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

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

Does the innocence of the parents mean the chikd was actually abducted? certainky doesn't sound in anyway legal to me as they didn't consider the evidence.

No, it does mean that the child was abducted. The adoption was legal. This does not make the case any the less tragic, and I am surprised that the adoption went ahead so fast, and did not await the outcome of the criminal case. Bear in mind, however, that the criminal case could have failed on the beyond reasonable doubt test, but there could still have been grounds for concern on the balance of probabilities, but that was not this case. In this case, the parents were blameless, as medical evidence later showed.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th October 06:09

[creampuff]

ATG said:

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?

So here it is only a few months between the child being adopted - a permanent and irreversible process - and the biological parents being found not to have done anything. This seems like a good time scale to you? It wouldn't have been better to wait a few extra months to see what happened?

[Stickyfinger]

RESULT....

Kid is funded by the other parents till its 18, you meet it after all the trouble/cost and decide if its well brought up....if good great, if its a troll/ugly/ginger, just disown it....nice and simple.

[lauda]

ATG said:

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?

I think my challenge to this would be why it should take years to establish the facts. I appreciate that the appropriate legal process needs to be followed but surely in the (hopefully) reasonably limited number of cases where the outcome of a case will decide whether a child stays with their birth parents or is put up for adoption, some sort of fastracking of the case would be justified?

I get that the authorities are often in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation but this sort of outcome is just entirely unacceptable.

[creampuff]

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?

[Ste1987]

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?

Catch 22 much? Child abuse if you don't, child abuse if you do

[ATG]

Ste1987 said:

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?

Catch 22 much? Child abuse if you don't, child abuse if you do

Except in reality you wouldn't think twice.

[don4l]

ATG said:

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.

The baby's condition would have become clear a month after going into foster care. It should have been returned to its parents at that point.

[Burwood]

Ste1987 said:

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?

Catch 22 much? Child abuse if you don't, child abuse if you do

It takes more than a few bruises or even a terrible injury. Signs of old serious injury such as broken bones or burns, cuts which were not treated. I would agree though that is is highly likely to get asked about injury or be judged and ones behaviour/response would be important. Most people of PH would be done for telling the nurse to 'do one'

[Jasandjules]

F**k me. Well, I hope they do something about this.

[JonRB]

My step-son is a haemophiliac (Von Willebrand's and Haemophilia are very similar conditions) and my wife told me that when he was very little, before I met her, she often had strangers come up to her and scold her for the fact he was covered in bruises, and some threatening to report her to the police.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

creampuff said:

Presumably the new adoptive parents love the child, but this was preceded with 2 years of foster care which isn't real great,

Yet there are people on here complaining that the period in foster care wasn't long enough, and should have continued indefinitely until the parents were either found guilty or not.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JonRB said:

My step-son is a haemophiliac (Von Willebrand's and Haemophilia are very similar conditions) and my wife told me that when he was very little, before I met her, she often had strangers come up to her and scold her for the fact he was covered in bruises, and some threatening to report her to the police.

Was she angry that strangers were sticking their noses in and misjudging her, or pleased that people were concerned about the welfare of a child they didn't know?

[JonRB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Was she angry that strangers were sticking their noses in and misjudging her, or pleased that people were concerned about the welfare of a child they didn't know?

I don't recall.

[creampuff]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yet there are people on here complaining that the period in foster care wasn't long enough, and should have continued indefinitely until the parents were either found guilty or not.

In that case the obvious solution is, immediately there is any suspicion about the welfare of the child, to put the child up for adoption and permanently remove the child from the birth parents. Unlike birth parents, adoptive parents must pass background checks. We must think of the children after all.

[wc98]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yet there are people on here complaining that the period in foster care wasn't long enough, and should have continued indefinitely until the parents were either found guilty or not.

i personally think they are complaining because the half arsed system and the large number of yoghurt knitters running it could not come to a satisfactory conclusion in a timely fashion. the judicial system is a farce,as is vast swathes of social services.
i do not like tarring large groups of people with the same brush, but this has been shown to be true more often than not.
i seem to remember a law lord came out with a comment along the lines of the law is more important than justice being served. the lord is an arse of the highest order if he thinks that. another public servant that thinks his opinion is above that of the ordinary punter.

[hidetheelephants]

ATG said:

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.

What's good about separating the child from their blood? Social services have made great pains to return children to previously feckless parents who have made efforts to turn their lives around on the basis that blood is best; why is this any different? How do you evaluate the pros and cons of each objectively? Why not just use long term foster care while the accused remain innocent? If the under-3s are being harmed by foster care followed by return to parents compared to straight into adoption because the trial process is too long, that's a reason to shorten the trial process, not provide extra children for the adoption process.

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.

Family court would be a stty mess with or without legal aid cuts, it was a stty mess before; it appears to be down to the judges and the guidelines they are supposed to be following, but don't. The practically absolute block on public disclosure is a massive brake on oversight, criticism and review.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

It's exactly this binary thinking that's the problem; taking the child into protective custody while the case is evaluated is fine, if alarming for the parents; it's the 'straight to adoption, do not pass go, do not get declared innocent, go to court for 3 years, do not collect £200' that's the problem.

mattmurdock said:

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.

where do you draw the line? Which advice is best? Once upon a time we sent kids whose parents were poor to Australia; are we going to advocate that now?

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Given the potential for separation from birth parents to permanently fk you up as a human being, more focus on making the imperfect work would seem like a good idea.

creampuff said:

In that case the obvious solution is, immediately there is any suspicion about the welfare of the child, to put the child up for adoption and permanently remove the child from the birth parents. Unlike birth parents, adoptive parents must pass background checks. We must think of the children after all.

Why not just require would-be parents to get checked before allowing them a breeding licence? A lot cheaper than a large foster care sector.

wc98 said:

i seem to remember a law lord came out with a comment along the lines of the law is more important than justice being served. the lord is an arse of the highest order if he thinks that. another public servant that thinks his opinion is above that of the ordinary punter.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[mad4amanda]

Jesus Christ how must those poor parents feel This has to be so wrong it needs to be corrected and cause a change in the law as a result , my heart goes out to them . We have a very boisterous 3 year old who is often climbing on stuff and falling this case would make me think twice about taking him to hospital.

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

...
i seem to remember a law lord came out with a comment along the lines of the law is more important than justice being served. ...

Can you please provide a verified source for that alleged comment? Who said it? When? What were the exact words? I doubt that any law Lord from the last century or so would have said any such thing. The legal system has many flaws, but silly assertions like the one quoted above don't advance the discussion very far.

[anonymous-user]

hidetheelephants said:

...
Family court would be a stty mess with or without legal aid cuts, it was a stty mess before; it appears to be down to the judges and the guidelines they are supposed to be following, but don't. The practically absolute block on public disclosure is a massive brake on oversight, criticism and review.

...

I broadly agree, subject to a few comments below. James Munby (Court of Appeal Judge) observed correctly that the Family courts operate inside a silo. They fail to adhere to standards of fairness that are (usually) maintained by the rest of the legal system. As for "down to the Judges", that is true of all non jury courts, but the quality of many family judges is below that of judges in other courts. No one comes top of the class in law school and sets out to practise family law, and so the practitioners are usually second rate at best (third or fourth rate more often). As for publicity, in most cases restricting reporting is a good idea to protect children, but there is too much secrecy in general.