In the latest in a string of cases seeing innocent parents losing their children to the care and adoption system, campaigners are now focusing on trying to change the law, but are they targeting the root cause of the problem or just scratching the surface?
Karissa Cox and her partner Richard Carter were accused of abusing their baby when doctors found bruises and what were thought to be fractures on the baby’s body. The baby was subsequently taken into care, and later adopted.
Three years on, the parents have now been exonerated from harming their child, and despite clear evidence that they were not responsible for their baby’s injuries – the baby suffered with a blood disorder and other ailments which caused the baby to have infantile rickets – they are unlikely to be reunited with their child.
The tension in the law as it stands is between the rights of the biological parents and those of the adoptive family. Once an adoption order has been made, parental responsibility transfers to the adoptive family and effectively leaves the biological family without any rights whatsoever over that child. A recent ruling in which the High Court held that family rights between a child and his or her biological parents cease upon adoption, further cements this view.
However, the current campaign seeking to change the law, looks to be focusing on the timeframes for adoption, currently a 26 week window, and the ‘loophole’ double jeopardy style trials in family law afford parents when a criminal trial is set to run alongside. This dual trial system is often implemented when a criminal element is considered present within a family law case, for example physical abuse of a child by a parent.
The loophole mentioned refers to the possibility of delaying proceedings in the Family Court when criminal cases are running in tandem. In this family’s case, that stay, or pause, was not granted.
Campaigners want a change in the law so that cases running alongside one another could be dealt with at the same time, to ensure each trial informs the other. But is that really the answer?
As Michael Turner QC notes, cases where parents have been wrongly accused of harming their children are common, and having assisted on several cases like this it’s only in rare circumstances that we’re able to halt the court process and prevent an unjust outcome for children and their families.The system, slow and intractable, makes it almost impossible to go back and rectify mistakes. Indeed, the system seems loathe to do it.
It’s a policy driven problem.
But it’s also one of malpractice and irrational procedure.
The real issues lie in correct medical diagnoses in the first instance, and where a mistake has been made, ensuring that the court process has the flexibility to go back and correct an error.
There are the rights, too, of adoptive parents. As cruel as it may seem, we take the view that their rights must be secondary to those of the child, who is effectively being denied his or her birthright – a family life with biological parents who are able and willing to care for them.
What we really need to see is a threefold change:
- Comprehensive guidelines for doctors across the country to spot and test for deficiencies and disorders where those conditions may be likely
- Amendments to the law in relation to adoption policy and adoptive parents’ rights and finally;
- Changes to the court system, to allow it to be responsive and pro active in the face of weighty evidence
What do you think?
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
jean ogorman said:
these children must be returned to there real parents now they had not abused there child so must be given back the adpotive parents loved this child they want the real parents to have it back. were it should be ,there pleanty children out there to adopt again .this law as to change now because adoption rush though to quick. hand over the child now to it real parents
LikeLike
[Name Withheld] said:
There have been many miscarriages of injustices & a lot needs to be done. The child should be returned if the adopters see the truth & agree. Children get passed around foster carers for longer than a year so the time/ attachment should not be an issue with correct support & gradual return if possible.
Low level support should be given before proceedings are even considered.
In my own case [edited] LA refused to listen to both myself/ my child about symptoms & claimed FII. I researched & discovered EDS3 but when I went to my GP & also ss I was told I was not allowed to have any appts as I needed a psychiatric assessment! I went against the written agreement to a Professor who confirmed my suspicions. However, ss claimed as I paid for the report it was written in my favour so it still went to court where I demanded an expert of similar qualifications & knowledge. They confirmed again & LA withdrew. GP &ss refused my child to have pain killers for the year & my child was not coping without pain control. LA then tried to get an injunction from me speaking about my case when they had no choice other than withdraw. A year later \7 i am still waiting for a Judgement which the LA do not want published.
My other concern is that certain dangerous campaigners/ MKF may become involved& find excuses to delay other cases for the wrong reasons. I had one call me just over a month ago stating they were unsure of the system, watched Hemming on youtube, left the country with the child from contact centre, get arrested & children got adopted based on poor judgement.This parent was desperate & felt they could trust a then MP.
The Law does need changed but in many, many ways. I do however hope this family do have their child returned & the adopters support them & get supported as they must be feeling guilty through no fault of their own, but another shambles of a case.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Many thanks for your comment. I’ve had to remove your name and other details for legal/ reporting reasons, which I hope you’ll forgive, but I’m sorry your little and you have been through all that you have.
LikeLike
Dana said:
Birth parents should always trump adoptive parents! End of! Adoptive parents are just that – adoptive! A substitute! Sorry to all those adoptive parents but if birth parents can have their children taken on assumptions then adoptive parents can have the child returned if the child was taken erroneously! The fact is the child is better off with birth parents, even those who lack parenting skills (and in this case that is not an issue) than being adopted!
What about sanctions on over zealous social workers that didn’t bother to get the true facts? Making assumptions should not be acceptable in court to remove a child from it’s parents. It’s time hard facts were required not speculation. It was speculated that the child in this case was hurt by it’s parents because of the bruising but it’s clear that medical reasons were not the social workers first choice but instead they placed the blame on the parents and their child was taken from them! The parents were not at fault & so should have their birt child returned!
LikeLike
Forced Adoption said:
Surely the least the judge could do was to award regular contact??
Remember that since April 2014
the new section 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, makes provision for applications for contact AFTER an adoption order has been made.
Click to access ukpga_20140006_en.pdf
f
LikeLiked by 1 person
amber said:
I hope this will happen & at the very least but child should be returned as they are so young.
There have been many EDS cases yet still so many failures. Courts should provide lists of medical conditions which become known & then send to Cafcass to put in weekly bulletin for staff & LA’s. With this information there needs to be a concise NAI ‘mimic’ list done by a panel including solicitors,MPs, Lords with knowledge (I have a list of appropriate people).
LikeLike
ladyportia27 said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559451/Courts-wont-reveal-rulings-in-adoption-cases.html
In these cases,you can see for yourself how even a refusal of ICO by a Justice judge’s order was ignored and when media got involved a care order was simply created.
appeals cannot be lodged without -written judgments.This stalling tactic is quite common
LikeLike
Dana said:
I heard that you can appeal and you may think that a judge takes the time to look at the merits of your appeal but I believe that someone else (?) looks at your case to see if your appeal is viable. You then attend court and no matter what is said a decision (judgement) has already been decided before you even got your foot over the court theshhold and is then voiced by the sitting judge!
Justice in the family court is a sham!
LikeLike
amber said:
Not necessarily. Every case is different. You can apply for permission to appeal which isn’t so difficult. Getting the appeal & children returned is another story but there are some very fair Judges. Judges such as Parker, Ryder, McFarlane, Cobb, etc & off course the President shouldn’t be lottery.
LikeLike
Pingback: Couple Cleared Of Child Abuse Campaign For Change In The Law | National IRO Manager Partnership
Dana said:
Hi Amber, so how many parents/ grandparents are successful on Appeals? What is the figure and percentage of the total in any year? I’ll bet it would, at least, give an indication of how many families pay their fees for Appeals but rarely win!
LikeLike
amber said:
I don’t have figures for that but as John Hemming pays two people decent full time salary to do appeals he should answer. Also, why do they charge £1500 for an appeal plus expenses when he pays them a full salary? I heard they stated recently that they do appeals for case law even when they know there is little or no chance. Is it right to put parents through turmoil?
Dana, I hope someone can get figures for you.
LikeLike
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Reblogged this on No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!.
LikeLike
Childcare Proceedings Exposed said:
There is another case where she was intructed by a Local Authoity. Her findings in that case have very very similar parallels. She concluded that a healing fracture must be non accidental. If you look at the judgements where she has been instructed they have the same theme running through them.
LikeLike
Childcare Proceedings Exposed said:
Joanna Fairhurst was instructed by a local authority in yet another case where she conlcuded that the healing fracture was non accidental. If you look at the judgements where she has been instructed, they all have the same theme running through them. Every case involving her should now be relooked at. Her evidence is now highly questionable and cannot be relied upon.
LikeLike
Dana said:
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed115170
High court revisits “real prospects of success” test when considering appeals.
http://www.familylawweek.co.UK/site.aspx?i=ed144663
The Court of Appeal and the Birth Family: Making Certain Justice is Seen to be Done
If the first Judge can get it wrong it stands to reason that the person deciding if your appeal has any prospect of success can get it wrong too! If you cannot get beyond making an appeal application, to have a five minute pre decided judgement read out to you, you will never know what a High Court Judge would have made of your case if he had bothered to check out your case fully!
If you make an Appeal to the High Court then at least a High Court Judge should look at your case, not leave it to someone else (?). After all that’s the point of making an Appeal!
LikeLike
arsoninformer said:
Unfortunately ‘NHS Experts’ and ‘Court Appointed Experts’ are extremely willing to risk ‘False Positives’ i.e. making false accusations/allegations. The local cabals are mafia-like structures which are shielded by mafia like structures at Government level.
Extreme abuse networks and ‘Death Cults’ (just google ‘Cult Funeral of Ted Heath’) got the upper hand in the UK and US:
Click to access ead-version-10-09-2013.pdf
These people rape and murder with impunity:
Click to access suspected-arson-murder.pdf
The £2Bn Adoption Industry needs to ‘flourish’ so that identified target children can be smuggled into abuse.
Child Protection has been inverted into Abuser Protection!!!
LikeLike
dick100 said:
it requires family court judges, and also “expert witnesses” campaigning for discredited theories to be charged and prosecuted for conspiring to pervert the course of justice and special prosecutors appointed to do it.
LikeLike
Warren Bell said:
What is very troubling is the story has now gone quiet in the media. Will an inquiry into Joanna Fairhurst’s conduct ever happen, probably not. She’ll carry on condemning parents and children to a life of trauma and misery with her reporting.
LikeLike
amber said:
I met with the barrister who is taking this case on pro bono. John Hemming claimed in an article that he is ‘supporting’ them but has not responded in replying as to how he is or if it is just a generic comment as the nation are ‘supporting’ this family.
LikeLike
donnay said:
I totaly agree also I think there should be a law wen social services say u would harm your child wen in fact u haven’t also adpotion shouldnt be done eg without the parents consent eg a court ruling that no consent or over riding the parents adpotion should be the parents consent us females carry the child for 9 months we don’t carry the child for nothing cases should be proven before adpotion if u have harmed the child then thts different but wat I see is social services are trying distroy lives and adpot children away from their family they don’t want the family too be happy they want too distroy familys justice needs too be done also there should be a time table too eg too set a date for the adpotion hearing and I also think judges should nt allways stick up for social services
LikeLike