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

allibastor · 12-10-2015 03:36PM

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)

Do you think given them massive financial payout from an already over stretched budget will help anyone else down the road?

seamus · 12-10-2015 03:41PM

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?

This is where it gets tricky, as it doesn't necessarily indicate wilful neglect, it could indicate that the parents simply need a little more assistance and education around nutrition. It's the reason why children in their first year get so many visits from the public health nurse (much to the chagrin of parents).

It could also potentially indicate a minor medical issue with nutritional absorption, which may not surface for well-fed children, but may appear in cases where the family live in poverty. Again, doesn't prove neglect, it equally shows that they need more help.

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.

I guess it's worth taking a long-term look at this. As in, how is a teenager going to handle being told that not only are they adopted, but their biological parents are alive and well, want to have them back, but the state won't allow it.

I think in the long-term if the decision is upheld, you're almost guaranteeing pain and suffering across the board. As the child gets older, she will "run away" back to her parents' house, who keep telling her they love her and want her back, and the state will keep taking her away again.

Yes, a 3 year old will find it all very confusing, though as others have said, luckily her parents have been in contact, so they're not strangers to her.
What would be appropriate would be a "handover", which involved the adoptive parents having supervised visits, reviewed every couple of months, with the aim of phasing it out completely by the age of five (unless the child indicates they want to keep seeing them).

I know for the good of my child I wouldn't be resentful of the adoptive parents, and I would recognise that my child may have developed a bond with them, so just ripping that away would be pretty traumatic.

12-10-2015 03:43PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

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

Just because it's legal doesn't change the fact that it's illegal?

Kidnapping is a crime. If you are accusing someone of a crime, you might specify who. The radiographer for pointing to the broken bones, the social workers for applying to the Courts because of their concerns, any Judge who made the order placing the child into care?

SeanW · 12-10-2015 05:16PM

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?

Allow the child to remain with the parents pending investigation: No.

Put the child up for adoption before their guilt has been established beyond any doubt: No, that's not acceptable either.

No one is arguing AFAIK that the child should not have been taken into foster care if there was genuine suspicion of abuse. What people have a problem with, is the subsequent adoption, which occurred before it was shown that the biological parents were not abusive. That is almost as bad an injustice as it would be to send the child home with abusive parents (which these turned out not to be).

12-10-2015 05:52PM

SeanW wrote: »

No one is arguing AFAIK that the child should not have been taken into foster care if there was genuine suspicion of abuse. What people have a problem with, is the subsequent adoption, which occurred before it was shown that the biological parents were not abusive. That is almost as bad an injustice as it would be to send the child home with abusive parents (which these turned out not to be).

Oh I agree I have concerns about the adoption.

But there are a few posters using the word "kidnapping" so their issue seems to be the removal of the child at all.

hatrickpatrick · 12-10-2015 08:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I agree I have concerns about the adoption.

But there are a few posters using the word "kidnapping" so their issue seems to be the removal of the child at all.

I'd argue that it became kidnapping as soon as the parents were found innocent and their child was not returned to them. It's inexcusable.

zeffabelli · 12-10-2015 08:17PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh I agree I have concerns about the adoption.

But there are a few posters using the word "kidnapping" so their issue seems to be the removal of the child at all.

It is kidnapping. There are several well known causes of the condition.

hatrickpatrick · 12-10-2015 08:32PM

I find it a little disturbing that people are defending what happened here. Let's be clear: If under any circumstances a child is removed from his or her biological parents for a reason which is subsequently discovered to have been bollocks, then a refusal to reunite that family is an appalling violation of a very basic human right which cannot be defended. The child is being deprived of their biological family, the parents are being deprived of a parental relationship with their child, and that entire family is being deprived of its familial unity.

It is indefensible. Regardless of the dangers or risks of moving the child again, they do not trump the emotional damage dealt to all three parties by the forced dissolution of their family bond.

Again, if anybody doubts that the UK's system with regard to this is completely and totally insane, refer to the story I posted earlier of the Italian woman who had her child forcibly taken into care from the womb in a forced caesarian section and adopted to a British family, because she had a psychological condition while visiting the UK.

The UK authorities are f*cking insane. Period.

BlaasForRafa · 12-10-2015 08:41PM

SeanW wrote: »

No one is arguing AFAIK that the child should not have been taken into foster care if there was genuine suspicion of abuse.

Actually that seems to be exactly what Zeffabelli seems to be arguing. The state has to be cautious and work on the "worst case scenario" principle. Once abuse has been ruled out then the state has to determine if there's a case of neglect going on, children have died because of nutritional neglect so that has to be determined also.

lanos · 13-10-2015 12:05AM

the child had rickets so was probably malnourished
parents are probably unfit for the job
family unit has too much protection

in this case i suspect the social workers were right
.....but what do i know ?

end of the road · 13-10-2015 12:25AM

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?

indeed. certainly a few questions to answer for that particular social services i think

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2015 12:44AM

lanos wrote: »

the child had rickets so was probably malnourished
parents are probably unfit for the job

Suggesting that the parents were unfit for the job because of rickets is akin to telling the family of a new puppy that their puppy will be taken away because he or she is overweight.

People aren't allowed to make mistakes? People have to be 100% correct all the time as parents? It isn't a learning curve?

Jesus Christ. <Who would probably have been removed from his parents by social services, due to his not being born in a hospital or under medical supervision, and due to the obvious health risks of the other stable animals chilling nearby>

family unit has too much protection

In the UK? LOL.

This kind of sh!t happens at the other end of the scale as well, by the way - elderly people detained by the states and robbed of their own agency when getting close to death. Apparently dying in a clinical environment is mandated by the government, you can't choose to spend your last days at home with your family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/5221132/Daughter-of-dementia-sufferer-says-Its-my-mums-right-to-live-and-die-with-her-family.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2386454/Minetta-Webb-The-Manchester-family-accused-kidnapping-107-year-old-granny.html

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/01/29/council-deprived-man-liberty-without-proper-assessment-sanctioned/

To name just a few. It's an appalling situation in which the state has far, far too much involvement in families and in the case of elderly adults, in compromising individual freedom.

end of the road · 13-10-2015 12:52AM

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I find it a little disturbing that people are defending what happened here. Let's be clear: If under any circumstances a child is removed from his or her biological parents for a reason which is subsequently discovered to have been bollocks, then a refusal to reunite that family is an appalling violation of a very basic human right which cannot be defended. The child is being deprived of their biological family, the parents are being deprived of a parental relationship with their child, and that entire family is being deprived of its familial unity.

It is indefensible. Regardless of the dangers or risks of moving the child again, they do not trump the emotional damage dealt to all three parties by the forced dissolution of their family bond.

Again, if anybody doubts that the UK's system with regard to this is completely and totally insane, refer to the story I posted earlier of the Italian woman who had her child forcibly taken into care from the womb in a forced caesarian section and adopted to a British family, because she had a psychological condition while visiting the UK.

The UK authorities are f*cking insane. Period.

agree with both points. as far as i'm concerned both cases are legalized kidnap. in the case of the italian woman, i'd add terrorism as well.

lanos wrote: »

the child had rickets so was probably malnourished
parents are probably unfit for the job
family unit has too much protection

in this case i suspect the social workers were right
.....but what do i know ?

family unit hasn't enough protection. with the extremists that are uk social services and their helpers who put children up for adoption just because, the family unit needs a lot more protection. i'd suggest the parents were up to the job but commited the crime of being poor and possibly uneducated. considering the social services went full force and had the child adopted before any conclusion to the case came to being, i'd suggest they are in full, wrong. this secret family court that exists in britain is dangerous and needs to be crushed for the greater good.

Carlos Orange · 13-10-2015 01:00AM

Deleted User wrote: »

As said earlier, there should be a presumption that their best interest lie with the natural parents.

Why? There are almost certainly better parents available who wish to adopt.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2015 01:52AM

psinno wrote: »

Why? There are almost certainly better parents available who wish to adopt.

Genetic bonds may mean nothing to you, but they mean something to most people. All that matters is whether parents are good enough, not whether there's a couple who would make "better parents" by some state-defined barometer.

end of the road · 13-10-2015 02:18AM

psinno wrote: »

Why? There are almost certainly better parents available who wish to adopt.

doesn't matter. the birth parents have more rights as far as i'm concerned unless found guilty of abusing the child. however even at that, adoption should only be done by the consent of the parents. no consent, fostering is the only option. it avoids cases like the one being discussed here

FortySeven · 13-10-2015 02:40AM

I spent some time living in a kids home with one of the girls taken from the Orkney islands back in the late 80s. She went totally off the rails (as did we all) while in care. Turned out to be a social worker obsessed with satanic ritual abuse. The girl had no idea why she was removed from the family home with her siblings and then separated from them. She was returned home at some point. Too old for adoption thank god. Tis quite common for things like this to happen. Destroys lives.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/oct/21/comment.children

RDM_83 again · 13-10-2015 09:22AM

AFAIK in the UK adoption can occur after two years in the system, while nobody wants to see children in the system forever this short a time period is always going to cause cases like this too occur.

Carlos Orange · 13-10-2015 09:52AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Genetic bonds may mean nothing to you, but they mean something to most people. All that matters is whether parents are good enough, not whether there's a couple who would make "better parents" by some state-defined barometer.

Genetic parenthood mean a lot to me, certainly a lot more to me than it does to people who push best interests of the child as a standard. I was just wondering to what degree someone saying "presumption that their best interest lie with the natural parents" was just a sop to how normal people think.

zeffabelli · 13-10-2015 09:54AM

psinno wrote: »

Genetic parenthood mean a lot to me, certainly a lot more to me than it does to people who push best interests of the child as a standard. I was just wondering to what degree someone saying "presumption that their best interest lie with the natural parents" was just a sop to how normal people think.

Best interest is a controversial assumption in legal journals. It's just spouted around here like its the 1st commandment.

zeffabelli · 13-10-2015 10:03AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Actually that seems to be exactly what Zeffabelli seems to be arguing. The state has to be cautious and work on the "worst case scenario" principle. Once abuse has been ruled out then the state has to determine if there's a case of neglect going on, children have died because of nutritional neglect so that has to be determined also.

What disturbs me is the rashness and assuming the worst and no comeback on the authorities for when they get it so so so wrong with devastating co sequences.

These consequences are transgenerational and I find it very uneasy some of the cavalier attitudes on this thread to adoption. It will effect grandchildren, extended families, and so forth.

lanos · 13-10-2015 10:21AM

lanos wrote: »

the child had rickets so was probably malnourished
parents are probably unfit for the job
family unit has too much protection

in this case i suspect the social workers were right
.....but what do i know ?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Suggesting that the parents were unfit for the job because of rickets is akin to telling the family of a new puppy that their puppy will be taken away because he or she is overweight.

obviously i didn't mean to suggest that the Rickets was the ONLY issue with this family.
its just 1 symptom of a probable bigger issue.

There are children running amok at my local ALDI throwing stones at cars on any evening you could mention and the parents are pissed every night on cheap Tamova vodka.
i guarantee that if these kids had been adopted as infants and placed with a respectable couple, they would be indoors doing their homework instead of harassing hardworking people and destined for prison or worse.

sorry but i have zero tolerance for do-gooders protecting chavs and their feral offspring

cowboyBuilder · 13-10-2015 11:40AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

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

UK SS pig society.

Nothing surprises me, this is a society were kids are allowed to be abused and then "Child services" (child murderers and rapists themselves) are allowed to kidnap innocent peoples kids and do whatever with them.

The_Minister · 13-10-2015 12:36PM

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.

Why should a solicitor work for free?
The real blame lies with a constantly-cut legal aid system.

13-10-2015 12:40PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Why should a solicitor work for free?
The real blame lies with a constantly-cut legal aid system.

Every Solicitor who works in family law will tell you of the amount of work that is pro bono. The private practitioner scheme here is terrible, might be 200 euros for what could be multiple appearances in Court, and the waiting list for the Legal Aid Board is well over 6 months now. I'd know of many Solicitors who have fought family law cases and invested huge time and resources in them effectively pro bono.

FishOnABike · 13-10-2015 01:01PM

[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.

I would consider it state sponsored kidnapping. 'I was just following orders" does not justfy it.

13-10-2015 01:48PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

I would consider it state sponsored kidnapping. 'I was just following orders" does not justfy it.

The very essence of kidnapping is that it is the unlawful removal of a person. If it is lawful, it cannot be kidnapping.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2015 02:12PM

lanos wrote: »

obviously i didn't mean to suggest that the Rickets was the ONLY issue with this family.
its just 1 symptom of a probable bigger issue.

There are children running amok at my local ALDI throwing stones at cars on any evening you could mention and the parents are pissed every night on cheap Tamova vodka.
i guarantee that if these kids had been adopted as infants and placed with a respectable couple, they would be indoors doing their homework instead of harassing hardworking people and destined for prison or worse.

sorry but i have zero tolerance for do-gooders protecting chavs and their feral offspring

The problem with your entire post is the use of the word "probable" as opposed to "possible". Your subsequent rant indicates that you are drawing gigantic, sweeping conclusions from one tiny piece of evidence. It's akin to finding somebody guilty of murdering somebody else for no reason other than the fact that fifty years ago, they had a scrap in the school playground.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2015 02:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The very essence of kidnapping is that it is the unlawful removal of a person. If it is lawful, it cannot be kidnapping.

Many laws are and have been wrong throughout history. The UK has a great many horrific and ridiculous laws today.

I don't think I'm alone in my alarm at the direction the UK is going in. It is becoming an incredibly fascist society, and I mean absolutely no hyperbole by saying that. On the one hand you have cases like this - the state having far too much power to break up families, young and elderly alike - on another, you have people being prosecuted and facing possible jail time for hurting someone's feelings with a tweet - on another, you have the government justifying the tracking and recording of every personal communication between people - on another, you have various forms of adult entertainment being banned, because they don't suit the tastes of those in power - on yet another, you have journalists being detained under terrorism legislation for blowing whistles - I could go on and on and on.

The UK is becoming an unimaginably authoritarian society by Western standards. This is just one symptom of it. The government is attempting to entirely replace the concept of individual autonomy with a pervasive, all encompassing nanny state.

end of the road · 13-10-2015 02:39PM

lanos wrote: »

obviously i didn't mean to suggest that the Rickets was the ONLY issue with this family.
its just 1 symptom of a probable bigger issue.

There are children running amok at my local ALDI throwing stones at cars on any evening you could mention and the parents are pissed every night on cheap Tamova vodka.
i guarantee that if these kids had been adopted as infants and placed with a respectable couple, they would be indoors doing their homework instead of harassing hardworking people and destined for prison or worse.

sorry but i have zero tolerance for do-gooders protecting chavs and their feral offspring

do gooders don't exist. its a term used by certain types to throw into their little rants to try and fail to be derogatory toards those who do their best to insure laws and rights are equal even if those people don't like some who receive them. better "chavs" and their "feral offspring" have some protections then the state being able to steal children at will.

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

Comments