Cleared couple can't have their kids back
Discussion
Absolutely crazy - a couple were charged with child abuse and their kids taken and given up for adoption. Four years later the parents are cleared, but can't have their own kids back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892809.stm
Mad or what ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892809.stm
Mad or what ?
MartG said:
Absolutely crazy - a couple were charged with child abuse and their kids taken and given up for adoption. Four years later the parents are cleared, but can't have their own kids back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892809.stm
Mad or what ?
Disgusting is the word you are looking for. Apparently the adoption can only be undone in extraordinary circumstances - you would think a miscarriage of justice is "extraordinary".http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892809.stm
Mad or what ?
kin-believable
Coco H said:
I presume the reason why is that is may be unsettling for the children?
Yeah.Trouble is that in 10-15 years time there will be an awful lot of heartache for everyone when the kids go to discover their real parents, will get the real story behind their adoption, and will feel just a little bit cheated. And imagine being the adoptive parents at that point? Your children will be discovering a life they never had with people you've never met, so where does that leave you? You end up with an odd situation of an extended family that has to reconcile some very harsh truths.
But don't worry, from April this will not be able to happen again.
Oh sorry, what I mean by that is that due to a change in the law parents/children will not be able to go to the press or discuss their case.
Justice Ministry to bar parents from telling their own stories
Oh sorry, what I mean by that is that due to a change in the law parents/children will not be able to go to the press or discuss their case.
Justice Ministry to bar parents from telling their own stories
BrassMan said:
That isn't even unjust.
Unfair on the cildren, the parents and the adoption candidates who remain in care, but should be filling these spaces.
It's not even unusual. You don't hear about it often becuase Family Court hearings are held in secrecy.Unfair on the cildren, the parents and the adoption candidates who remain in care, but should be filling these spaces.
As for adoption canditates remaining in care, there's a school of thought that if the children are easily "adoptable" then they're much more like to be taken off their parents.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
Mrs Trackside said:
How does the law work with adoption? Can children just be adopted without the consent of their parents? Surely the parents have to sign some sort of paperwork to sign the children over?
Once Social Services have a care order (by proving that the child is at risk of future physical or emotional harm e.g. due to mother's history of postnatal depression), then the consent of parents to place the child for adoption is not necessary. Parents can appeal of course ...Edited by oldbanger on Tuesday 17th February 09:35
oldbanger said:
Parents can appeal of course ...
I'm not sure about that - isn't that the nub of the problem, that the adoption is more or less irreversible? Apparently parents are put under a lot of pressure to go along with the process atherwise they will be excluded from it. Also they can't discuss the case with others as they'd be in contempt. The Times article I linked to notes that in 2005 200 people were jailed by Family Courts for contempt.
Well I'm not saying it's made easy for the parents - far from it.
However, the way adoption works is there's a two stage process. SS first have to apply for a placement order in order to put the child up for adoption, and if they are on the ball and fully informed parents can contest this.
After the placement order, the child is then sent to live with the new chosen adoptive parents and must live with then for a minimum of 10 weeks before they can apply to adopt (with SS's permission). The parents then should have a right to contest the adoption at the pre-hearing (if they are genuinely informed that it is taking place). The parents also have the right to contest the placement if the new parents haven't adopted within a year of the child coming to live with them.
The problem is that usually it is enough for social workers to say that they stuck something in the post to the parents, for their non-attendance or silence to count as their blessing for the whole thing. Court dates are changed at the last minute, or moved to as far away from the parents as possible, documents not disclosed even this has been court ordered, courts themselves can also be extremely disorganised.
However, the way adoption works is there's a two stage process. SS first have to apply for a placement order in order to put the child up for adoption, and if they are on the ball and fully informed parents can contest this.
After the placement order, the child is then sent to live with the new chosen adoptive parents and must live with then for a minimum of 10 weeks before they can apply to adopt (with SS's permission). The parents then should have a right to contest the adoption at the pre-hearing (if they are genuinely informed that it is taking place). The parents also have the right to contest the placement if the new parents haven't adopted within a year of the child coming to live with them.
The problem is that usually it is enough for social workers to say that they stuck something in the post to the parents, for their non-attendance or silence to count as their blessing for the whole thing. Court dates are changed at the last minute, or moved to as far away from the parents as possible, documents not disclosed even this has been court ordered, courts themselves can also be extremely disorganised.
oldbanger said:
Well I'm not saying it's made easy for the parents - far from it.
However, the way adoption works is there's a two stage process. SS first have to apply for a placement order in order to put the child up for adoption, and if they are on the ball and fully informed parents can contest this.
After the placement order, the child is then sent to live with the new chosen adoptive parents and must live with then for a minimum of 10 weeks before they can apply to adopt (with SS's permission). The parents then should have a right to contest the adoption at the pre-hearing (if they are genuinely informed that it is taking place). The parents also have the right to contest the placement if the new parents haven't adopted within a year of the child coming to live with them.
[b]
The problem is that usually it is enough for social workers to say that they stuck something in the post to the parents, for their non-attendance or silence to count as their blessing for the whole thing. Court dates are changed at the last minute, or moved to as far away from the parents as possible, documents not disclosed even this has been court ordered, courts themselves can also be extremely disorganised.[/b]
Utterly sickening, if someone did that to my kids I would tear them to pieces. Horrible for all parties involved.However, the way adoption works is there's a two stage process. SS first have to apply for a placement order in order to put the child up for adoption, and if they are on the ball and fully informed parents can contest this.
After the placement order, the child is then sent to live with the new chosen adoptive parents and must live with then for a minimum of 10 weeks before they can apply to adopt (with SS's permission). The parents then should have a right to contest the adoption at the pre-hearing (if they are genuinely informed that it is taking place). The parents also have the right to contest the placement if the new parents haven't adopted within a year of the child coming to live with them.
[b]
The problem is that usually it is enough for social workers to say that they stuck something in the post to the parents, for their non-attendance or silence to count as their blessing for the whole thing. Court dates are changed at the last minute, or moved to as far away from the parents as possible, documents not disclosed even this has been court ordered, courts themselves can also be extremely disorganised.[/b]
Deva Link said:
As for adoption canditates remaining in care, there's a school of thought that if the children are easily "adoptable" then they're much more like to be taken off their parents.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
If there's any truth to that, it's as good a reason as I can think of for arming the populace and marching on Whitehall.See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
G'kar said:
Deva Link said:
As for adoption canditates remaining in care, there's a school of thought that if the children are easily "adoptable" then they're much more like to be taken off their parents.
See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
If there's any truth to that, it's as good a reason as I can think of for arming the populace and marching on Whitehall.See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...
There was another report in the Daily Mail (I know, I'm sorry!) a few weeks ago about a similar case, children's mother was a druggie so she effectively handed sole custody and everything else to her parents, the kid's grandparents.
Social services heard about it and removed the children and placed them in foster care because they said the grandparents, a pair of white, middle class, church-going Christians, were the best option as the Grandfather had a heart attack a few years ago. The children have apparently said repeatedly that they want to live with the grandparents but the social workers ignore it, and then the Grandmother got in trouble because the foster carer told the girl that she couldn't pray because their household wasn't religious. The Grandmother, during a visit, told the girl she could still pray, in her head, and it would be her secret between her and God as he would still hear it, also known as a bit of comfort for a scared little girl. The foster carer found out and reported the grandmother for apparently telling the girl to keep secrets from said foster carer!
Things have now turned even more difficult because the Grandparents became fed up with effectively being harassed by social services to drop their claim to the children that they turned to their MP for help, and now said Social Services are pretty much holding the children hostage because they're angry at having an MP on their back (and now a national newspaper knows too).
The secrecy in these courts is there to protect the children, I can accept that, but it is being abused by social services who want to hit targets and don't give a toss about treading on the children, in some areas (not all, I firmly believe that the majority of social workers always try to do the best thing for the children) all they care about is targets.
Oh, and I'd like to foster one day, and while I'm not religious I would happily let any child I look after pray to whatever God they like.
Social services heard about it and removed the children and placed them in foster care because they said the grandparents, a pair of white, middle class, church-going Christians, were the best option as the Grandfather had a heart attack a few years ago. The children have apparently said repeatedly that they want to live with the grandparents but the social workers ignore it, and then the Grandmother got in trouble because the foster carer told the girl that she couldn't pray because their household wasn't religious. The Grandmother, during a visit, told the girl she could still pray, in her head, and it would be her secret between her and God as he would still hear it, also known as a bit of comfort for a scared little girl. The foster carer found out and reported the grandmother for apparently telling the girl to keep secrets from said foster carer!
Things have now turned even more difficult because the Grandparents became fed up with effectively being harassed by social services to drop their claim to the children that they turned to their MP for help, and now said Social Services are pretty much holding the children hostage because they're angry at having an MP on their back (and now a national newspaper knows too).
The secrecy in these courts is there to protect the children, I can accept that, but it is being abused by social services who want to hit targets and don't give a toss about treading on the children, in some areas (not all, I firmly believe that the majority of social workers always try to do the best thing for the children) all they care about is targets.
Oh, and I'd like to foster one day, and while I'm not religious I would happily let any child I look after pray to whatever God they like.
MentalSarcasm said:
There was another report in the Daily Mail (I know, I'm sorry!) a few weeks ago about a similar case, children's mother was a druggie so she effectively handed sole custody and everything else to her parents, the kid's grandparents.
There have been quite a few like this, especially in the Daily Mail. Remarkably efficient newspaper for these types of stories.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff