Justice Pauffley doesn’t always get it right, but we’re excited to see judges disrupting outdated and unhelpful child welfare mantras in order to place the best interests of children first. And that is exactly what this judge did when she overturned an adoption order recently.
Overturning an adoption order is fiendishly difficult and frowned upon, both in law and policy. The idea is that a child needs permanence in order to flourish and that sentiment tends to override every other consideration – sometimes at the expense of the very thing it deigns to protect: the child.
The fate of the Webster family and their children has become folklore in Family circles – evidence proving that they had not harmed their children was set aside, because ‘policy’ decreed that adoption orders were final. You can understand that kind of overly simplistic thinking taking place in the 1900’s, but not in the 21st century: we now know that children need more than just a place to call home and familiar faces to develop into healthy, happy adults.
In this case, which Justice Pauffley describes as ‘highly exceptional’ (aren’t they all, or is this statement just self-defence in a world where challenging norms is a dangerous pastime?) a 14-year-old girl was allowed to return to her biological family after being adopted and then subsequently abandoned by her adoptive parents, who sent her to live with extended family, where she was badly abused. The adoption order, which was made more than ten years ago, has now been overturned.
What is even more startling about this case is that the biological family have now been deemed fit to care for her – no background is given as to the circumstances in which she was removed in the first place, nor whether the original assessment which saw the young girl being taken into care and adopted, was accurate.
However, for going against the grain, and showing absolute courage, Mrs Justice Pauffley is our Judge of the Week.
You can read the released judgment which has been made public, here.
mike howard said:
Pity she didn’t decide to use this newly found common sense in the Hampstead case.
How about allowing A and G to choose who they want to live with?
LikeLike
ladyportia27 said:
How about it all being about perception and a token gesture to service users to make them think there is change when in reality there is not?
This child was abused in adoptive family, so not doubt the trauma has left her with deep inner wounds….so who else would want to adopt her and she is most likely difficult to warehouse – foster – as their language goes.
I have seen abused children returned to parents before when the system could do nothing more to assist – from the abuse in care.
So if Justice Pauffley can over turn an adoption like this, then why not in a case where there was only a refused care order from RCJ but the child is supposedly adopted.?
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
I would still like your analasis of Her Honour Judge Pearl LOL or hahaha which ever trends!
LikeLiked by 1 person
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Dana said:
When a Judge makes the decision for a child to be adopted when the birth family is against the adoption that Judge should be held accountable for what may befall the child. Why don’t we have data showing what happens to a child before being adopted and after the child has been adopted? Adoptions should be abolished as no one knows the fate of the child.
How many Judges have taken the easy route following the dictates of social workers and bent experts? How many times could the lives of children been so much better if they stayed with their families and worked through their troubles?
So many Judges are not concerned about the child but rather what political or social worker machinations are at play. After all the Judge knows nothing about the family or the child, never sees or speaks to them and relies totally on the professionals involved, who are always perceived as being right and having no personal agenda, the family is seen as “guilty” and on the backfoot from the very start, but they are trying to assert their “innocence” when they are not the rules everyone else is playing by!
There is a definate conflict of interest when the government have policies to adopt as many kids as possible. Whilst it may be more financially advantageous for the government, thereby being in the governments best interests, it may well not be in the child’s best interests! Time the focus shifted from taking kids away and instead kids kept where possible with the family. The irony is it’s not safe for kids to be in care, they are better off, in the majority of cases, left at home!
LikeLike
HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE said:
horrific corrupt old cow
LikeLike