first?

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

But these cases can drag on ages. How long do you keep a child in the care service and in and out of foster homes and care facilities when they could be adopted into a secure loving family?

I very much doubt any of the decisions in this process were taking lightly, yet keyboard warriors with the benefit of hindsight are telling us how it should have been done.

They're crying out for social workers in some of our major cities. If you lot could do it so much better, perhaps you should apply! It's not a job I would touch with a bargepole.

Until due process is complete. Same question to you, it's *your* child, you've done nothing wrong. Is it OK? No right of appeal, the decision is final...

The bottom line is you lose your child because the state has made a mistake. However you dress it up that is wrong.

[ATG]

blade runner said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

About sums it up.

It sums up the escapism.

[WinstonWolf]

ATG said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's *your* child, you have done nothing wrong, is it OK?

The solution definitely isn't to have the child adopted before due process is complete, which is what has happened in this particular case.

What do you mean "OK"? Seriously. Do you think the problem here is that people can't empathise with the parents?

You say we should always wait for "due process" to complete. What happens if that takes years? As I've asked a few times, are we really saying the child should be stuck in limbo indefinitely rather than be given a stable, long term home at some point?

If there's some way of making all these difficult issues evaporate, we'd all be glad to hear them. But it seems to me that this is just an extreme example of the difficulty that is inherent in a child protection system. Better to face up to that target than run round looking for scapegoats every time something traffic happens.

No right of appeal, it's *your* child being adopted because of a mistake. I take it you think that's OK?

[ATG]

WinstonWolf said:

The bottom line is you lose your child because the state has made a mistake. However you dress it up that is wrong.

But it may be the least wrong outcome.

[ATG]

WinstonWolf said:

No right of appeal, it's *your* child being adopted because of a mistake. I take it you think that's OK?

You don't seem to realise what a genuinely stupid question that is.

[blade runner]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But these cases can drag on ages. How long do you keep a child in the care service and in and out of foster homes and care facilities when they could be adopted into a secure loving family?

I would say quite a few years if the child in question is that young. Most probably will have no lasting memories of the first three years of life and still young enough now to be re-established with biological parents without any huge emotional issues I would think (although I admit to be no expert).

I can see your point, but can't help thinking that in this particular case, the decision to adopt was quite obviously wrong and should not have been made.

[mattmurdock]

WinstonWolf said:

Until due process is complete. Same question to you, it's *your* child, you've done nothing wrong. Is it OK? No right of appeal, the decision is final...

The bottom line is you lose your child because the state has made a mistake. However you dress it up that is wrong.

However you dress it up, leaving children with stty birth parents who emotionally and physically abuse them is wrong. Letting children get tortured and killed by their parents is wrong. Which wrong do you want to make sure doesn't happen.

This should not have happened, that much is clear. In the real world however, it is impossible to prevent everything that should not have happened. In the real world, if someone accidentally runs over your child and kills them, no amount of wishing it was different is going to change that outcome. People lose children due to mistakes every day, and I do wish that was not the case.

My daughter was emotionally and mentally damaged by being in foster care for an extended period of time before adoption was sought, due to what I believe to be the incompetence of the social services. If anything, my experience is that the social services only push for adoption in clear cut cases or as a last resort. I understand this is an extremely emotive area for parents, but if it hadn't of happened that way it is likely I wouldn't have the astonishing little girl I have today. I could wish that things had been different for her (and I do) but I have to accept that this is an extremely difficult and complicated process in which the needs of the child should always come first.

[creampuff]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Were they negligent. Kid presents with bleeding, bruising and seemingly recent fractures, what are they meant to think. I very rare condition probably not at the top of the list.

I'd hate to be a social worker. They are either over interfering busybodies who should but out of people's lives, or they stood by and watched a kid die and did nothing. All whilst managing a stupid caseload designed to be managed by 5 people. And going face to face daily with some complete scumbags, all for £22K a year. fk that for a job.

A child presenting at A&E in that condition, it would be quite reasonable to at first suspect the parents. At first that is.

This whole process has been going on since 2012. Three years. That is ample time to investigate what has actually happened.

As I said there was a TV documentary about this and similar cases a year or two ago, which I saw. If it is the same family, the child had a disease called Rickets.
A description of Rickets is here:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art...
A symptom of this disease is lots of small bone fractures.

According to the TV doco, the argument put forward by social services and the NHS and their lawyers was that Rickets no longer existed as a disease in this country. It was eliminated years ago, apparently. Only it hasn't been eliminated and this child had it.

Social services and the NHS and by implication the British state failed to investigate if this child had rickets, they failed to listen to the parents, they failed to consider the possibility that the parents were actually good parents and there were other plausible causes why the child presented in that condition. Instead they took the child and it seems they have been hell bent on adopting the child out, even though the child is still very young and could be returned to the parents. The child was adopted out only a few months ago - would it have been that unreasonable to wait a few months until the case against the parents came to court?

This is an absolute fking disgrace. The people involved should be asking themselves why the fk they turn up to work, because it sure as hell is not to help anybody.

This has done a major disservice to every child in Britain. Since I saw that doco, my first thought involving any interaction involving any branch of the government, education system or NHS is: they may be able to help me, but they can also be a threat. If my child injured themselves, my first thought if they had to go to hospital would be, "would they try and blame it on me?" I'm sure I'm not the only parent who thinks this and after this case gets more publicity, I won't be the last.

This really could have happened to anybody with a child. The parents did absolutely nothing wrong and unless they could afford some very expensive QCs, there isn't anything they could do about it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blade runner said:

I can see your point, but can't help thinking that in this particular case, the decision to adopt was quite obviously wrong and should not have been made.

It's may be wrong with hindsight. If the parents had been guilty, and the child had been kept in care and not adopted until due process was complete, then the decision to not adopt would have been wrong.

The number one priority when this process started was for the kid to grow up in safety and security. That priority has been achieved. Everything else, regardless of how awful and sad and "I would be devastated if it was my kid" is just a sideshow.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

creampuff said:

This is an absolute fking disgrace. The people involved should be asking themselves why the fk they turn up to work, because it sure as hell is not to help anybody.

This has done a major disservice to every child in Britain.

No it's not. Your comments above is a perfect description of the Baby P case, and the Victoria Climbe (spelling?) case.

In this case the child is, as far as we know, safe and happy. Yes, decent parents have lost their child, and that is awful, but it doesn't compare to getting it wrong at the other end of the scale.

[WinstonWolf]

ATG said:

WinstonWolf said:

No right of appeal, it's *your* child being adopted because of a mistake. I take it you think that's OK?

You don't seem to realise what a genuinely stupid question that is.

You don't seem to realise what a genuinely stupid answer that is. If you make decisions without being in possession of all the facts mistakes will be made. That is what has happened here.

[ATG]

WinstonWolf said:

ATG said:

WinstonWolf said:

No right of appeal, it's *your* child being adopted because of a mistake. I take it you think that's OK?

You don't seem to realise what a genuinely stupid question that is.

You don't seem to realise what a genuinely stupid answer that is. If you make decisions without being in possession of all the facts mistakes will be made. That is what has happened here.

And for the umpteenth time, what happens if it takes years to establish the facts? Do you leave the kid in foster care indefinitely when they would be better off in a proper long term home?

[creampuff]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No it's not. Your comments above is a perfect description of the Baby P case, and the Victoria Climbe (spelling?) case.

In this case the child is, as far as we know, safe and happy. Yes, decent parents have lost their child, and that is awful, but it doesn't compare to getting it wrong at the other end of the scale.

No, this has no relation whatsoever to Baby P. Baby P presented multiple times over an 8 month period to the NHS or other government agencies, who abjectly failed by doing nothing. I'm not aware that there was ever a plausible alternative explanation presented for Baby Ps injuries.

This baby presented once with injuries initially appearing consistent with abuse, following which the baby was immediately removed and a period of 3 years of total incompetence ensued and during which the parents maintained their innocence and a plausible explanation was given, to which the NHS/social services either incompetently or maliciously ignored.

The only similarity in these cases is total incompetence. It is not good enough to say "the interests of the child trump everything". The interests of the child are best served by staying with parents who love the child. Presumably the new adoptive parents love the child, but this was preceded with 2 years of foster care which isn't real great, plus it has completely fked up the lives of the two biological parents, which seems to be of no concern whatsoever to you.