Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
The child was removed for a reason. That reason turned out to be a bad reason, but only on subsequent investigation. The earlier investigation should, it appears, have been much more careful. That does not, however, make what happened illegal.
The birth parents might have a claim against the relevant public bodies for negligence. That would be difficult, for some rather complex reasons to do with liability of public authorities for careless exercise of powers, the case law on which is extensive and not always clear. In any event, no amount of money could offer a remedy for the birth parents.
The birth parents could try to argue that one or more of the decisions leading to adoption was irrational, and so unlawful, and therefore of no effect, but such an argument might very well fail, as the test for irrationality in public law is a high test.
Many decisions are wrong, but not all wrong decisions are unlawful. That's the problem. At a more mundane level, for example, the planning authority may in one sense get it wrong by allowing your neighbour to build an enormous spanner factory shop next to your cottage, but the decision won't always be susceptible to challenge on planning law grounds.
The birth parents might have a claim against the relevant public bodies for negligence. That would be difficult, for some rather complex reasons to do with liability of public authorities for careless exercise of powers, the case law on which is extensive and not always clear. In any event, no amount of money could offer a remedy for the birth parents.
The birth parents could try to argue that one or more of the decisions leading to adoption was irrational, and so unlawful, and therefore of no effect, but such an argument might very well fail, as the test for irrationality in public law is a high test.
Many decisions are wrong, but not all wrong decisions are unlawful. That's the problem. At a more mundane level, for example, the planning authority may in one sense get it wrong by allowing your neighbour to build an enormous spanner factory shop next to your cottage, but the decision won't always be susceptible to challenge on planning law grounds.
craste said:
Surely if the couple who adopted this child is aware of this story now, they would do the right thing and return the child?
How is that the right thing? Taking a kid away from its parents and a happy home in order to place it with complete strangers (who happen to be the natural parents). How is that good for any child, to snatch it away from a loving home and the only parents its ever known. (given that it would have no memory of its natural parents)Breadvan72 said:
The birth parents might have a claim against the relevant public bodies for negligence. That would be difficult, for some rather complex reasons to do with liability of public authorities for careless exercise of powers, the case law on which is extensive and not always clear. In any event, no amount of money could offer a remedy for the birth parents.
A financial penalty may well focus the minds of the error makers to be rather more diligent next time, and a payment to the wronged parents may help them fund a decent legal team!Breadvan72 said:
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.
tty hours of my life I don't want to relive 
hairykrishna said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Here's the Facebook page of the family of Ashya King. Since you know everything, feel free to go on there and tell them that Ashya, who is now back walking around and playing, was given the wrong treatment Prague:https://www.facebook.com/groups/1462059947403801/?...
I hate posting links to Tabloids, but in this case it offers a good summary on the criminal trial of the natural parents:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-cleare...
"The evidence the prosecution and the Family Court relied on came from Dr Joanna Fairhurst, an expert in paediatric radiology and an advisor in more than 1,000 cases of alleged child abuse.
In a statement, the family’s lawyers, from Garden Court Chambers in London, said: “She dismissed time and again the defence’s suggestion that this baby had not been abused.
"The defence experts were accused of making conclusions without scientific basis, speculating and acting for commercial gain.
“Time and again, the defence experts’ conclusions were shown to be correct.
“The prosecution instructed a further radiologist. That expert’s opinion, given on October 6, three and a half years later, concluded that he was doubtful there were any fractures at all.
“The prosecution offered no evidence on October 7.
My reading is that the ultimate decision to remove the child was based on the opinion of a single radiologist, Dr Joanna Fairhurst. If there was further supportive medical opinion, it does not appear to have been presented at the trial. There are further Googleable news reports saying that Dr Fairhurst made a similar mis-diagnosis of abuse 6 years ago which also resulted in a baby being removed from its birth parents. In that case Fairhurst found evidence of bone fractures which, after removal of the child from the parents by social services, were found on examination by other radiologists not to be there. I wouldn't expect anybody to get it right every time in an inexact science like medicine. I would expect them to be open to the possibility that they are wrong and for social services to be looking for more than one opinion. This does not seem to have happened.
I've also located the BBC TV program on rickets and babies taken from their parents which I referred to earlier. This is it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03q9n7f
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/couple-cleare...
"The evidence the prosecution and the Family Court relied on came from Dr Joanna Fairhurst, an expert in paediatric radiology and an advisor in more than 1,000 cases of alleged child abuse.
In a statement, the family’s lawyers, from Garden Court Chambers in London, said: “She dismissed time and again the defence’s suggestion that this baby had not been abused.
"The defence experts were accused of making conclusions without scientific basis, speculating and acting for commercial gain.
“Time and again, the defence experts’ conclusions were shown to be correct.
“The prosecution instructed a further radiologist. That expert’s opinion, given on October 6, three and a half years later, concluded that he was doubtful there were any fractures at all.
“The prosecution offered no evidence on October 7.
My reading is that the ultimate decision to remove the child was based on the opinion of a single radiologist, Dr Joanna Fairhurst. If there was further supportive medical opinion, it does not appear to have been presented at the trial. There are further Googleable news reports saying that Dr Fairhurst made a similar mis-diagnosis of abuse 6 years ago which also resulted in a baby being removed from its birth parents. In that case Fairhurst found evidence of bone fractures which, after removal of the child from the parents by social services, were found on examination by other radiologists not to be there. I wouldn't expect anybody to get it right every time in an inexact science like medicine. I would expect them to be open to the possibility that they are wrong and for social services to be looking for more than one opinion. This does not seem to have happened.
I've also located the BBC TV program on rickets and babies taken from their parents which I referred to earlier. This is it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03q9n7f
Edited by creampuff on Tuesday 13th October 20:42
Sir Humphrey said:
Stickyfinger said:
the first thing I did was get them their foreign passport, because at the first sign of this happening, they and I would be on a plane to where the British state, who it now seems several times have stolen babies
say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
Seems quite sensible to me, this is not exactly an isolated case.say again ? that's weird and massively paranoid
Edited by Stickyfinger on Monday 12th October 00:18
She's also 8 months old and almost walking. By walking I mean can stand up if she pulls herself up on something, she is generally then down like a sack of potatoes.The problem is that she doesn't have the balance thing yet. Or the 'when you reach the end of the sofa/bed/stairs you will fall off) im like a flock of Hawks. But she still manages to throw herself off things/hit her head/ chew things/ poke herself in the eye without me having any chance of stopping her.
Naturally, if she really hurt herself, straight to A&E but I do wonder the reception if I turned up repeatedly with quite normal childhood injuries.
There is a good book called "Risk". It argues that we often fear what we need not fear, and do not fear what we should fear. Feeling gingerish about taking a sick or injured child to hospital strikes me as undue fear. Of course there is a chance of the injury being misconstrued, but that chance is unlikely to be high. Would people prefer medical staff NOT to be vigilant as to the possibility of non accidental harm to a child?
I was comforted rather than alarmed that medics checking out my three year old daughter's head injury discreetly and professionally satisfied themselves that there was no indication of non accidental harm.
I was comforted rather than alarmed that medics checking out my three year old daughter's head injury discreetly and professionally satisfied themselves that there was no indication of non accidental harm.
eldar said:
Breadvan72 said:
The birth parents might have a claim against the relevant public bodies for negligence. That would be difficult, for some rather complex reasons to do with liability of public authorities for careless exercise of powers, the case law on which is extensive and not always clear. In any event, no amount of money could offer a remedy for the birth parents.
A financial penalty may well focus the minds of the error makers to be rather more diligent next time, and a payment to the wronged parents may help them fund a decent legal team!Regardless of the legal technicalities - I just can't get my head around the fact a child can be permanently and irreversibly taken from it's natural parents with absolutely no recourse when it transpires it was carried out under false / incorrect evidence given, even if it was done with the best of intentions.
I have lived by a mantra, and drilled into my own children / grandchildren " we all make mistakes but it is what you do after to correct them after that matters"...... 3 out of 4 of my children now hold professional positions within different areas of the public sector and hope they have good memories.
I have lived by a mantra, and drilled into my own children / grandchildren " we all make mistakes but it is what you do after to correct them after that matters"...... 3 out of 4 of my children now hold professional positions within different areas of the public sector and hope they have good memories.
The Moose said:
thepeoplespal said:
The Moose said:
That messes with the adoptive parents however and potentially would turn people off adopting children...
Not necessarily as lots of adoptive parents now foster on the basis they will adopt once proceedings have concluded. Better they don't have to move too often as all kinds of detachment disorders can manifest themselves if they are moved too much.The other issue that that would open up is if new information comes to light 5 years down the line (say) that exhonorates the birth parents, what happens in that instance? The were-foster parents, now adoptive parents then have to 'give up' the kid because the system failed.
I guess the reality is that no system will be perfect and the best has to be done for the child. The problem is what is best for 1 child is the worst thing for another...but that can only be known retrospectively!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff