Friction can be a drag

In the interests of free speech…just make it interesting

Adopting children: How final should it be?

with 17 comments

Basic story is that a couple had their 3 kids taken away from them because one had 6 broken bones.

This later turned out to be the result of rickets.

Kids should go back to the parents right?

Well, apparently not. It has been ruled that they should stay with their new parents. Even though the real parents did NOTHING wrong.

The argument is that if you start taking people away from adoptive parents then the whole adoption process will break down as parents will always feel that their new kids can be taken away.


What is really troubling me is what on earth they told the kids throughout this process? Do they still think that their parents beat them up?!


Written by jackshaftoe

February 14, 2009 at 11:33 am

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Fucking joke! Has no one any common sense to DO THE RIGHT THING? Social workers do as much harm as abusers Why? Because for every case they get right, they fuck up another three.

    I wonder how many abusive parents are willing to go through the wringer (insert legal system here) to get their kids back? Supposedly so they can carry on where they left off and continue to abuse? Get real, only loving parents with the childrens best interests at heart would endure such an experience.

    Civil servants are morons as are judges, out of touch with life and completely unable to apply common sense to a problem.

    I hope these parents will get their kids back. I hope the judge gets syphilis from his next hooker and I hope the civil servants are re-trained, re-brained and get a life.


    February 14, 2009 at 1:51 pm

  2. There’s no logic to that “argument”. These children were forcibly removed from their innocent parents. Why should a genuine miscarriage of justice have any bearing on adoption in cases where the parents chose to give up their children?


    February 14, 2009 at 6:42 pm

  3. This story makes me soooo angry. I feel rage. A situation in which I guess hate becomes that valid emotion.

    A miscarriage of justice should not be reinforced, no matter what the cost and the price! It’s like making all of society participate in an evil.

    It’s absurd that the process of adoption as such would be affected, because this was obviously an exceptional travesty of justice.

    I feel like hitting someone.


    February 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  4. If people who want to adopt fear that their adopted kids could be later taken away from them, they will be less inclined to adopt.
    This would mean significantly adding to the 4000 kids who already need adoption in the UK.
    Consider the damage done to all those kids left in care homes etc.
    Which is the greater evil – damage to one family or to many?


    February 16, 2009 at 9:49 am

  5. mr shaftoe… i know you’re just playing devil’s advocate but even for you that’s a fairly insensitive argument… you can’t go playing with the lives of these kids and their parents just to make a point…


    February 16, 2009 at 2:59 pm

  6. What do the kids want? They have apparently been with their new parents for more than 3 years now. Maybe they are being better fed and no longer suffer from malnourishment conditions?


    February 16, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  7. tree2one
    Its not safe to assume that the rickets was caused by any maltreatments from the parents. There are a number of conditions suffered by humans because our bodies lack the appropriate mechanisms to absorb vitamins in the right proportions.

    Ultimately this is a real tragedy, and I dont understand why the kids were given up for adoption if there was still a reasonable element of doubt about how the injuries were caused in the first place. Seems like some doctors made some very bad calls.

    If they were my kids, I would kidnap them back and leave, because as far as I am concerned they were kidnapped from me by the state.


    February 16, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  8. Er, sorry…it was a rare case of scurvy, not rickets.
    No-one seems to be answering the damage that could be done to the adoption system by returning the kids.


    February 17, 2009 at 6:43 pm

  9. Because the argument doesn’t hold water.
    The state took these children away from their parents without good cause, which has no bearing on adoptions of children voluntarily given up.
    It may affect adoptions of abused children, but where do you come down?
    On the side of these parents and their children or a hypothetical future situation?

    I am more concerned about the flip side of your question.
    Who has the final authority over our children, us as parents or the state?
    (And I am obviously not talking about actual cases of abuse/neglect).


    February 18, 2009 at 2:40 am

  10. why were the kids put out for adoption while the parents were still appealing? there was mention of local authority targets needing to be met.


    February 18, 2009 at 10:10 am

  11. “It may affect adoptions of abused children” – precisely. That’s the cases we are discussing.

    “It may affect adoptions of abused children” – those are the cases we are discussing.

    Who has final authority? Sadly, it has to be the state – or abuse of your own kids would be legal.


    February 18, 2009 at 10:12 am

  12. tree – Please tell me that is not true! It would explain the mess. Spot on – they should never have been adopted during appeal.


    February 18, 2009 at 10:16 am

  13. but to repeat my point above, the ‘final authority’ as you put it Jack, shoudl not be exercised until the process has finished (all facts in place and appeal over)


    February 18, 2009 at 10:21 am

  14. as for the adoption going ahead with the adoption because of local authority targets needing to be met, which I heard from someone I know who works in social services where this story went round – what a sham. I’m with full english – kidnap them back. We should offer to help the dad carry it out?


    February 18, 2009 at 10:28 am

  15. Here’s another similar case – even while the criminal investigation was going on, a family court judge agreed to a social services request for a forced adoption.

    Tony Blair set a target for a 50 per cent increase in adoptions nationwide to reduce the time children spend in foster care. Councils were offered cash bonuses totalling £36 million for hitting their goals.


    February 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  16. Whatever the actual truth is to this story.
    These people, children and parents, are not in anyway obligated to “saving” the adoption process.
    They are individuals who have suffered a terrible injustice and the only right thing to do is for them to be reunited as a family.

    Surely no one could argue that a child who has been kidnapped by an individual should not be returned to their family because they had been away too long (even if the kidnapper treated the child well).

    This case has to be righted, to save the adoption process. Who can have faith in a system which believes itself above the law?


    February 19, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  17. The scariest thing about this is that even if as a parent you have done nothing wrong, you have less rights over your child than the state.

    I can understand that leaving the children with their adoptive parents at this stage would be less traumatic for them, but ultimately it comes down to the state deciding the future of these children following its own mistakes and bad judgement – the state decides where these children end up, the real parents who did nothing wrong can do nothing about it.


    February 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: