Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
Article said:
A couple in their mid-20s whose baby was adopted after they were wrongfully accused of abuse have been told that they unlikely to have the child returned.
Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, both aged 25, live in Guildford, Surrey. In 2012, they noticed bleeding in their baby’s mouth after feeding the infant, and went to the local A&E. Doctors found minor bruising and crucially, what appeared to bone fractures in the process of healing when the baby was X-rayed. The couple were arrested and charged with child cruelty.
Their baby, meanwhile, was taken into care and formally adopted against their wishes earlier this year. The couple were refused legal aid to fight their case.
But when the criminal charges against them finally came before a judge at Guildford Crown Court, Ms Cox and Mr Carter were acquitted. Previously unavailable medical evidence demonstrated that no abuse had in fact taken place. Their baby – whose gender cannot be revealed by court order – actually had a blood condition which causes abnormal bruising, along with a vitamin D deficiency and the resulting bone disorder rickets.
The couple now plan to campaign for the return of their child, The Independent reports. Karrissa Cox explained:
“We took our child to the hospital seeking help and they stole our baby from us.”
She added:
“I feel completely let down by the system, well and truly let down. It’s been a long three years trying to battle this and we’re going to fight to try to get our child back.”
The couple were allowed limited periods of supervised contact until last year. Ms Cox claims the toddler would call her and her partner Mummy and Daddy and was reluctant to leave at the end of the visits.
They are reluctant to have any further children. “It’s really put me off having more children in case this happens again,” said Ms Cox.
But the couple’s lawyers have warned the couple that they are unlikely to succeed because adoption is by definition intended to be a permanent event and is rarely overturned. Barrister Michael Turner QC told the Independent:
“These innocent parents have been spared a criminal conviction and a prison sentence for a crime they never committed. Their life sentence is that they are likely never to see their baby again.”
Defence lawyer Emma Fenn, meanwhile, described the case as “tragic” and an example of “the real dangers of the Government’s drive to increase adoption and speed up family proceedings at all costs”.
If their campaign ultimately fails the couple plan to lobby for a change in the law to try and prevent a similar fate befalling another family.
http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2015/10/08/couple-campaigning-for-the-return-of-baby-unlikely-to-succeed/Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, both aged 25, live in Guildford, Surrey. In 2012, they noticed bleeding in their baby’s mouth after feeding the infant, and went to the local A&E. Doctors found minor bruising and crucially, what appeared to bone fractures in the process of healing when the baby was X-rayed. The couple were arrested and charged with child cruelty.
Their baby, meanwhile, was taken into care and formally adopted against their wishes earlier this year. The couple were refused legal aid to fight their case.
But when the criminal charges against them finally came before a judge at Guildford Crown Court, Ms Cox and Mr Carter were acquitted. Previously unavailable medical evidence demonstrated that no abuse had in fact taken place. Their baby – whose gender cannot be revealed by court order – actually had a blood condition which causes abnormal bruising, along with a vitamin D deficiency and the resulting bone disorder rickets.
The couple now plan to campaign for the return of their child, The Independent reports. Karrissa Cox explained:
“We took our child to the hospital seeking help and they stole our baby from us.”
She added:
“I feel completely let down by the system, well and truly let down. It’s been a long three years trying to battle this and we’re going to fight to try to get our child back.”
The couple were allowed limited periods of supervised contact until last year. Ms Cox claims the toddler would call her and her partner Mummy and Daddy and was reluctant to leave at the end of the visits.
They are reluctant to have any further children. “It’s really put me off having more children in case this happens again,” said Ms Cox.
But the couple’s lawyers have warned the couple that they are unlikely to succeed because adoption is by definition intended to be a permanent event and is rarely overturned. Barrister Michael Turner QC told the Independent:
“These innocent parents have been spared a criminal conviction and a prison sentence for a crime they never committed. Their life sentence is that they are likely never to see their baby again.”
Defence lawyer Emma Fenn, meanwhile, described the case as “tragic” and an example of “the real dangers of the Government’s drive to increase adoption and speed up family proceedings at all costs”.
If their campaign ultimately fails the couple plan to lobby for a change in the law to try and prevent a similar fate befalling another family.
Shocking really.
I saw this yesterday. Unforgivable.
One part I find completely incredible is that they were in contact with the child until the start of this year. The sequence of events is not quite clear but presumably if the abuse trial was going on for that long (2+ years) there was clearly some doubt about it. Also, surely, they would by that point have known about the medical condition? Why then would they go ahead with an adoption?
Smacks of heavy handed social services wanting an adoption to me.
One part I find completely incredible is that they were in contact with the child until the start of this year. The sequence of events is not quite clear but presumably if the abuse trial was going on for that long (2+ years) there was clearly some doubt about it. Also, surely, they would by that point have known about the medical condition? Why then would they go ahead with an adoption?
Smacks of heavy handed social services wanting an adoption to me.
The rare medical condition, did that just cause the bleeding and was the vitamin D deficiency just down to bad diet?
I have not read the whole story or the court transcript so I am not sure that there aren't other contributory factors at play here that would make the parents a danger to their child even if unwittingly?
I have not read the whole story or the court transcript so I am not sure that there aren't other contributory factors at play here that would make the parents a danger to their child even if unwittingly?
gruffalo said:
The rare medical condition, did that just cause the bleeding and was the vitamin D deficiency just down to bad diet?
I have not read the whole story or the court transcript so I am not sure that there aren't other contributory factors at play here that would make the parents a danger to their child even if unwittingly?
The blood condition also caused the vitamin d deficiency. It seems like a complete travesty to me I have not read the whole story or the court transcript so I am not sure that there aren't other contributory factors at play here that would make the parents a danger to their child even if unwittingly?
There was a TV program about this a year or two ago. There are rare medical conditions which manifest themselves as multiple small bone fractures in children. Nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of abuse, absolutely zero relation. Yet it is enough for the state to take away your child.
MrBarry123 said:
If I was the parents I'd steal the kid back.
I'd imagine the parents have no idea where their child is.Heads should roll in the services responsible for this, as there is no way the child should have been adopted until the outcome of the case against the parents was known.
Laurel Green said:
I'd imagine the parents have no idea where their child is.
Heads should roll in the services responsible for this, as there is no way the child should have been adopted until the outcome of the case against the parents was known.
This absolutely !Heads should roll in the services responsible for this, as there is no way the child should have been adopted until the outcome of the case against the parents was known.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, there is no way the adoption should have been completed before the outcome of the case was known.
I imagine there is a lot more to this story than the papers have told but if the simple facts of the case are that the baby would not have been taken away had the medical condition been known about from the start then it is very worrying for all of us. Social workers have a lot of power and if this level of incompetence is going on it might be someone reading this post who has their child taken away next.
The articles do not mention any action being taken against anyone by any authorities? There must have been at least one, if not many, bad decisions made that led to this and the thought of them getting off scot free is crazy.
Is there really no recourse for these parents? Is there anything they can do other than release as many photos as they can of this child in the vain hope the new parents have a conscience and decide to get involved to sort the matter out?
The articles do not mention any action being taken against anyone by any authorities? There must have been at least one, if not many, bad decisions made that led to this and the thought of them getting off scot free is crazy.
Is there really no recourse for these parents? Is there anything they can do other than release as many photos as they can of this child in the vain hope the new parents have a conscience and decide to get involved to sort the matter out?
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.
Yep this, I hear about the odd situation like this, its the tip of the iceberg & social services seen to be doing the right thing.I heard about a case were a guy had been through all this, no guilt found and still couldn't see his 5+ year old kids it came out in court that his ex-wife lied in order to punish him as part of the divorce, he moved on, he got a new gf but she was pregnant with some else's child but he didn't care he was in love and was happy to raise the child as his own, as soon as the child was born, social services swooped in and took the child due to his 'previous' even though his ex-wife had sort of seen sense and stood up in court and admitted it was a lie. Social services like newborns, easier to place, better for figures and being seen to be doing the right thing.
zedstar said:
I imagine there is a lot more to this story than the papers have told but if the simple facts of the case are that the baby would not have been taken away had the medical condition been known about from the start then it is very worrying for all of us.
If this is as reported on TV a year or so ago (it was an hour long documentary), then there is no more to the story. Child had rare medical condition, NHS decided it was abuse as they did not consider it could be a medical condition, the British state took the child. The only think the parents could have done differently is conjure up £100k out of thin air so they could afford to hire a QC in order that is didn't get to this stage.
Adoption is an irreversible process under British law. The child who was wrongly removed from the natural parents now cannot be returned. The state has now stolen somebody's child. It could happen to you, it could happen to me, it could happen to anybody.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff