Adoption overturned

Nevyn · 14-11-2006 03:23PM

FatherTed wrote:

Until the adoption is final, the parents are really foster-parents. At least thats the way I see it. Sadly, unless the adoption is final, the birth parents do still have rights.

Thaqt is the case and it can take a long long time and the parental rights have to be legaly signed over.
Parentla rights can not be terminated by the courts of this land even in the best intrest of a child.

FatherTed wrote:

So in the 10 months between November 2004 and September 2005, the adoption was not finalized? Why does this take so long? Is this the fault of the adoption process?

Yes this is far to long and the process is at fault.

FatherTed wrote:

Also, I find it very strange that the fact that the birth parents are now married makes a big difference on this case. Does this mean that the birth father had no influence on the previous decisions prior to the marriage.

If a man is not married to the mother of his child he has no parental rights whats so ever over the child even if his name is on the birth cert.
He has to get the mother to aign a form or go to court to get graurdianships rights to get a say in his childs life if he is not married to the mother of his children.

When baby Ann was born he had no parental rights, when he married the mother he legally became baby Ann's father and gained parental rights.

cheeky_guy · 14-11-2006 03:34PM

I would imagine events took place something like this.

The girl and her fella got pregnant in late first year, early second year of college. The parents of both told them they were both getting totally cut off from the family for being so stupid and getting pregnant. As would happen me and a lot of other people i know.

They then had 3 choices, 1 keep the baby and drop out of college into some dead end job, ending up in a council flat surronded by scumbags and fearing that their child would mix and grow up with them, 2 abortion, or 3 adoption.

The couple obviously decided they loved the child too much to lose it for good so it went up for apoption. The couple then went on to finish their education and even went and got married to provide a secure home to the kid before they applied for her back.

Now the kid is back with her real proper parents (Both of them) whom by the looks of things have never stopped loving her considering the efforts they have made to get her back.

Now the child is back in a secure home, with 2 educated married parents who have just brought and won their case all the way to the supreme court.

And to think some people are actually saying, the child should actually be denied this and kept with her foster parents. Denied the right to her own Mammy & Daddy and she belongs to? I think thats madness.

The baby comes first and DEFINATELY the right decision was made!!

kizzyr · 14-11-2006 03:40PM

cheeky_guy wrote:

I would imagine events took place something like this.

The girl and her fella got pregnant in late first year, early second year of college. The parents of both told them they were both getting totally cut off from the family for being so stupid and getting pregnant. As would happen me and a lot of other people i know.

They then had 3 choices, 1 keep the baby and drop out of college into some dead end job, ending up in a council flat surronded by scumbags and fearing that their child would mix and grow up with them, 2 abortion, or 3 adoption.

The couple obviously decided they loved the child too much to lose it for good so it went up for apoption. The couple then went on to finish their education and even went and got married to provide a secure home to the kid before they applied for her back.

Now the kid is back with her real proper parents (Both of them) whom by the looks of things have never stopped loving her considering the efforts they have made to get her back.

Now the child is back in a secure home, with 2 educated married parents who have just brought and won their case all the way to the supreme court.

And to think some people are actually saying, the child should actually be denied this and kept with her foster parents. Denied the right to her own Mammy & Daddy and she belongs to? I think thats madness.

The baby comes first and DEFINATELY the right decision was made!!

First off not everyone who lives in accomodation provided by a council is a scumbag.
Second if they always meant to get the baby back why put her up for adoption rather than foster care?
2 educated married people don't autmoatically make good or expert parents. There are many people who have children and never marry, are you saying that they are bad parents because they haven't trooped off to a church to say " I do"? A formal education doesn't make you a good parent it is something you learn as you go.
Lastly when you say the baby is not with her " real and proper" parents you are making little of all of the love, attention,time, devotion, care, concern etc etc the prospective adoptive parents have given to this little girl for almost ALL of her life and that disgusts me.

Nevyn · 14-11-2006 04:00PM

It is totally possible to place a child in what is called long term foster care until the parents get on thier feet, while this is the case the child is placed with a foster family who know they will not get to adopt.

Adoption proceedures are not started and the parents visit and have interaction with thier child even as it is in foster care.

This was not the case here.

Dyr · 14-11-2006 04:10PM

cheeky_guy wrote:

They then had 3 choices, 1 keep the baby and drop out of college into some dead end job, ending up in a council flat surronded by scumbags and fearing that their child would mix and grow up with them,

lol the deepest fear of the chattering classes. "OMGLOIKE shes TOTALLY mixing with them, come IN here Rhiannon for CHROIST's sake!!"

once on sesame street, they were arguing over what to call that dog thing so both parties agreed to summon the dog by their choice of name and whichever one he answered to was settled on as his name.
I see no reason why a similar method wouldnt work in this case given sesame streets excellent track record on matter's such as numeracy and basic spanish (agua....ag..ua)

trilo · 14-11-2006 05:16PM

This case is such a delicate matter.

The social services in this country really take the piss. (I work with the social care area).
The natural parents, when the child was just over a year old decided to keep their baby, what support have they been given since then in getting the child back. The natural parents since that period should have been given a chance to build up a relationship with that child. The adoption hadn't fully gone through and they were entilted to retract their decision.

Another matter which i think is crazy in this case, is that you are not seen as a family (according to Irish Constitution) unless the man and woman are a marital unit. The natural parents got married, was this to strengthen their case in getting their child back. How would the case have faired out in the Supreme Court had the natural parents not been married.

As for psychological damage to the child been given back to the natural parents, i personally think the social workers have a lot to answer for that. They should have been building the relationship as for back as when the mother retracted her decision, which is contradictory enough in that a child is usually seen as been best placed with his/her natural family in so far as possible as his/her safety is not in jeaporady.

As painful as it is for the couple fostering her until they had completed the adoption process i do feel for them, but i also feel that they and social services could have seen the situation in another light as to see that the natural parents made a dreadful mistake and they should be supported in so far as possible.

bucks73 · 14-11-2006 05:56PM

Baby4 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Almost identical to myself. No bombshell dropped on me when I was younger thank God and will always have only one set of parents.

It must be very hard on the adoptive parents after 2 years. Chances are they are not able to have kids themselves so took the adoption route. Now imagine how they feel at the moment. Having the child they looked after for 2 years taken away.

As someone said earlier it does look like the natural parents decided after getting their degrees and jobs that they would get married and go and collect their baby from the people looking after her. IMO the totally wrong decision by the court.

IMO if you give up your right to a child then that should be it. Final. The biological parent should not even have access to info to go looking in the future. That should be up to the child.

Waltons · 14-11-2006 08:09PM

Branson Bald Duet wrote:

It's selfish to give your child away when it's an inconvenience to you and then ask for it back later. 13 months is a pretty long time to wait to ask to get the kid back - why not 3 weeks? I suppose they finished college and all and then decided they wanted to play happy families once they were good and ready? IMO they have no rights to that child, they gave her away and she has been raised by another couple for 2 1/2 years. It makes a mockery out of the entire system. The natural parents are not putting the child's best interests first IMO. They are thinking about themselves and what they want, nothing I have heard about the case suggests otherwise. As far as I'm concerned she is not their child anymore, they gave her away. And it's not as if they were too young to know any better - they were college students, more than old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. I know several people in my year who had kids and stayed in college, it can be done. Sounds like these 2 just didn't want the burden - until it suited them of course. That's not how it works with children. Imagine how the adoptive parents must be feeling now? Imagine having a child you've raised for 2 1/2 years and having it taken away from you?

Really have to agree with this. The fact that they're looking for their child back so long after having given it up would suggest that it was in their best interests rather than the child's - something that, if true,would, IMO, would indicate that they don't have the right mindset to be taking care of a child.
As a practical point as well, the couple who gave up the child for adoption probably don't have any experience in raising children. The fact that they're the child's biological parents would make absolutely no difference to this.
Overall, I think it's an incredibly selfish decision made by keen manipulators who worked out that they'd be able to get their child back through these avenues.

Whatever about this case, the law needs to be changed so something like this can't happen again

wow sierra · 14-11-2006 09:01PM

People are making very unfair assumptions about the actions and motivations of the birth parents in this case. Noone knows what they went through making these difficult decisions at a young age. There is a lot made of them looking for the baby back after 2 years - they didnt - they looked for her back after 1 year, which in terms of the development of a baby is a life time of difference. If the foster parents/authorities had returned her then the transition would have been much easier - the birth parents are not to blame for this. This is a hugely complex issue and I think the comments about the birth parents are uncalled for. At least they didnt have an abortion which would be the majority decision in their situation.

upthere · 14-11-2006 09:06PM

Who cares, it's not like she's going to grow up to be anything special

malpas · 14-11-2006 09:29PM

Another perspective on this sad case...after being successful in applying for adoption, at the birth mother's request we met her in her last weeks of pregnancy. She was a lovely person and assured us that she had carefully thought everything through and there was no way she would ever change her mind. We were given our lovely baby ***** soon after. Bonding was instant, we loved ***** dearly and we thought our life was complete. Seven months later, the phone rang one night and we were told by the adoption agency that we had to give back dear ***** to the birth mother. ***** was taken away early next morning... and so began many years of grief, depression, worry and pain which are indescribable. We asked for and got a welcome letter from the mother (via the agency) with some photos after about six months. She did her best to explain and apologised.

Emotions on all sides in this case are running high and this is very understandable. As the years have passed the pain has eased and we can better understand how she also felt. We just hope everything worked out for them both and life stays good for them. We bear no ill-will.

In this case, the adoptive parents are in for a rough emotional ride for many years. We muddled through with the help of a few close friends and family and hope that they too in time will be ok. I don't think the birth parents had any grand plan either..like us all they got caught up in an unexpected highly emotional situation and will need all the help they can get. Good wishes to them all.

vallo · 14-11-2006 11:15PM

Wrong decision by the courts IMO.
The birth parents made the wrong choice when they gave the baby up for adoption. But sometimes life is tough and you need to live with your wrong decisions.
A friend of mine in college took a "year out" in 3rd year to go to the UK to have a baby, who was subsequently put up for adoption. She is now in her 30s, married with 2 kids. I can only imagine her pain every time she looks at her kids, at family photos, on birthdays, at christmas time etc etc ... knowing that you have a child who you gave up when you were young and foolish and the family shame seemed like the dominant driving force behind your decision. She made a bad decision and she lives with the pain of it everyday.
Baby Ann's birth parents are simply transferring their pain onto the adoptive parents. It is very unfair.

Dave! · 15-11-2006 12:47AM

Pighead wrote:

Let Ann decide.

rofl

Have each couple sit on a different side of the room and put Ann in the middle. Then call her and see who she goes to!

Giblet · 15-11-2006 12:58AM

Upthere banned for trolling.

smallpaws · 15-11-2006 01:12AM

Leave the tot with the only family she knows. I think the birth parents are being incredibly selfish for wanting her back; does anyone really believe they think they are doing that child a favor instead of thinking of what THEY want? Their rights to her should have been terminated upon placement of the child, this having months and months to take back your decision is ridiculous.
You put the kid up for adoption because you can't raise the kid, not until you think you can raise it. That poor child! FS, she isn't a houseplant they got someone else to water and feed while they were on vacation, she's a human being.

embee · 15-11-2006 02:10AM

Bambi wrote:

lol the deepest fear of the chattering classes. "OMGLOIKE shes TOTALLY mixing with them, come IN here Rhiannon for CHROIST's sake!!"

HEY!! My daughter is called Rhiannon, but I ain't posh

Anyways, I think that this whole mess is just so sad for the adoptive parents, for Baby Ann and, to an extent, for the natural parents.

As a Mammy myself, the idea of my daughter being taken away from he is just incomprehensible... It would destroy me. She's only 9 months old, but I know that she would suffer too in the short term. How a 2 year old little girl (she's not really a "baby" at 2 years of age) is going to cope with strangers is beyond me. She's two - she'll already have been calling her adoptive parents Mammy and Daddy for some time now.

Is it true that the natural parents tried to stop the adoption when the baby was 13 months old or so? Its just so sad that its taken this long for it to be sorted. I do question the reasoning behind the natural parents' decision, at 13 months, to decide against the adoption. I also wonder whether they got married just so they could get the baby back.... Its all such a horrible mess

Lurk · 15-11-2006 02:10AM

I can't imagine any circumstances under which I'd ever give up a child so I'm still baffled by the birth parents' decision to give their infant up for adoption, especially nowadays when there's little, if any, stigma attached to single parenthood, there's state assistance if someone's in financial trouble and there's quite a few people in college who have children.

kizzyr · 15-11-2006 09:45AM

I was listening to the Last Word yesterday and a journalist who has met with the birth parents was on the show. No names were given as the identity of the couple is still be guarded.Apparently things went like this:
The couple met while at university and their relationship became serious with both of them moving in together. In the last year of their degree Ann's mum became pregnant. Both the mum and dad were too scared of their families reaction to the news to tell them and so considered abortion which they decided against and so that left adoption as their only option or so they thought.
A week before the mum's 23rd birthday she gave birth to Ann. Before she gave birth she had approached the HSE about the adoption and while had some concerns over it pushed ahead anyway and together with the HSE chose the couple Ann has been with for so long. Ann was handed over after 10 days (I think) and her mum went back to university.
4 forms needed to be signed at various intervals and while both parents did express doubts about what they were doing Ann's mum signed all forms most importantly form 4A. This was the final form giving over her parental rights to Ann. The only reason the adoption didn't go through fully was because the Adoption Board didn't complete the paper work on time.
The biological parents stayed together, left university, got jobs and decided that they wanted Ann back. They realised that being married would help their case hugely and so got married in January. To date neither the biological mum or dad have told anyone else in their families that Ann exists. Her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc do not know that she exists. Both parents are still so removed from their own families that when they got married it was in a registry office with two strangers as their witnesses.
When in court the prospective adoptive parents (and thats what they were not foster parents) said that they couldn't deal with a prolonged hand over of Ann that this would be like a death to them and they were unsure how they are going to deal with this on an emotional & psychological level. They then left the court to go home and put "their" little girl to bed as they have done so many nights of her life.

So just think, if the Adoption Board had actually done the paperwork in a timely fashion then all of this may not have been able to happen.

Baby4 · 15-11-2006 11:26AM

This post has been deleted.

Unshelved · 15-11-2006 11:42AM

First of all Malpas - thank you for your story. I can only imagine your heartbreak and your post was full courage. Life can be very cruel sometimes - I don't think I could ever learn to face such trauma with the dignity and grace of you and your spouse.

Kizzyr said

To date neither the biological mum or dad have told anyone else in their families that Ann exists. Her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc do not know that she exists. Both parents are still so removed from their own families that when they got married it was in a registry office with two strangers as their witnesses.

I can't BELIEVE how immature this couple sound. She was twenty fecking three when she had the baby and she's now 25 with a university education and they still haven't told their families. And yet they really believe they have the "right" to bring up this daughter that they have hidden like a shameful secret from their families for three years - what a great start for their little girl.

If the mother had not signed the final adoption order then the court decision - however heartbreaking for the adoptive parents - is the right one. But you'd have to wonder what kind of people they are, acting like it's the Ireland of the 50's where girls who got "into trouble" would be sent to a Magdalen Laundry. And you'd have to wonder about what kind of an extended family they have where a child born out of wedlock is such a taboo that it has to be hidden from them.

Good luck in that family Baby Ann - you're going to need it.

masterK · 15-11-2006 11:51AM

I'd actually thought she was 17 or 18 when she gave birth judging by the media coverage, but at 23 she was certainly old enough to make a mature decision. If she signed forms on 4 separate occasions then she has not only made her decision but stuck to it.

I would question whether it is true that a delay by the adoption board was at fault, one would have thought that as soon as the final document was signed that was it, there would be solicitors from all sides present so it would be finalised there and then. I can't believe it was just a piece of paperwork left on somebodies desk that the had to get around to doing in their own time, although in this country you never know.

The really big issue coming out of this is what will the future effect be on future adoptions in Ireland? Surely any prospective adoptive parents will now have to think long and hard about committing to this process when they know that they could have their lives shattered as a result of a parent changing their mind.

vallo · 15-11-2006 09:32PM

Some of the details in the story above aren't quite accurate. Their families do know about baby ann (some of her mother's younger siblings may not yet know) but neither offered support and do not seem to have been overjoyed.
On the issue of the marriage, they actually planned and cancelled (with 30 mins notice) a wedding in december last year, rescheduled so that some friend could be present and then went ahead with a registry office marriage with only 2 strangers as witnesses.
They seem to me to be 2 very immature young people - wanting to travel, unsure about their study, their careers, where to live, whether together or apart, dithering over some fairly fundamental decisions in their lives and slow to take action after they finally made a decision. In other words they are pretty typical young adults.
Judge McMenamin (sp?) high court judgment makes interesting reading if you have an hour to spare.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/99339957472e4479802571f5005248c2?OpenDocument
Ann's mother is quoted in this judgment as saying that halting the adoption is "in my and Ann's best interests". Clearly it isn't in Ann's interests to b taken from a loving stable environment.
So that just leaves her causing all this trauma because it is in her own personal best interests. Unbelievably elfish.

vallo · 15-11-2006 09:33PM

.... make that unbelievably Selfish.

16-11-2006 01:45AM

They sound even more ridiculous than I first thought. TWENTY THREE? I cannot believe a woman of 23 would give up her child because of what her parents might think. After being an adult for 5 years already! It's more than old enough to know that if you give up a child for adoption you don't turn around and ask for it back. I always thought once the papers were signed, that was it.

They just sound unbelievably immature and selfish. Yeah, wanting to travel is typical for young adults but not when you've got a baby! I don't know anyone who wouldn't forget those plans and put the kid first, and I know a good few people in college with kids. They want to have their cake and eat it - do everything they want to do and have the kid back once it suits them. I can't believe anyone would actually think they could get away with this, and then they actually did :eek: They need to change the system to stop this happening again. I feel so so bad for the adoptive parents - they're effectively having their daughter taken away on the whim of some immature, childish twenty somethings who have now decided they want to play house. What if they discover they don't really like the kid, are they going to give her away again?

Capt'n Midnight · 16-11-2006 01:57AM

If the biological parents get divorced or for some reason aren't able to provide a suitable home for Ann, does she go back to the foster parents ?

Did the biological parents act before or after they found out about the prospective adoption ? Is it coindicence or a reaction ?

The Sweeper · 16-11-2006 07:15AM

I don't understand why social services (is it social services in Ireland? I can't remember - that body, anyhow) haven't intervened at this point and made a play on behalf of the best interests of the child.

It is in the best interests of the child now to stay with who she knows.

It will be in the best interests of the child in the future to know her birth parents, especially when they fought very hard to get her back.

In the medium term it would be in the best interests of any child to get to know two sets of adults who adore and cherish them.

In the UK, a 'holy grail' for social services is to have a child who for some reason was given up by birth parents adopted and then for that child to continue to have a positive relationship with his or her birth parents, in sort of the role of a close aunt and uncle. The welfare of the child is paramount - if contact with birth parents is upsetting or stressful and increases the child's
anxiety levels, it will be minimised.

Saying that, there's a well-regarded set of guidelines to help social workers decide whether or not contact with birth parents is healthy - and that involves a lot of criteria, like whether the birth parents respect the child's right to call their foster/adoptive parents 'mum and dad', whether the birth parents have accepted the fact that the child's situation in their new home is not temporary, whether the birth parents can interact with the foster/adoptive parents with a level of respect and harmony and so on.

I don't know enough about the case really, but it seems to me that a court decision that says "no contact with you, and full contact with you again" has been taken more in the spirit of holy Catholic Ireland's "family unit" than the best interests of the baby.

Actually, see this from the judgement:

"The ultimate, indeed the only question for determination in these proceedings is whether Ann is lawfully in the custody of the Doyles. If such custody is lawful she may remain there. If not, she must be transferred to the custody of her birth parents now constituted a family under the Constitution who submit that they are entitled as of right to her custody."

So yep, the verdict had nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the child, and is simply a decision delivered in the absolute letter of the law.

I'd say that borders on barbarism.

Baby4 · 16-11-2006 09:42AM

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor · 17-11-2006 12:29PM

This judgment will also have the effect of stressing out any other Families who have adopted children recently!

Adoption overturned

Comments