We hear a lot of talk about human rights at the moment. Norfolk parents Mark & Nicky Webster had their three children taken away from them after they were accused of abusing their children. Norfolk Social Services took the children away and they were subsequently adopted by another couple. It transpired that the abuse allegations turned out to be false.
In law, adoption orders are final. It is impossible to overturn them, so despite a miscarriage of justice has taken place, there is no legal recourse to overturn the adoption order. The stability and security of the children is considered paramount and supercedes any natural parental rights. You can read a full account of this terrible story HERE. There was a 12 minute discussion of this on the Today Programme this morning, involving the couple's lawyer and Lisa Christensen, Norfolk County Council's Director of Social Services.
The law has clearly failed the natural parents here. Can one think of anything worse than a) being falsely accused of child abuse and b) finding out that the law prevents you not only from ever caring for your children again, but from ever seeing them again? I certainly can't.
There is no simple solution here. Can one really have two different levels of adoption? I don't know. But the case clearly shows that the system has failed these parents, and it is incumbent on politicians and the children's authorities to come up with a solution.
44 comments:
I wonder what the law would say about this couple if they located their own children and abducted them? Because I tell you what, if that was my child I wouldn't give a flying f*** about the law.
This is just another way for the state to scare and cower the public by saying 'Your children are ours'.
I have two children.
As a parent, there is only one course of action. Sell everything and get out the country before the SS come to seize the kids.
Meanwhile, I have read in absolute horror of two children beaten to death. Where were the SS then?
Well the first thing that springs to mind is that no adoption should be completed (as opposed to fostering) until all outstanding legal matters have been exhausted.
I’m astonished this is not the case at the moment.
Happy Darwin Day.
Thank you for highlighting this issue. I honestly thought I was invisible in trying to get attention for these things. Maybe I was and it's just coincidence but that's not important as I couldn't be more pleased. All we have to do now, Iain, is to get the Conservative party to offer an alternative to current legislation and for them to make it so when/if they get in power.
Over to you..
The Social Services Profession is just covering itself in glory. Everything they touch turns to shit.
In this case, and others, they are not helped by the fuckwittery of the "family court service" as set up, I believe, by Slippery Jack Straw?
The Penguin
It has not only failed the parents, but their children, too. Five people whose whole lives from now on are seriously damaged. I cannot imagine how this is allowed to stand, nor what the authorities would say were either of those parents to take their own lives in depairing, anguished grief, God forbid. But one could understand it. A mother's... a father's... children are THAT important to their very existence.
To have one's child die is acknowledged to be a tragedy from which a parent never, ever recovers. How much worse and I do mean worse, this is.
***Meanwhile, I have read in absolute horror of two children beaten to death. Where were the SS then?***
So, if the state doesn't intervene to prevent child abuse, you condemn them.
And, if the state does intervene to prevent child abuse, you condemn them.
The state doesn't have some magic wand it can wave to discover if a child has been abused or not. It can only go on any available evidence.
Nor does the state have some magic mirror which shows them when a child is being abused somewhere so that they can rush to intervene.
It may well be that, in the case on the children who aren't being returned to their parents, these injuries were seen by a teacher or a doctor or a relative. It may well be that, with the kids beaten to death no-one saw anything suspicious.
If you want to make silly, facile remarks along the lines of "where were the SS then", why not stick to the Daily Hate Mail where they'll always cut through a fog of circumstances to find some poor bugger to blame.
It's about as stupid as demanding to know why a policeman booking someone for speeding in Surrey isn't stopping a rape in Durham.
And this associating social services with the SS is crass, hysterical and ignorant of history.
"It transpired that the abuse allegations turned out to be false."
I think you'll find that statement is incorrect, Iain.
A court decided they COULD be victims of a miscarriage of justice.
a possibility...only a possibility.
This is a tragic case which has two aspects.
First, the miscarriage of justice which found the parents "guilty" in the first place, and second the finality of the adoption order.
There are plenty of good arguments why, where adoptions are necessary, they are final and absolute. Providing legal means where adoptions can be undone or unwound or exceptions made could have lots of nasty consequences.
So I would focus on dealing with the miscarriage of justice, rather than tinkering with adoption rules.
I can understand why children are removed from parents or carers where there are suspicions about their safety. But surely something as final and absolute as their adoption should not be a sanction short of proof to a reasonable (criminal?) standard, and until all avenues of appeal have been exhusted, that the parents are unfit to care for them.
That would leave children in a state of limbo during the potentially protracted legal process. That is obviously not desirable, but is it any less desirable than what has happened to the Webster parents and their children in this case?
This is a very difficult issue.
From the BBC report it looks as though the adoption order was made in 2005. At that time the evidence seemed to suggest that the children were being abused. Adoption is not a step taken lightly either by social services or the courts. They have to form a judgment on the evidence that they have at the time. That evidence has to be throughly tested and examined, but if it survives that examination then it must be acted on. If the social services fail to act on apparent evidence of abuse then they are open to the criticism that has come their way as a result of the infamious Baby P case. Jess the Dog cannot have it both ways - social services being too zealous in this case and not zealous enough in other cases. Social services are not able to see into the future, and have to work on the basis of the evidence they have at the time.
Two years later something (the report does not say what) changed to suggest that that evidence of abuse was not good evidence. By that time the children would have been with the adoptive parents for two years. In adoption, the interests of the children are paramount, and if that is to be the criterion it is not difficult to understand a decision that the children should stay with the adoptive parents in a relationship that is, to all intents and purposes, permanent. If the interests of the children are not to be paramount, then what is the determining criteria to be?
It may be that, as things have tragically turned out in this case, decisions are made which are later down the line shown to have been wrong - but it does not follow that (i) the decisions were incorrectly made on the evidence at the time, (ii) the adoption order should be revoked or (iii) that current adoption law is fundamenally flawed.
I would also be interested to know what the children have been told.Has it been explained to them that their parents we not the evil people portayed.Will they live their lives thinking they were unloved and rejected,till old enough to find out for themselves that their parents were innocent.How will that rebound on the foster parents.
Has anyone asked the children if they want to go home to their parents or have they been brainwashed or away too long.
Jumping to comment on a situation before fully reading all the facts, Canvas? You're asking Iain to change the habits of a lifetime.
We always hear lots of rubbish about the interests of the children in these cases. Firstly, the interests of the children are best served by being with their natural parents. Second, justice is actually more important. The problem we have with all these cases is that family law is not about justice but about the interests of children who are never asked what they want.
These children must be returned to their children at once before any further damage is done. The social workers should immediately put in train the process so this happens. That they have dragged this process out shows that they are only interested in covering their own butts.
These children will eventually grow up and learn the awful truth. Their interests and justice clearly demand that they are immediately returned to their rightful parents.
Hard cases make bad laws... extended fostering until the legal position is clear might be an option, but cases such as this can drag on for years while all appeals etc are exhausted; if the goal is the well-being of the children (esp. young ones) then adoption into a stable family seems best.
But that doesn't mean the Websters won't be feeling utterly distraught at this moment, and I think any parent would feel their pain.
Maybe cases such as this should be fast-tracked, but there's a risk this would compromise any investigation and further endanger children.
Tragic all round.
Firstly, the interests of the children are best served by being with their natural parents.
Not when the parents are abusing them, which until recently was a concern in this case.
The whole issue here is what happens between the initial allegation and subsequent dismissal of a case... or are you really suggesting that even abusive parents have a right to keep their children in harm's way?
The questions to ask are:
1) was adoption fast tracked?
2) were "bounties" offered to the adopting parents?
3) how long were the children on the adoption register for?
etc etc , seems to me they were fast tracked, the adoptive parents had their palms greased in some way and this is another cover up.
surely fostering is the way forward until the closure of the court case?
Zeddy,
Hate to break it to you, but just because the Social services is OTT protective in some cases and in others completely lax is not a success story.
Unusually, I find myself having some sympathy with the social workers in this case. They find themselves in an impossible situation, damned if they do and damned if they don’t take the kids away.
And I know that I frequently make mistakes at work. Don’t we all?
Going forwards, I understand that the children need to stay where they are. However, the real parents should be given access on a godparent type level and the situation explained as the children get to an age to understand.
One question I have about the issue is: Where were the grandparents and the rest of the family at this time? Surely they should be the first address for looking after the chilrent.
It's obviously a case for the ECHR. Who will fund the parents, though?
@ Wallenstein
I take it that you believe in the case of a miscarriage of justice - 'suspicion' notwithstanding, that these parents should still be deprived of their children? Would you regard this case as being a miscarriage, or do you believe the law with all its apparent injustice should stand?
Wallenstein,
Of course I'm not. These parents were not abusers and therefore these children belong with them.
Second, the social workers should have moved as soon as it became clear that there was a problem with their evidence. There utter inability to ever admit cocking up is a huge part of the problem. They do themselves no favours.
We don't want them to take more or less children away from parents. We want them to take the right children away and give them back if they got it wrong.
I suppose it depends on whether the children still remember their natural parents and want to go back to them.
if the children´s interests are paramount, then they should be asked.
If it is decided that the original decision to remove the children was incorrect then it can be reversed. Nothing is fixed because the law can always be changed. All that is required is that good people should strive to find the correct solution. It sounds like the Walkers need all the public support they can get to get their children back.
***Hate to break it to you, but just because the Social services is OTT protective in some cases and in others completely lax is not a success story.***
BSH, sweetheart, hate to break it to you but there are rarely ever succsees stories in this field. Even the best result is just a minimising of damage. Social services can't ever do right in most people's eyes. Suppose that they'd accepted a parent's word that a child's bruises were from an accident and later that child dies from parental abuse. Will we have everyone on here and at the Daily Mail accepting that Social Services aren't mind readers or will everyone be condemning them for not magically knowing that the child was in danger?
There'd be fewer children in danger if more people took an interest in their neighbours instead of hiding behind their four walls and expecting someone else to do something.
People demand smaller government yet scream for the government to do something whenever anything goes wrong. And they want lower taxes so the government ends up having to do things on the cheap.
Surprise surprise - the end result is a fuck up.
I also do agree with one of the other comments. Adoption should not occur unless natural parents have died. Fostering or perhaps something inbetween which is reversible should be applied in the event that this sort of thing happens.
I do feel for the parents.
Weren't this couple pursued to Ireland when Nicky became pregnant again? Don't expect much to change under the Jockanese Junta.
"There'd be fewer children in danger if more people took an interest in their neighbours instead of hiding behind their four walls and expecting someone else to do something."
Read the Climbie report. The people who finally acted were members of the public, one a cabbie.
While the SS (and the useless police officers) as usual played 'pass the parcel' with the case...
I got the impression that the couple have other progeny. Why, if this case was so grave were they not removed? It is all very well to say that adoption cannot be undone but if it was made on a false premise surely there is a case for it to be reviewed and undoubtedly the CHILDRENS interest is to be with their natural parents. Yet another case of Social Workers with a set of views which to which they will skew the evidence to suit. Like the Cleveland situation?
Anyway why would any normal person want to be employed by the state to interfere with others lives – unless you have a socialist agenda?
PS: Why do I have to re-create my Google account every time I want to comment?
My view is simple - no final adoption until all other appeals are complete. It's no different from all other types of appeal.
And the children should have a relationship with their natural parents even if they are living elsewhere. What sort of totalitarian situation are we in where this can be condoned/it's too late to put it right?
I can't imagine anything much worse than innocent parents being smeared and left childless as a result of 'a mistake' and their kids growing up thinking that they weren't wanted by their natural parents or that they were monsters.
I know that life is complicated and decisions even harder but surely this is just appalling.
I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with Mr? Gardner in his comment at 1:37pm.
Also with Mr Prodicus, 2:07pm, whose compassionate empathy with the despair and anguish being experienced by these parents must be echoed by everyone who is a parent themselves; and which can only be approached by wondering how you would feel if it were your children and you found yourself, through no fault of your own, entangled in this hideous nightmare.
The adolescent urge to rebel, to be somehow different, to shout "look at me" all the time, which leave Mrs Canvas on the wrong side of every issue and which in this case leave her unable even to demonstrate the most basic levels of humanity are beneath contempt.
An injustice of monstrous and tragic proportions has taken place. It must be right that it be rectified. To argue that the best interests of the children prevent this is to ignore the incalculable damage already done to them and the fact that they have already been once uprooted. Their place is with their parents.
The Conservative-run Council should have used fostering for a temporary arrangement until a legal verdict had been made based on all the evidence. It's no use blaming the government into changing legislation when, by the looks of it, the council made the wrong judgement.
God this country really has been buggered up by the Socialists and their acolytes....I just hope Cameron is ruthless in dismantling these `Social Engineers`.......
ex-apprentice- what on earth are you banging on about ?
I am simply pointing out that Iain has stated as a fact "that the allegations turned out to be false". That is simply untrue. That is misinformation. The court has said that it is only a possibility... could be could not be.
The court is not lying.
canvas wv phoney
Zeddy:
Provocation aside, there is a historical parallel between social services and the SS of Nazi Germany.
In the mid 1930s the Gestapo were granted judicial immunity. They were absorbed into the SS shortly afterwards. Fast forward to modern Britain, and the family courts are highly secretive and effectively unaccountable, parents have far fewer rights than in other courts and there is no possibility of judicial review of adoptions, which are permanent.
So the comparison is not far-off. Particularly when you consider horror stories including the case mentioned by Iain on this blog, the student who fled the country with her child after being judged an unfit parent because of previous mental illness, the man who “rescued” his stepdaughter from an adoption and helped her “escape” to her mother in Europe (nice reverse parallel there with WW2!).
Contrast that to the supine attitude of social workers and other so-called professionals in the well-known and horrendous Baby P case. The flat was utterly filthy, the woman exposed the child to pornographic films and took drugs when social workers were present, the man was well-known for drug abuse and violence, the child was smeared with chocolate in a pathetic attempt to cover up bloodstains (which actually worked). What exactly happened there? Nothing.
There are some very nasty people out there and, unfortunately, many of them are parents. Their basic level of behaviour is violent, they are often substance abusers (not middle class wine drinkers), long-term unemployed, and habitual criminals with a bad reputation locally. My friend is a police officer and he talk generally about his frustration with endless “case conferences” where social workers would bang on about “options” and “choices” rather than taking the kid into care, when - to anyone with a grain of common sense – the parents were bad, or even evil.
Not every social worker is bad (the brave Haringey whistle-blower who was ignored by David Lammy and ministers) and there is almost certainly a lack of support . However, the leadership, direction and management of the entire profession is fundamentally rotten. Difficult targets – violent, nasty, evil – are avoided, compliant targets - the law-abiding - are shafted. This is the standard strategy of the various organs of the UK state.
Bottom line: if you fall foul of the SS, there is no way out. Find me an example and I’ll retract this point.
There are two familes here who must be dreadfully upset. First of all there is the Webster fanmily who have had three children legally kidnapped. I feel both sorrow and share their anger. I also feel for the anonymous adoptive parents who presumably after years of trying for a family and then went through the torture of being vetted by Social Services staff who no doubt were trying to find out whether they were suitable and were they any facts that would preclude them such as being a Tory. At this moment in time, they must be scared rigid in that they are anticipating the worst and hoping for the best in case three chidlren (and it is not clear whether or not Norfolk SS have kept the family togther)They must be scared the children with whom they may have already formed a loving relationship may be snatched back. Again I feel deep sympathy and anger over what is happening to them.
I despise people like Lisa Christensen, who listening to Radio 4 this morning sounded just like another Sharon Shoesmith. One family have had their lives ruined by the cavalier beheaviour of Norfolk SS and another one must be on the brink.
I and many others are aware that Ms. Christensen is married to a former terrorist. Her husband was one of the Angry Brigade who tried to murder men like Robert Carr and Geoffrey Howe some forty years ago. How on earth did someone with such a background ever get employed is such a sensitive position? I hesitate to say this but it seems to me that this is a classic case of Gramscianism in that members of the extreme left noting that their toxic views will never succeed in an open a fair election have sought to enter the ranks fo the employees of the state and spread their toxin there.
What amazes me is the silence of the ruling Conservative Group on Norfolk County Council? We control the Council yet I have not heard one word of criticism from any Tory Councillor in either the specific issue or indeed the continued employment of Ms Christenson. If Ed Balls can sack Shoesmith, then there is a strong case of sacking Ms. Christenson for gross industrial misconduct
Iain, we adopted our daughter when she was 12 weeks old.Regardless of her previous circumstances, it is hardly fair to expect her or her adoptive parents to live in fear of 'un-adoption' at some time in the future- such as the election of a Labour Government. I don't expect her to see that event in her life time- she is 18 now.
The problem arises from not convicting the parents, and from what I read, they didn't get a conviction and with the current evidence, there is no chance of a conviction.
My view, they should get a large compensation figure, say 5K a day, until the children are returned.
If the SS can't arrange that, they have to pay it.
If the orginal order to take the kids is faulty, it should be reversed.
This is a clear example of where the law is an ass. There is a presumption in law that children have access to their parents. They are being denied this right.
Consider what happens at 18. The children find out who their natural parents are, and that SS took them wrongly from their natural parents. What then?
Not forcing penal levels of compenstation just means there will be more victims
Adopted children are able to find out about their natural parents. There is a good chance that one of these children will take that option at some point. I wonder how they will react when they discover that they were deprived of both their natural parents and the truth.
IMO the right course of action would be to explain the situation to the children and allow them to make their own decision. That’s obviously a difficult thing for the children to do but, on balance, I think it would reduce the emotional damage to them.
As for the adopted parents – yes, it would be unfair for them to lose the adopted children at this late stage, but less unfair than what’s happened to the natural parents. Why should the law be able to trample one but not the other?
I see real dangers in allowing a 'clawback' clause in adoption.
I was adopted, (in 1972), and was always aware of this as my adoptive parents always reminded me of my background.
If there had been some clause in the law which allowed this to be reversed I would have lived in constant uncertainty as soon as I became aware of it. The alternative would have been for my parents to lie to me, by not revealing the adoption (Difficult as my brother is 4 years younger than me).
That does not mean that I am happy with what has happened in this case. There is a clear case to answer for both the doctor who put he child on a soya diet (and then failed to intervene when the child became unwell-he would have been consulted by social services before action was finally taken), and for social services who could have sought further independent medical opinion but seemed to fixed on the abuse cause from the start.
I understand that the government set targets for the number of adoptions that social services were expected to meet. Is it any surprise then, that they are eager to see a case completed in their favour once started.
Canvas, can I please correct you on a point of law? If the parents were never found guilty of child abuse (they were not) in a court of law they ARE not guilty of it. Unlike on the continent, this country has an "innocent until proven guilty" system of justice.
In this case, the children were taken away and put up for adoption before legal proceedings against the parents were even considered (and subsequently rejected on the grounds that there was no evidence of abuse). I don't know how anyone with a brain could defend that. Now a court has agreed with the parents that something stinks. The words "may" are simply legal speak to cover the judges - all lawyers hedge their bets!
That said, I would also agree that it is not right to take the children back from their adoptive parents after they have been fully adopted and left with them for several years - which is why in marginal cases (like this one) Social Services need to take much longer before deciding on such irreversible action, which they did not.
As for further points about damned if they do and damned if they don't, that's also true, and I know how incredibly difficult the job of a social worker is - but if they're not willing to own up to their mistakes and learn from them, how are they ever going to improve so they DON'T get held up to public rage every five minutes?
The word 'abuse' needs some definition. Every case of alleged abuse is not Baby P, some are like this for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4592739/Church-minister-arrested-on-suspicion-of-child-neglect-after-putting-sons-on-chimney.html
The children were not being 'abused' yet the father was arrested and they may well be investigated.
In retrospect the father may consider his actions unwise but that doesn't mean abuse. What was noticable was the treatment of the parents: ""My wife was prevented from filming my arrest and I was deprived of my watch and refused a pen and paper so I could record my experiences as they happened." It may be sensible standard prcedure not to allow a pen/pencil/sharp object (perhaps a wax crayon?) but the wife was not allowed to film the arrest. Why?
Feb 16th, people!
Link didn't work - try this.
Post a Comment