What a Sad Story

[Mrs M]

I agree it's a horrible outcome, but how do you think they could have done it better? Left the baby with parents who looked very likely to be abusers (at the time) or ... what?

Difficult situation.
They now know the child's illness caused the symptoms but the adoption still stands and the innocent parents are without their little one. Can't even imagine how they must feel.

 

[sight-pin]

but how do you think they could have done it better

Why couldn't they just take the child into care until it was proven, this is almost medieval the way they have gone about this.
The judges should think what if this was happening to their kids?

 

[jefmcg]

Why couldn't they just take the child into care until it was proven, this is almost medieval the way they have gone about this.
The judges should think what if this was happening to their kids?

Put a 6 week old child in care for 3 years???

I would hope that any parent would rather their child was in a good home, rather than missing the love and attention they need to develop in care, or being bounced from foster home to foster home. And once the child has been in the same home for 3 years, we have the problem we are facing, adoption or not.

 

[cd365]

I think @jefmcg is right.. the authorities acted within the best interests of the child. The authorities appear to be wrong and that now needs to be resolved, also within the best interests of the child.

The child should be with it's parents, that is the best interest for it.
If someone took your child away for a false allegation would you just let it drop? The answer will be no. The parents have rights to and these have been ignored by the courts.

 

[cd365]

Put a 6 week old child in care for 3 years???

I would hope that any parent would rather their child was in a good home, rather than missing the love and attention they need to develop in care, or being bounced from foster home to foster home. And once the child has been in the same home for 3 years, we have the problem we are facing, adoption or not.

Do you have children?

 

[jefmcg]

The child should be with it's parents, that is the best interest for it.

The child is with its parents, in the only home its ever known. Or don't you think adoptive parents are "parents"? I agree its biological parents are also its parents.

There are 5 innocent parties here - not counting the extended families. At least 2 are going to have to live with a terrible loss. This is not straightforward.

 

[MontyVeda]

The child should be with it's parents, that is the best interest for it.
If someone took your child away for a false allegation would you just let it drop? The answer will be no. The parents have rights to and these have been ignored by the courts.

When the child was removed from its parents, is was done so in the best interests of the child. Some parents have been known to inflict unthinkable abuse on their children and the authorities have failed them on many occasions. in this case, authorities didn't act on a gut feeling, a hunch or hearsay... they acted on evidence of bleeding, bruising and fractured* bones. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but always comes too late.

*see Vernon's correction below.

 

[Hacienda71]

I suppose the question has to be was the adoption completed too soon? It is punishing the innocent parents in the worst possible way. Should the courts have liaised so there was no doubt before the final sanction was imposed albeit with the child's development and best interests in mind.
For the parents it must feel like a death sentence when you didn't commit the crime.
As per the thread title what a sad story.

 

[vernon]

When the child was removed from its parents, is was done so in the best interests of the child. Some parents have been known to inflict unthinkable abuse on their children and the authorities have failed them on many occasions. in this case, authorities didn't act on a gut feeling, a hunch or hearsay... they acted on evidence of bleeding, bruising and fractured bones. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but always comes too late.

Point of accuracy. The bones were not fractured. They appeared to be fractured in the mis-diagnosis.

 

[sight-pin]

The child is with its parents, in the only home its ever known. Or don't you think adoptive parents are "parents

Do they have a maternal/paternal connection then?

 

[jefmcg]

Do they have a maternal/paternal connection then?

Do you think parenthood is just DNA?

I'm sure the adopting parents are

(the battle of the rhetorical questions heats up!)

 

[sight-pin]

Do you think parenthood is just DNA?

I'm sure the adopting parents are

(the battle of the rhetorical questions heats up!)

I was referring to you stating that the adoptive parents are the child's parents, And your statement (below) to ever happen couldn't be any worse for confusing a very young child's mind.

I wonder why some sort of open adoption arrangement isn't possible. The biological parents could get to know their kid and spend time together, while staying part of the only family he/she knows. Four people (at least) love this child; it could only benefit him/her to know them all.

 

[winjim]

Lessons really should have been learned after the Sally Clark case, in which a supposed "expert" thought of a number, squared it, and ensured the conviction of an innocent woman for double infanticide. In a case where abuse is suspected, there really needs to be the involvement of specialist paediatric pathologists with in depth knowledge of rare diseases so that other causes can be ruled out in a timely manner.

 

[Levo-Lon]

I listened to the program and indeed it is a complex affair. Sometimes the law is a barrier to justice rather than a route to justice.

your a very sound decent cleaver man @vernon . I wish i had your wisdome and interlect..

 

[cd365]

The biological parents rights were removed wrongly. In my mind it should be treated like theft, just because you bought it in good faith doesn't mean you own it.
These children should be returned to their real parents.