this is utterly disgusting
12 February 2009, 03:06 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is utterly disgusting
BBC NEWS | England | Norfolk | Abuse case children stay adopted
they have lost 3 children because social workers got it wrong and yet they cant have there own children back because they have been adopted...... i really feel for them.
they have lost 3 children because social workers got it wrong and yet they cant have there own children back because they have been adopted...... i really feel for them.
12 February 2009, 09:50 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil, it is a media coverage which only shows very limited details, not the nitty gritty if the law and the case. However,
<The three appeal judges said: "The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders.
"The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case.>
This raises a question about the adoption law.
<The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.>
Why not?
It remains a question.
<It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong. I have huge sympathy for Mr and Mrs Webster
Lisa Christensen, director of children's services at Norfolk County Council
"Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.>
In that case, court should be applealed for reconsideration.
<It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.
"If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.>
First paragraph above contradicts with the second paragraph. Someone has not acted/performed properly to have caused a blunder, it is evident. Show that you have learnt a lesson by reversing the court order, prove it!
So, as conclusion, the couple should take it further/re-contest it.
Law can be an @rse, but the @rseness of it should be challenged IMO.
<The three appeal judges said: "The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders.
"The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case.>
This raises a question about the adoption law.
<The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.>
Why not?
It remains a question.<It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong. I have huge sympathy for Mr and Mrs Webster
Lisa Christensen, director of children's services at Norfolk County Council
"Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.>
In that case, court should be applealed for reconsideration.
<It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.
"If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.>
First paragraph above contradicts with the second paragraph. Someone has not acted/performed properly to have caused a blunder, it is evident. Show that you have learnt a lesson by reversing the court order, prove it!
So, as conclusion, the couple should take it further/re-contest it.
Law can be an @rse, but the @rseness of it should be challenged IMO.
12 February 2009, 11:27 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember this story when it happened and it was so obviously a miscarriage of justice at the time, that these kids should only ever have been fostered, not adopted, until it was sorted out.
If someone took my kids away and told me I could never see them again I don't think I could be held responsible for my actions!
If someone took my kids away and told me I could never see them again I don't think I could be held responsible for my actions!
12 February 2009, 12:50 PM
#5
Agree that this is wrong, they should have been fostered. Somewhere I saw it written that the needs of the kids are paramount in this situation. So why is it not being considered that they must return? Surely that is a need - to be with their natural parents? Also I believe the needs of the whole family are very important, the other son and the parents just as much as the older kids needs.
Also (and I've never fostered or adopted) but I would be asking if I was one of the new parents about the circumstances of the adoption. If I was told that one of the children was possibly abused, I would be waiting for that knock on the door to say the decision was wrong.
Then what do you tell the kids when they grow up and want to find out about their natural family? Sorry you were removed and adopted because of a mistake and while your real mum and dad wanted you back the authorities decided you could not go back to them?
I know it will be an upheavel, but the kids will remember/know their natural parents still and it'll be sad for the new parents, but I can't see how anyone can justify they are not returned.
I agree on the point that I don't know what I'd do if it was one of mine. I might not be prepared to wait for "justice".
Also (and I've never fostered or adopted) but I would be asking if I was one of the new parents about the circumstances of the adoption. If I was told that one of the children was possibly abused, I would be waiting for that knock on the door to say the decision was wrong.
Then what do you tell the kids when they grow up and want to find out about their natural family? Sorry you were removed and adopted because of a mistake and while your real mum and dad wanted you back the authorities decided you could not go back to them?
I know it will be an upheavel, but the kids will remember/know their natural parents still and it'll be sad for the new parents, but I can't see how anyone can justify they are not returned.
I agree on the point that I don't know what I'd do if it was one of mine. I might not be prepared to wait for "justice".
12 February 2009, 01:44 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if it's been mentioned anywhere, but the three kids who were adopted were split up and put with three different families.
So you have 3 children without not only their parents but their siblings as well. How is that in the best interest of the children?
So you have 3 children without not only their parents but their siblings as well. How is that in the best interest of the children?
12 February 2009, 10:30 PM
#7
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always, the GOS hits the nail on the head!
Secret courts, unaccountable decisions - not too far from a totalitarian police state
mb
So that's all right, then. Strangers bursting into the home in the middle of the night, policemen holding their parents, shouting and screaming and crying as bewildered children are snatched from their beds and bundled into cars for reasons they cannot possibly understand, that's all in the children's interests? Of course it is.
And being farmed out to strangers - in one recent case, to a pair of homosexual men - to stay there for ever, never to see or hear from their real parents again, that's all in the children's interests? Of course it is.
And all these proceedings ordered by a room full of social workers and lawyers, a secret court that allows no witnesses, no members of the press, that gags any attempt by newspapers to report what goes on or the parent victims even to discuss it outside on pain of prison, a court that can do as it damn well likes because no one will ever know for certain, that's all in the children's interests? Of course it is.
If you aren't convinced by all this, if you are so naïve as to persist in thinking that these Family Courts ought to be allowed no more rights to secrecy than any other court, that justice should be seen to be done, and that the daylight of publicity needs to fall on the nefarious incompetence of social workers, then … well, you obviously don't have the interests of the children at heart. You must be some kind of paedophile.
And being farmed out to strangers - in one recent case, to a pair of homosexual men - to stay there for ever, never to see or hear from their real parents again, that's all in the children's interests? Of course it is.
And all these proceedings ordered by a room full of social workers and lawyers, a secret court that allows no witnesses, no members of the press, that gags any attempt by newspapers to report what goes on or the parent victims even to discuss it outside on pain of prison, a court that can do as it damn well likes because no one will ever know for certain, that's all in the children's interests? Of course it is.
If you aren't convinced by all this, if you are so naïve as to persist in thinking that these Family Courts ought to be allowed no more rights to secrecy than any other court, that justice should be seen to be done, and that the daylight of publicity needs to fall on the nefarious incompetence of social workers, then … well, you obviously don't have the interests of the children at heart. You must be some kind of paedophile.
mb
Trending Topics
12 February 2009, 10:49 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i just feel that although the social workers thought they where right, as soon as it came out that they got it wrong all the children should of been returned regardless
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post