Have we done this? Overturning adoption orders

Assuming they're innocent, it just doesn't bear thinking about. I can see that there might be a child protection argument about them being settled and all, but those poor parents [shudder]

I haven't read the article yet, but how can the adoption have taken place so quickly? Surely the best option for the children was to be put into foster care until all investigations had taken place.

Those poor children, and I can't even begin to imagine what the parents are going through.

I think that "the courts" are not prepared to try to rescind the adoption orders because of the potential legal comeback.

The moral comeback however is that those children, as adults, may seek to find their parents, and realise that they were very much wanted. The psychological damage of that may be horrendous.

I also think that, even though it must be so difficult, the adoptive parents should give them back. A totally shyte position to be in though.

I think any absolute rule on this is wrong- each situation should be considered on its facts. I think the child's welfare should be the first priority, but it doesn't follow, to me, that this necessarily means taking the course of action that means least short-term distress and upheaval; these things must be weighed against the long-term effects on a child of knowing it was wrongfully deprived of life with its loving birth parents.

My heart breaks for those poor people.

How horrific. As distressing as it will be for all concerned, the children absolutely have to be returned to their natural parents.

It is completely beyond me to comprehend how these children can be kept from their parents. The suggestion of payment via compensation is surely the most ridiculous thing - you can't buy someone's children from them.
I also cannot understand why the removal of the children possibly causing trauma to the adoptive parents should be taken into account, above the extreme distress of the parents. The entire thing sounds mad

L
xx

That's heartbreaking.

I'm sure the judge didn't make the decision lightly. And i think the children should come first, so I think it would depend on the ages of the children, how long they had been with the adopting family etc. I just hope the judges decision was more about the children than any precedents that may be set by overturning the adoption.

In this case I think they probably should never have been adopted at all, surely they should have been fostered until all the investigations were complete? I'm not sure there is enough info in that story.

But the parents should most definitely be a part of those children's lives

I read about this in the paper last week and no, I don't think they have made the right decision. How can it not be in the children's best interests to be with their parents? And presumably they were "settled" with their parents before they were taken away and given to someone else. And they're not even together - the article talks about their adoptive families, plural. How are they going to feel when they find out that not only were they taken away from their parents for no good reason but also then split up? I doubt they'll feel that it was in their "best interests".

I think the part that I find hardest to believe is that subsequent investigations showed that the parents might be innocent. Why was an exhaustive investigation not carried out before they were given away for adoption?

I have no idea Hazel - it comes down to the fact that no matter what decision was made you'd have split children from loving parents for a second time.

There is never going to be a happy outcome.☹️

I've read about this before, as far as I understand it the parents have been completely cleared and it turns out one of their children had a form of scurvy.

I think, ultimately, the children should go back to their natural parents, I think the damage to them will be far worse when they find out years down the line what has happened to them, can you imagine? It's utter bloody heartbreak all round though isn't it, unspeakably awful.

I don't really understand, either, why the potential distress of the children outweighs the actual distress of the parents.

L
xx

Based on the information available, a sickening miscarriage of justice.

What she said !

Back to tthe birth parents, but with access visits to the adoptive ones.

No way - not given the 'quality' of the majority of foster care placements available.

I think, given the black and white-ness of the current legislation around adoption, the decision made it best for two out of the three parties involved AT THE MOMENT (by this I mean the children and the adoptive parents). And I mean it is only now that this is the best decision.

Once the children find out their history (and they will), then I dread to think what might happen.

In an ideal world there could be some sort of middle ground, with the children able to maintain relationships with their adoptive parents and re-develop relationships with their birth parents. It's definately one of those 'magic wand' make it all go away situations!

BTW, I don't think these things happen quickly- my understanding is that the basic rule is that the children stay with their adoptive parents if they have been there two years or more (the children in this case were taken into care in 2005, I think). I don't know whether this is true in this case but often the parents will have been convicted and had their conviction overturned on appeal- a process that can takes months if not years.

To say that children should not be adopted until every avenue of appeal has been exhausted would be unworkable, and would mean an unsettled and uncertain life for the children for years.

I just don't know what the solution is. I do think the parents' rights and welfare should be considered but I suppose so should that of the adoptive parents, who may have cared for the children for years and for whom it would be a tragedy to lose them. It's a shame there can't be some more creative way of approaching the matter, with the birth parents gradually becoming a larger presence in the children's lives. Not easy but better than the alternative. It's all just tragic.

You are kidding?

The children have been removed from one family, they've been settled with a second (which won't have been an easy process) and now people want to ditch them with a third temporary family (possibly more than once as fostering isn't necessarily long-term) and most likely split the siblings up to do so. No doubt each move will also require new schools, new friends, new activities...

I'd say let them stay put until a final decision was made - least disruption to the children the better.

You might like to re-read Zebra.

In your haste to try and contradict me (again) I think you have missed what was said.

I really struggle with this - the situation is just heartbreaking all round and I don't think there is an easy way out.

Was the right thing done having them adopted in the first place?

THey're saying fostering would have been better in the first place, not now

Argh, apologies - but you might be interesed to know I agree with at least as much as you say as I disagree about ?

I think they'd have done just that with the children at the start, but as Knownowt (?) says, it's such a long-winded process, I guess the need to have them settled was paramount.

Crap situation all round, really.

Pieman - I got what you meant, and Knownowt (I think it was) put it so much better than I did.

Children having to spend a long time at the mercy of the Looked After Childrens system is not a good thing. It is common for sibling groups to be split up, especially when there are very young ones involved. Also, it is not that common for placements to be long term, children are so much more likely to get a series of short term placements all over the place, with or without their siblings. It is in the child's best interests, if adoption is the intention (wrongly or rightly) to be placed in the adoptive setting as soon as possible. Holding children for years as LAC until a case concludes all the way through appeals would be yet another form of abuse.

Our foster care system sucks quite a lot of the time.

Has anyone got any more info than is on the BBC website?

"Subsequent investigations revealed that the injuries may have resulted from a medical condition, and that the Websters may not have harmed the child after all."

It all seems rather unsure....

If we're assuming that they are innocent then obviously it's awful, a tragedy. Whether the judge made the right decision would epend on many things, not least the ages of the kids. If they were babies when they were taken away, would it necessarily be for the best to 'return' them now? Also it depends on whether the birth parents have been allowed contact for the last 3 years. If not, it would be incredibly difficult for the kids to settle with them. 3 years is a long time when you're a child.

Absolutely the wrong decision imho.

The three children are already split up (two with one family, one with another alloweed to meet three times a year) and are allowed no contact with the brother remaining with the birth parents The mother is pregnant again and the adopted children have no idea of this either.

I think they must be returned to their parents - gradually - with the adoptive families allowed to keep in touch.

Their story makes me feel ill, it is so desperately sad. The mother made an intersting point, if the children were kidnapped for the last three years, would they be ordered to stay woth the kidnappers as they had formed a strong bond?

I can't read the link but have read the story in the paper a couple of days ago. It's so awful. I really don't know what the best thing is, it doesn't bear thinking about.

However, I am not sure whether the judge agreed any sort of contact could take place with the birth parents. If not, then I really don't understand why not. Open adoptions are common these days. I am a birth mother and have direct contact with my birth daughter and her adoptive family twice yearly. Even parents whose children have been taken away (not the case with my daughter) are sometimes allowed contact (although it would then usually be supervised by social services).

I truely don't get why contact wouldn't be allowed / encouraged.

It's quite a long time when you're a parent too.

Good to hear. ?

I absolutely don't doubt it. Clumsily worded.

I am now more confused: the birth parents have another son who still lives with them? How comes that child is deemed safe and the others aren't even allowed contact?

It's so difficult to even speculate with only snippets of detail.

From what I recall, the family were allowed to keep their son as they 'co-operated' with Social Services and attended parenting classes and assessments. They are still, from what I've read classed as Schedule 1 Offenders.

It is horrendously difficult. It doesn't sound, though, like the natural parents were absolute models of perfect parenting, nor does it sound like they have been entirely exonerated - just a balance of probability. I don't really know.

R-A, my understand is that the "may" wording comes from the fact that the parents were convicted and their convictions were then overturned on appeal. For them to be guilty in law, the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If they were able to show that the injuries may have occurred some other way (eg the result of a medical condition), then that could be enough doubt to make the original conviction unsafe. The parents aren't required to prove they didn't do it, nor should they be.

The son who lives with them was presumably born after they had been acquitted, or that would be my guess anyway. There's no suggestion that they are not good parents- the reason the adoption order has not been overturned is distress to the children in being returned to their parents after such a long time, not anything to do with whether they are fit parents.

Put like that, I agree with you... God, it's a tough one.

Then I don't udnerstand why according to MA they aren't allowed any contact with the other 3 children? Surely the best outcome would be some kind of shared care agreement. My H has 3 "parents" (complicated) and many people these days live in extended families. It shouldn't be either/or.

Someone left an interesting comment on the Beeb's website:

"With so many families living with multiple sets of parents, and with good parental influences of uncles, aunts and grandparents generally in decline because of geographic mobility, if the Websters and the adoptive parents genuinely want to optimise and maximise the good parental influences over their children's lives, this compromise ought to be workable. See them as god-parents or step-parents or aunts and uncles, let them be part of nurturing them. But if "possession" is the argument, then the children are best kept away from any such argument and from the people who support it."