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

10-10-2015 09:37AM

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 · 10-10-2015 09:37AM

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. · 10-10-2015 09:42AM

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. · 10-10-2015 09:46AM

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.

10-10-2015 09:46AM

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. · 10-10-2015 09:54AM

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 · 10-10-2015 10:19AM

[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 · 10-10-2015 10:21AM

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 · 10-10-2015 11:08AM

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 · 10-10-2015 11:11AM

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

10-10-2015 11:13AM

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

10-10-2015 11:25AM

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 · 10-10-2015 11:34AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The child was not kidnapped.

i suppose police never murder people either

eviltwin · 10-10-2015 11:41AM

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.

10-10-2015 11:43AM

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 · 10-10-2015 11:56AM

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 · 12-10-2015 11:24AM

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 · 12-10-2015 11:26AM

[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.

12-10-2015 11:29AM

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 · 12-10-2015 11:48AM

[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.

12-10-2015 11:55AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

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.

You didn't answer the question.

Where a radiologist says a 6 week old baby has broken bones and they could have resulted from abuse (or indeed perhaps other medical causes) would you allow that child to continue to remain with the parents pending the investigation of the cause?

FelineOverLord · 12-10-2015 12:00PM

I'm not really sure what to make of this case. Presumably there are legal proceedures in place whereby the child services people would have to get authroisation to take the child into care and do they not have to get legal authorisation to put the child up for adoption? I'm not familiar with family law. I just don't believe that the story is as straight forward as social services taking a baby and putting it up for adoption based on some bruising. Of course it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.

zeffabelli · 12-10-2015 12:08PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

Where a radiologist says a 6 week old baby has broken bones and they could have resulted from abuse (or indeed perhaps other medical causes) would you allow that child to continue to remain with the parents pending the investigation of the cause?

I would need more data.

12-10-2015 12:25PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I would need more data.

But collecting that data would obviously take time, the police would need to speak to family members, friends, doctors, the social workers who visited the house and so on. During that time, would you allow the child remain with the parents?

zeffabelli · 12-10-2015 12:31PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But collecting that data would obviously take time, the police would need to speak to family members, friends, doctors, the social workers who visited the house and so on. During that time, would you allow the child remain with the parents?

I can't answer that I need more data, as o already said.

The lack of taking time to collect data leads to rash decision making such as the case of the guardi kidnapping the Romanian child.

So I think there has to be some measures for collecting data before you start kidnapping.

12-10-2015 12:37PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I can't answer that I need more data, as o already said.

The lack of taking time to collect data leads to rash decision making such as the case of the guardi kidnapping the Romanian child.

So I think there has to be some measures for collecting data before you start kidnapping.

Again, what happened was not kidnapping.

If the system in the UK is similar to here, the authorities would have applied to the Courts for an order to take a child into care. There, what data was to hand would be presented. Complying with a Court Order is not kidnapping.

hatrickpatrick · 12-10-2015 03:12PM

The UK is absolutely f*cked when it comes to parents' rights and family law. Literally. I find the extent of state interference pretty terrifying.

For me, the line was crossed when that poor woman from Italy who was only in the UK for the weekend was forced to have a premature C section on account of her having a mental illness attack. Her child was then abducted by the state and adopted in Britain. Not only deprived of his or her family, but also of his or her entire nationality and cultural identity.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why that didn't turn into an international sh!tstorm. If I was in government in Ireland and somebody did that to an Irish child in another EU state, I would raise absolute hell over it. It's sickening.

darkpagandeath · 12-10-2015 03:24PM

happens here as well, once you are in the system they can just do what they like pretty much and one has to do what ever they say.

zeffabelli · 12-10-2015 03:26PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, what happened was not kidnapping.

If the system in the UK is similar to here, the authorities would have applied to the Courts for an order to take a child into care. There, what data was to hand would be presented. Complying with a Court Order is not kidnapping.

Just because it was legal doesn't change its abduction.

Cabaal · 12-10-2015 03:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

So you expect a Solicitor to work for free?
Like it or not but a Solicitor is a business, they are entitled to be paid for services rendered at the price they state.

Its unreasonable to name and shame a Solicitor because they refuses to work for free,

If the couple couldn't afford legal costs then they should have looked at free legal aid options,

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

Comments