UK parents found innocent of child abuse, child taken and adopted anyway

ceadaoin.

I read this story earlier and have been thinking about it all day. It's really baffling how something like this can happen? The couple were denied legal aid to fight their case and the child was adopted before their case had even gone to court. Getting their child back at this stage isnt likely

I feel for the adoptive parents too but don't see how it isn't in the best interests of the child to be with his/her birth parents.

A couple whose baby was adopted when they were charged with child abuse have had the charges against them dropped.

Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, of Guildford, faced assault charges after health staff found bruises on the baby and X-rays appeared to show fractures.
Defence lawyers argued the X-rays were consistent with rickets and the prosecution later said one of their experts could not be sure of fractures.

Jurors were told to record not guilty verdicts at Guildford Crown Court.
The couple had maintained their innocence for three years, but the adoption went ahead while the case continued against them.

Adoption fight ahead
In April 2012, the couple took their six-week-old baby to hospital after they spotted blood in the child's mouth.
But hospital staff noticed bruising and marks on the child's body, and X-rays were carried out which a radiologist said showed healing fractures on the baby's limbs.
The injuries were considered to be non-accidental, the court heard.
The child was first removed into foster care and then later adopted.
During the court case, defence lawyers said the X-rays were consistent with rickets, and the bruising with von Willebrand's disease.

Three weeks into the trial, the prosecution said one of their own medical experts could not be sure that X-rays showed fractures and therefore it would not be possible for a jury to reach a conclusion.
BBC reporter Sarah Campbell said the couple planned to appeal against their child's adoption, but legal experts believed it was extremely unlikely the pair would be successful.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-34468801

1. Not being guilty of assault is not the test of whether people are fit to be parents. I can't pretend to know the circumstances in which children are removed in the UK ie. were there other issues, falling short of crime.

2. Any Solicitor approached in a matter like that and who refused because of the financial circumstances should be named and shamed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, money should not have dictated the outcome.

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

1. Not being guilty of assault is not the test of whether people are fit to be parents. I can't pretend to know the circumstances in which children are removed in the UK ie. were there other issues, falling short of crime.

2. Any Solicitor approached in a matter like that and who refused because of the financial circumstances should be named and shamed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, money should not have dictated the outcome.

Of course it isn't but if there are other issues with their parenting (which we don't know) then surely they should be given the chance to correct those issues rather than the child being taken from them permanently at 6 weeks of age? By all accounts, the injuries were the sole reason for the child being removed from their care. It has been determined that those injuries were due to a medical condition, not abuse. It's not uncommon for babies to be deficient in vitamin d through no fault of their parents, especially if they're exclusively breastfed.

Should the adoption process not have waited until the court case had been heard at the very least?

I can't see this happening to a better off family who had the means to fight their case tbh.

NachoBusiness

If innocent, they're not alone..

Many parents who were accused of abusing their children / being guilty of their manslaughter / murdering them are now being vindicated years later as the 'science' that helped convict them is slowly being challenged and shown to be unsound. In fact a new documentary has compared many of the convictions regarding shaken baby syndrome in particular as being almost akin to the hysteria regarding the satanic ritual abuse of the 1980s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ZAjnaRGak

ceadaoin.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If innocent, they're not alone..

Many parents who were accused of abusing their children / being guilty of their manslaughter / murdering them are now being vindicated years later as the 'science' that helped convict them is slowly being challenged and shown to be unsound. In fact a new documentary has compared many of the convictions regarding shaken baby syndrome in particular as being almost akin to the hysteria regarding the satanic ritual abuse of the 1980s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ZAjnaRGak

Yes, one that comes to mind is Sally Clark. I only found about her recently. So sad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Should the adoption process not have waited until the court case had been heard at the very least?

I can't see this happening to a better off family who had the means to fight their case tbh.

Agree with both points, it seems unusual to me that an adoption would proceed while allegations were contested, you'd think fostering alone would have sufficed...and certainly it's a case that you'd think should have been taken on by someone regardless of the financial aspect, hence I said any Solicitor who refused it on that basis should be held up.

It reminds one of...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1. Not being guilty of assault is not the test of whether people are fit to be parents. I can't pretend to know the circumstances in which children are removed in the UK ie. were there other issues, falling short of crime.

2. Any Solicitor approached in a matter like that and who refused because of the financial circumstances should be named and shamed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, money should not have dictated the outcome.

This is true, but it's a red herring in these stories because social workers do not need legal convictions to remove children.

That is the real question.... Is how the state can remove children without the burdens of proof in a courtroom. And how family court does not need the same proof as criminal court.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is true, but it's a red herring in these stories because social workers do not need legal convictions to remove children.

That is the real question.... Is how the state can remove children without the burdens of proof in a courtroom. And how family court does not need the same proof as criminal court.

Oh fully agree with the right to remove children.

Assault and sexual assault cases can take a long long time to put together, witnesses to interview, medical reports to compile and so on. They are often contested. The need to remove a child from a house is a matter that might have to be determined immediately, it cannot be delayed while waiting for a conviction.

But they can usually be removed to, say, another guardian, or to care such as fostering. The issue is why allow an adoption to proceed.

salamanca22

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is true, but it's a red herring in these stories because social workers do not need legal convictions to remove children.

That is the real question.... Is how the state can remove children without the burdens of proof in a courtroom. And how family court does not need the same proof as criminal court.

While I find the outcome of this specific case abhorrent it is in the best interest of the majority of cases that the child be removed as soon as possible. Things should definitely never ever come to the resolution that this case has but what if there is signs of child abuse and the social workers were forced to wait on red tape and in the meantime the child is further abused or even killed? There would be uproar across the nation about how the state didn't do enough to help the child.

It's not a perfect system but it is better than the alternative. If one case in ten thousand end up like this then in my honest opinion the means justify the end. I do feel horrible for those parents though. I hope they get the help they need and while I know it will never replace a lost child that they get the compensation that they deserve (IMO they should never have to work a day in their lives again)

ceadaoin.

salamanca22 wrote: »

It's not a perfect system but it is better than the alternative. If one case in ten thousand end up like this then in my honest opinion the means justify the end. I do feel horrible for those parents though. I hope they get the help they need and while I know it will never replace a lost child that they get the compensation that they deserve (IMO they should never have to work a day in their lives again)

Seriously? No, their child should be returned to them. No amount of money can make up for this and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Seriously? No, their child should be returned to them...

If it's in the child's interests.

Of course there should be a very strong presumption that the best interests of the child are served with his or her natural parents.

zeffabelli

salamanca22 wrote: »

While I find the outcome of this specific case abhorrent it is in the best interest of the majority of cases that the child be removed as soon as possible. Things should definitely never ever come to the resolution that this case has but what if there is signs of child abuse and the social workers were forced to wait on red tape and in the meantime the child is further abused or even killed? There would be uproar across the nation about how the state didn't do enough to help the child.

It's not a perfect system but it is better than the alternative. If one case in ten thousand end up like this then in my honest opinion the means justify the end. I do feel horrible for those parents though. I hope they get the help they need and while I know it will never replace a lost child that they get the compensation that they deserve (IMO they should never have to work a day in their lives again)

There is no amount of money that can compensate for the stress, trauma and state abyss.

This is a childhood quickly moving, the baby needs its mother... What the state is doing is child abuse and abuse of its citizens.

They stole their child. You think money makes up for this? It can't. There should also be criminal prosecution for state social workers who facilitated this.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

There should also be criminal prosecution for state social workers who facilitated this.

What crime?

Their competency should, of course, be subjected to scrutiny.

salamanca22

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Seriously? No, their child should be returned to them. No amount of money can make up for this and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

zeffabelli wrote: »

They stole their child. You think money makes up for this? It can't. There should also be criminal prosecution for state social workers who facilitated this.

No I don't how about ye read my reply again? I said no amount of money will ever make up for it. Seriously...

I also said I found it abhorrent how the case played out.

I seriously think people read posts with blinders on sometimes.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What crime?

Their competency should, of course, be subjected to scrutiny.

Exactly. It's not a crime because there is no legislation around wrongful confiscation of children by state social workers.

It's no different than what the Irish baby trade was doing.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Exactly. It's not a crime because there is no legislation around wrongful confiscation of children by state social workers...

There is, The. Children Act of 1989 and Childcare Act of 2006 regulate the area.

I think the questions surround the diagnosis by the medical staff and radiologists, the social workers did not analyse the X-rays so not sure why they would be prosecuted.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is, The. Children Act of 1989 and Childcare Act of 2006 regulate the area.

I think the questions surround the diagnosis by the medical staff and radiologists, the social workers did not analyse the X-rays so not sure why they would be prosecuted.

They would be prosecuted for drawing the wrong conclusions and going ahead with an adoption based on the wrong conclusions.

You can't accuse people of child a use, take their kids away and then nothing happen to you. That is not ok.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

They would be prosecuted for drawing the wrong conclusions and going ahead with an adoption based on the wrong conclusions.

You can't accuse people of child a use, take their kids away and then nothing happen to you. That is not ok.

It happens all the time. It is the whole basis of Childcare legislation, the State intervening to protect those who can't protect themselves.

The alternative is leaving them stay in what appears to be danger while an assault case grinds forward, waiting around a year or 2.

I agree an adoption should not proceed, but not a child with broken bones being left in a house? That will simply make for more Baby P cases. In that instance, the convictions were brought in after he was beaten to death, left with a broken back.

ceadaoin.

salamanca22 wrote: »

No I don't how about ye read my reply again? I said no amount of money will ever make up for it. Seriously...

I also said I found it abhorrent how the case played out.

I seriously think people read posts with blinders on sometimes.

Oh sorry, I thought the gist of your reply was 'the end justifies the means, I feel bad for them though, some money will sort them out, but don't correct the situation'. Was it not?

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It happens all the time. It is the whole basis of Childcare legislation, the State intervening to protect those who can't protect themselves.

The alternative is leaving them stay in what appears to be danger while an assault case grinds forward, waiting around a year or 2.

I agree an adoption should not proceed, but not a child with broken bones being left in a house? That will simply make for more Baby P cases. In that instance, the convictions were brought in after he was beaten to death, left with a broken back.

This is the problem with the hysteria.

Their lack of discernment is abusive. What they did was child abuse, that is the social workers. Their lack of discernment because of the baby P case does not justify the crime and abuse done to this particular family.

salamanca22

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh sorry, I thought the gist of your reply was 'the end justifies the means, I feel bad for them though, some money will sort them out, but don't correct the situation'. Was it not?

In the context of the post I was replying to yes, that is what it was.

You mentioned the fact that social workers can remove children at will from homes and I replied it was in the best interest that this is the way it works. If 1 in 10,000 cases end up like this then for those other 9,999 kids the ends certainly justifies the means.

I feel sorry for the parents but you need to look at the bigger picture if you want to include red tape in allowing social workers being allowed to remove children and not just one.

ceadaoin.

salamanca22 wrote: »

In the context of the post I was replying to yes, that is what it was.

You mentioned the fact that social workers can remove children at will from homes and I replied it was in the best interest that this is the way it works. If 1 in 10,000 cases end up like this then for those other 9,999 kids the ends certainly justifies the means.

I feel sorry for the parents but you need to look at the bigger picture if you want to include red tape in allowing social workers being allowed to remove children and not just one.

So if this happened to you, you would just accept it as part of the bigger picture and move on? I would hope not

A few innocent prisoners being put to death on death row is ok because there are guilty ones too? I don't think so.

The system is there to protect children. This isn't protecting children, it's inflicting damage on them. Its a miscarriage of justice that amounts to state sanctioned kidnapping and it's very concerning that it has happened.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So if this happened to you, you would just accept it as part of the bigger picture and move on? I would hope not

A few innocent prisoners being put to death on death row is ok because there are guilty ones too? I don't think so.

The system is there to protect children. This isn't protecting children, it's inflicting damage on them. Its a miscarriage of justice that amounts to state sanctioned kidnapping and it's very concerning that it has happened.

I think what s/he is saying is that the system is right, even though obviously this decision wasn't.

It's like the criminal law system, there are miscarriages of justice that can destroy lives. Nothing can give a person back their life after a sentence wrongly served. But this does not mean we don't appreciate that protections by and large given by the system, or jail the police and judges if they err...though we can question their competency.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think what s/he is saying is that the system is right, even though obviously this decision wasn't.

It's like the criminal law system, there are miscarriages of justice that can destroy lives. Nothing can give a person back their life after a sentence wrongly served. But this does not mean we don't appreciate that protections by and large given by the system, or jail the police and judges if they err...though we can question their competency.

Actually it does and it does not justify current checks and balances which are clearly not working.

runawaybishop

How did the state proceed to the adoption stage with the kid when the court case wasn't even heard? And how can they claim now that's not reversible?

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what s/he is saying is that the system is right, even though obviously this decision wasn't.

It's like the criminal law system, there are miscarriages of justice that can destroy lives. Nothing can give a person back their life after a sentence wrongly served. But this does not mean we don't appreciate that protections by and large given by the system, or jail the police and judges if they err...though we can question their competency.

Yes, but most people would agree that miscarriages of justice should be corrected, the prisoner released and pardoned for example, once it came to light that they were wronged. That poster seems to be saying that these parents should accept their fate and move on and not have their child restored to their care simply because the system works the majority of the time (do we even know that btw?)

zeffabelli

runawaybishop wrote: »

How did the state proceed to the adoption stage with the kid when the court case wasn't even heard? And how can they claim now that's not reversible?

Because the state doesn't need a guilty conviction to remove kids. They don't need a criminal court case at all.

They can just do it.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, but most people would agree that miscarriages of justice should be corrected, the prisoner released and pardoned for example, once it came to light that they were wronged. That poster seems to be saying that these parents should accept their fate and move on and not have their child restored to their care simply because the system works the majority of the time (do we even know that btw?)

But what if that is not in the best interests in the child, he or she can't remember their parents, was taken away at 6 weeks and now only knows those who looked after him or her? Again, perhaps the child should be restored, perhaps not...but it should be determined by what is in that child's interests.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Because the state doesn't need a guilty conviction to remove kids. They don't need a criminal court case at all.

They can just do it.

As is absolutely correct and proper, and a system that required a criminal conviction before removing a child would be Utopia for abusers and a licence to abuse. Many who have raped and abused children never faced prosecution at all, let alone conviction.

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

But what if that is not in the best interests in the child, he or she can't remember their parents, was taken away at 6 weeks and now only knows those who looked after him or her? Again, perhaps the child should be restored, perhaps not...but it should be determined by what is in that child's interests.

According to the mother in another article the adoption only took place earlier this year. Prior to that the parents were allowed supervised visits with their child and the child referred to them as mummy and daddy. He/she does know who they are

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But what if that is not in the best interests in the child, he or she can't remember their parents, was taken away at 6 weeks and now only knows those who looked after him or her? Again, perhaps the child should be restored, perhaps not...but it should be determined by what is in jthat child's interests.

Best interest of the child is a controversial legal strategy as it is pointed to as nothing more than adult projection. Plenty of writing on it in legal journals.

Psychologically speaking, in early development and attachment theory, screwing around with early bonding does have significant effects up the road in adulthood.

Adoption has its perils ... Very much so...

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

According to the mother in another article the adoption only took place earlier this year. Prior to that the parents were allowed supervised visits with their child and the child referred to them as mummy and daddy. He/she does know who they are

I am not sure there is any suggestion that there was a determination what the best interests of the child were either way.

The point I make is that there should be no assumption that a child must be restored, they are not chattels. As said earlier, there should be a presumption that their best interest lie with the natural parents. Of course adoption may render the entire issue moot, and I agree it is hard to figure how that happened.

salamanca22

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So if this happened to you, you would just accept it as part of the bigger picture and move on? I would hope not

A few innocent prisoners being put to death on death row is ok because there are guilty ones too? I don't think so.

The system is there to protect children. This isn't protecting children, it's inflicting damage on them. Its a miscarriage of justice that amounts to state sanctioned kidnapping and it's very concerning that it has happened.

I'm just gonna stop replying now if you are going to create scenarios which have nothing to do with the context in which I was replying to. Enjoy the thread.

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure there is any suggestion that there was a determination what the best interests of the child were either way.

The point I make is that there should be no assumption that a child must be restored, they are not chattels. As said earlier, there should be a presumption that their best interest lie with the natural parents. Of course adoption may render the entire issue moot, and I agree it is hard to figure how that happened.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/09/parents-cleared-of-abuse-launch-legal-battle-to-win-custody-of-adopted-baby

Lawyers have criticised the decision of the family court to finalise the adoption before the criminal court had made its ruling. The couple’s barrister, Michael Turner QC, said: “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.”

Turner said he presented expert evidence to the family court within a few moments of the final adoption order being made. He told the Today programme: “[The expert witness] said immediately not only are these not fractures, but this child has eight classical signs of infantile rickets. I served that report on the family court within moments of them making the final adoption order. Do they review it? No. They confirm the final adoption order.”

Sounds like for whatever reason they had already decided to put the child up for adoption regardless and rushed it through.

ceadaoin.

salamanca22 wrote: »

I'm just gonna stop replying now if you are going to create scenarios which have nothing to do with the context in which I was replying to. Enjoy the thread.

Im not 'creating scenarios'. Your posts made it seem like you don't think that this miscarriage of justice should be corrected (other than monetarily) because it's part of the 'bigger picture' which is, for the most part, successful. To me, that is the same as saying that it's acceptable for some innocent people to be executed as long as the rest are guilty. It's an analogy.

I apologise if I took you up wrong.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/09/parents-cleared-of-abuse-launch-legal-battle-to-win-custody-of-adopted-baby

Sounds like for whatever reason they had already decided to put the child up for adoption regardless and rushed it through.

Ah...when your OP suggested they were denied legal aid I understood they were not represented which would compound the miscarriage of justice aspect.

ceadaoin.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah...when your OP suggested they were denied legal aid I understood they were not represented which would compound the miscarriage of justice aspect.

I had read on another report that they were denied legal aid originally. On checking, this refers to the family court which according to that article above was quite a while before the criminal proceedings.

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As is absolutely correct and proper, and a system that required a criminal conviction before removing a child would be Utopia for abusers and a licence to abuse. Many who have raped and abused children never faced prosecution at all, let alone conviction.

Right, but moving to adoption without a case being heard is ridiculous.

zeffabelli

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I had read on another report that they were denied legal aid originally. On checking, this refers to the family court which according to that article above was quite a while before the criminal proceedings.

Family court has its own rules.

kylith

Leaving the von Willebrand's aside, wouldn't the fact that the child had rickets, which is caused by a nutritional deficiency, be evidence of neglect?

It's a hard one because should these parents be found innocent of any wrong doing the child is now 3 so returning it to them would involve taking it away from the only parents its ever known.

runawaybishop

kylith wrote: »

Leaving the von Willebrand's aside, wouldn't the fact that the child had rickets, which is caused by a nutritional deficiency, be evidence of neglect?

It's a hard one because should these parents be found innocent of any wrong doing the child is now 3 so returning it to them would involve taking it away from the only parents its ever known.

Rickets is common enough (especially whem breastfeeding) and not a sign of neglect by itself.

The kid knows its parents, they had supervised visits for 2 years

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Leaving the von Willebrand's aside, wouldn't the fact that the child had rickets, which is caused by a nutritional deficiency, be evidence of neglect?

It's a hard one because should these parents be found innocent of any wrong doing the child is now 3 so returning it to them would involve taking it away from the only parents its ever known.

The child is reluctant to leave its actual parents during visits and calls them mum and dad
Of course the child should be returned

Kidnapping of a child and giving it away never to be returned, for no reason, is completely unacceptable.
If they had concerns, fostering is the way to go
Too many cases of corruption and incompetence with state kidnaps in the USA (generally speaking) and now the UK for this to be ok

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

The child is reluctant to leave its actual parents during visits and calls them mum and dad
Of course the child should be returned

Kidnapping of a child and giving it away never to be returned, for no reason, is completely unacceptable.
If they had concerns, fostering is the way to go
Too many cases of corruption and incompetence with state kidnaps in the USA (generally speaking) and now the UK for this to be ok

The child was not kidnapped.

strelok

Deleted User wrote: »

The child was not kidnapped.

i suppose police never murder people either

eviltwin

UK social services have gone nuts since baby P. This case is not an isolated one, just Google the secret family courts. The adoption imho is an illegal one. It never should have been finalised until this case had been fully completed. My heart goes out to the parents.

strelok

strelok wrote: »

i suppose police never murder people either

What a complete non sequitor.

Are you trying to turn the topic into a joke or was that a serious point. If the latter, could you explain the connection. Are you saying the police kidnapped this child?

Manach

Unfortunately there a history of officials that while seeking in some cases the best for the child also in the majority seek to ensure no blame attaches to them if they miscall the situation and so harm their careers. That this is still occurring after the Dr. Meadows affair, who had mis-dianognosed 100s of cases with the result of children been take from their families, shows there is something still seriously wrong with the system.

zeffabelli

kylith wrote: »

Leaving the von Willebrand's aside, wouldn't the fact that the child had rickets, which is caused by a nutritional deficiency, be evidence of neglect?

It's a hard one because should these parents be found innocent of any wrong doing the child is now 3 so returning it to them would involve taking it away from the only parents its ever known.

They should do a full medical exploration of bone density and malabsorption.

The protocols show gross incompetence.

I know a couple who were investigated for child abuse by the US authorities because of their daughters strange behaviour.

This was before a diagnosis of autism which was later changed to an assessment of gifted.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What a complete non sequitor.

Are you trying to turn the topic into a joke or was that a serious point. If the latter, could you explain the connection. Are you saying the police kidnapped this child?

The point is just because the authorities do it doesn't make it any less of a moral failure, it's just their crime is legitimised by their authority and government endorsement.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

The point is just because the authorities do it doesn't make it any less of a moral failure, it's just their crime is legitimised by their authority and government endorsement.

In a situation where a radiologist said a child had broken bones and could have received them at the hands of his or her parents, would you allow the child to remain with those parents while the assault case was pending?

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In a situation where a radiologist said a child had broken bones and could have received them at the hands of his or her parents, would you allow the child to remain with those parents while the assault case was pending?

Broken bones can be a result of calcium malabsorption and other medical causes.

Those should be determined and the radiologist was out of line determining a cause. Radiologists can interpret scans but not pathologies and disorders.

The radiologist then can be sued for slander and malpractice unless the government has protected them too from and responsibility.