A couple asking for post-adoption contact with their daughter have lost their appeal.
Judges in the Court of Appeal concluded that a refusal to accommodate contact by the child’s adoptive parents trumped the toddler’s right to stay in direct contact with her birth family.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind to reach the Court of Appeal since the implementation of s.51A in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). The legislation allows for contact with family members and other significant individuals in a child’s life, after adoption.
The judges hearing the case dismissed the challenge after the adopters in the case refused to accommodate meaningful contact between the toddler and her birth parents.
The judgment reinforces the current legal position that post-adoption contact will only be granted in rare cases and usually only where adopters agree to such an arrangement.
The birth parents who have learning difficulties were unable to cope with their daughter’s day-to-day care, and after an assessment the local authority began care proceedings. The local authority then asked the court to grant an adoption order.
Prior to the adoption order being made, the toddler and her birth parents had contact at regular intervals. That contact was reduced, and eventually stopped.
The biological parents applied for post-adoption contact at the same time as the adopters issued their application to adopt the birth parents’ daughter. The application for post-adoption contact was refused. The birth parents then sought permission to appeal the refusal, which they were granted.
The Court of Appeal heard the birth parents’ challenge on 30th January and the judgment published on BAILII is very much worth a read, for an explanation of the law as it stands since the new legislation on post-adoption contact came into force – and for everything that is wrong with the way our family courts work today.
The judgment outlines a discussion on post-adoption contact which looks at whether the current legislation should be interpreted to mean that courts must now lean in favour of post-adoption contact or stick to the old position, which does not create a presumption for or against post-adoption contact but does in most cases give adopters the final say in relation to contact between birth parents and their children.
The judges concluded that the old position was correct when considering post-adoption contact and that “Parliament’s intention in enacting s.51A was aimed at enhancing the position of adopters rather than the contrary.”
The underlying reasons for this position are not at all geared towards the welfare of children in these cases and are clearly designed to protect adoptions while ensuring that adopters are not put off by the inconvenience of having to accommodate post-adoption contact arrangements.
The barrister for the local authority offers the following arguments to bolster this position, which are included in the judgment at paragraph 44:
“Mr. Goodwin supports the maintenance of the current law, as stated in Re R, on the basis that there are sound policy reasons for not imposing direct contact upon unwilling adopters, save in exceptional cases. It is submitted that if adopters are led to believe one thing, but forced to accept another, the pool of potential adopters may shrink.”
And it gets even more ridiculous. The court found that while there was a clear and growing body of work which supported and even insisted upon post-adoption contact, the research was not considered appropriate to the case because navigating that data would require the case to turn upon child welfare based concepts, rather than legal ones.
This really is one of our biggest bug bears at Researching Reform. What on earth is the point of having a family court system that is required by law to act in the best interest of every child that comes before it, if that court cannot respond and react rationally and in real time to the latest scientific evidence in order to ensure those best interests are met?
Stark. Raving. Mad.
The idea that adopters’ rights trump everyone else’s, including the adoptee child’s, is also utterly wrong. Adopters should be viewed as enablers, not dictators, in cases where children have a very real and important need to know their birth parents. That need is rooted in their psychological and emotional development and should not be obstructed unless the birth parents present a real danger to the child.
On that basis, allowing post-adoption contact to be blocked by adoptive parents is clearly a breach of an adoptee child’s human right to know his or her birth family.
We are going to have a cup of tea to cool off.
Further reading:
- The case -Re B (A Child) (Post-Adoption Contact) (2018)
- Current flaws in post-adoption contact legislation (page 27) – excellent read (2018)
- Top Social Workers: Adopted Children Must Have Contact With Their Birth Families. (2018)
- Contact After Adoption – Resources (2017)
- Applying For Contact After An Adoption Order Is Made (2016)
- High Court: Family Rights Between Biological Parents And Their Children End Upon Adoption (2015)
- Government U-Turns on No Contact for Birth Parents Post Adoption But Clamps Down on Contact “Without Clear Purpose” (2013)
Researching Reform 
This is so wrong on so many levels
Plus they are not allowed to use the parents DISABILITIES against them
Look up the human rights act
LikeLiked by 3 people
In my grandson’s case, the judge ordered post adoption contact, Dorset County Council also agreed to this at the final hearing then within a short time advised the adopters to just ignore the judge because their name and address were secret to even the court and mean’t I could not force the court to address this serious miscarriage of justice.
But nevermind as my daughters and I are now working on bring a small class action against the councils involved with both youngest and my eldests mental cruelty and my own 16 years continually kept in court by Bournemouth and Dorset County Council in what can be only seen as continual vexatious litigation leading to my youngests court bundle becoming one of the largest in the justice system due to this 16 years of absolute terror they visited on us.
The irony is that despite years of being told that my daughter would turn out bad, would end up mentally impaired and all sorts, she did well at school gaining 11 O’s and 3 A’s and a couple college quals, she doesn’t drink much and abhors drugs and works and is liked well in the care industry. NOT one claim Bournemouth or Dorset made ever came to fruition and it is logged clearly her mental distresses she does suffer are due wholly to the evil actions of DCC and for that we are going to make them pay dearly.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think its sickening that a court is allowed to rule in these situations like myself lost mine to the local authouties and had done nothing wrong an these authourties are antagonises parents an being allowed to carry out these assessment which should be done independently an using issues such as our childhoods disabilities and schooling and family backgrounds to use against us it a disgrace as for the carers an adoptees they do what the hell they want after the proceedings even with court orders an not one of the authourities courts or any person who work within the court system does anything to stop it its a disgrace an of disloyaty an perdery
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly disagree with decisions whereby children do not get to have face to face Contact with their natural family and what really does grind me is when Adopter’s won’t facitilate Contact of any kind between the child/ren and their natural families (not even Letterbox) which is not nearly enough. There needs to be exchange of photos and videos to help cope with the process and to be able to process major changes which can’t be done without some decent level of Contact.
It’s ok them making such a decision when children are younger at that time, but then children grow up to want to know their roots and learn all about their natural families. Then where Contact has not been facillitated in any way, shape or form it is seriously impeding on the child’s human rights and dare i say on their mental health as they grow older.
What needs to be hi-lighted and remembered is that more often than not, all these thousands of children did not get a say in the matter concerning their futures. A baby and young child is not old enough to understand at all. Offer a child sweets or a lollipop at a young age and ask them who they want to live with, they are going to go for the bribe. Parents are not present even to witness their own child/ren they have PR for being asked where they would rather live. Are they even asked if it’s a choice of living with their parents or the potential Adopter, or are they only asked if they would rather live with the potential Adopter (i.e: are they co-ersed)
Any (natural) parents/siblings/grandparents ect (someone known to the child) making an application for post Adoption Contact needs to show that the reason for doing so is for the child/ren’s best interests like i did and had a more successful outcome than this and i would like to hope it wasn’t because of their personal difficulties (which would not matter to their own child/ren) whoever makes out their application. One example, where a child looks for their natural family- it would be ideal to make such an application then because then it is being done for them the child/ren.
I just cannot agree with Judges going with no Contact neither. Social Workers and Guardian’s recipocating something the parent(s) have not even got to hear for themselves from THEIR child/ren pre adoption stage when they DO have rights.
It might be claimed that babies and young children cope better with Adoption but does that only count when the child/ren affected are younger? because one day when they grow up, they will want to learn more about things like their birth certificates and Adoption certificates and if there are any flaws in those, the child/ren is going to want answers as a young/or older adult and rightly so. But at what cost?
I’ve wrote my paragraph directly above based on something i have learnt from someone who worked within the system a number of years. I have heard say that is likely there are Social Workers who would register a child/children in their own surname as though they were their own. I am now advising parents to check this out in writing with the registry office and to keep their red books and pregnancy notes just in case.
All these selfish decisions made supposedly with the child’s best interests at heart, but who is there thinking of the long term impacts on these children used as pawns in Family Court where they are growing up to self harm and feel suicidal in some cases and that is where they do survive from the extreme trauma of being seperated from the only family they once loved and ever knew. It takes time and trust to build all that up again from the child’s side understandably.
But, i also believe that where Contact is facilitated such as with eventually reunion, a child/ren who chooses to go back home to live that (natural) parents should not be selfish to the grown up child neither and still get to see the family who raised them even if it was not what we chose from the offset, where Special Guardianship would surely be the (modern) way forward if the wider family has been considered first Xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
Pingback: First Ever Post-Adoption Contact Appeal Confirms Adopters Have Final Say | tummum's Blog
The adopted parents of that child have made the biggest mistake of their lives, when the child finds out how far their real parents went to be part of their lives they won’t be able to forgive the adopted parents.
LikeLiked by 5 people
the adopted child will find out eventually. like my son who will eventually see the video of his kidnap and find out the official reason in the parliament books, risk of future emotional abuse
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yes this system contradicts everything it supposedly stands for . Which is …..The interests of the children . Its usually about what is best for the people removing the children …..I have no faith in this system whatsoever .
LikeLiked by 3 people
Social Workers are a disgusting bunch of homebreakers,,family court lawyers are bent villains who regularly betray their clients,,and the judges are mostly miserable old fossils who spend the remainder of their lives breaking up families and robbing children of parental love.
What to do?
Abolish the lot of them .Replace them by police and criminal courts to deal with child cruelty and at the same time make forced adoption illegal …………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If adopters are led to believe one thing, but forced to accept another, the pool of potential adopters may shrink.”
Let’s turn that around. If natural families are led to believe one thing, then forced to accept another, the pool of potential natural mothers will shrink.
The only good that will come out of this.
LikeLike
Whilst agreeing with most of the sentiments expressed in the posts above, may I, as one who was adopted at birth, put a slightly different slant on this? I must firstly emphasize that my adoption was not ‘forced’, a practice which to me is abhorrent except in the most extreme cases of abuse or neglect.
I think I would have been profoundly upset if I had been ‘forced’ to see my birth parents at an early age. I was, and remain, lucky to have had a very stable upbringing. Very strict, with quite a lot of smacking, but stable, secure, and ultimately loving, though much of it was ‘tough love’. I was told I was adopted very early on, and what it meant, and I just accepted it. I do not remember ever being upset about it or of any great desire to see my birth mum and dad. I eventually took steps to find my birth family, but I was fifty when I did this. I discovered that my birth mum had been so upset by the adoption she did try and get me back, and failed, way back in 1949. The reason I had been adopted was because of my birth parents’ extreme poverty, and the fact that they already had one son and were struggling to feed and clothe him.
I grew to love my birth mother very much before her death, and I share many of her characteristics, but in all honesty I have to say that at that time she did act in the best interests of me. I remain profoundly grateful to her and to my adopted parents who gave me every opportunity and incentive to do my best in life.
As a rider to this, I believe that every adopted child should be told, very early on, that they are adopted. To not know, and then find out (often by accident) later, can be devastating. Your world would be turned upside down and everything you believed in about yourself and your family, shattered. You realise that you have been forced to live a lie. Truth will out in the end, and although it must be difficult, the child must know the truth right from the start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In all this, it is the child’s needs that are paramount. How will the adoptive parents feel when the child ask, as they always do. “Did my REAL / BIRTH parents not love me enough that they wanted to give me away?”
My daughter, as a therapist working with children and young adults, comes up against this problem every day and finds the question; “Didn’t my mother love me enough that she wanted to give me away?” the hardest and most heart-breaking to answer. So often these youngsters come with so much ‘baggage’; their mental load is unbearable and manifests itself in disruptive or violent behaviour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The adoptive parents will usually reply to questions about the child’s birth parents that the mother was a drunk or a drug addict who did not love them or want them.
Many such children eventually find out the truth ; that their birth parents fought desparately to keep them and were not at all the monsters portrayed; The adoptive parents then deservedly suffer for it and are frequently abandoned altogether.
Serves them right ………….
LikeLiked by 3 people
I was not allowed to have post adoption contact with my grandchild. I was not even allowed to apply!
I believe the same happens with non kin Foster Carers especially those who go for a Special Guardian Order. Contact with my other two grandchildren in foster care was stopped after Care Proceedings.
The law is clear but Social Workers muddy the waters when it suits them to do so.
They (Social Workers & Judges) are unlikely to be around when the child grows up to find out if their decisions were correct or not. Shame, there should be consequences if wrong decisions are made but unlikely to happen or a third of prison inmates that were previously in care would come knocking! Statistics are not kept on adoptees so we wont know how they fared on mass.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As with CAFCASS, no records are kept on the outcomes of children subject to their rulings, so we never know – and they don’t know – whether they worked in the child’s best interests or not. One of the great scandals of our time.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dana ,nobody can stop you applying for contact.Did you have a bent lawyer who told you that to deceive you? What a crook !
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.
Sometimes the adoption was not finalised and even more often the adoption broke down and the child was handed back into fostercare ! It is up to you to FIND OUT !!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Ian,
The person who informed me I could not have contact with my youngest grandchild was the manager of the LA!
By rights my other 2 grandchildren, now under an SGO, were also supposed to have Contact with each the youngest too. I would hazard a guess that never happened either.
I have repeatedly requested Contact but can’t go into the details on this forum. Needless to say I have been denied.
I’m not done with them yet.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dana,
Managers of the LA would only tell you what the Social workers want them to. its probably quite rare to get honesty from these people as they are the ones who perpetrated the crime against your family.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Roger, I understand that records “back in the day” were a hit or miss affair but technology has moved on. So you have to ask, in our digital world why are records not kept? Maybe they are or maybe they don’t want to give an answer. It might show them in a bad light.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Dana
I’m sure, absolutely convinced, that it would!!
LikeLike
LA records can and do go missing its an absolute fact.
but only when they want them to go missing if you know what i mean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When an Adoption Order is granted, does anyone care how loosing the child will affect that child’s birth family?
When two full siblings were separated ages 4 & 6, then the 4 year old sent to a new family, did anyone give a dam as to how the 6 year old would feel? No.
Does anyone care now? No.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi, thanks for your message. Yes, we do care. This entire project is about caring about issues like this. It’s easy to feel alone inside the court process, it’s isolating, unfriendly and cruel, but we are a community based on support and information sharing, and we’re glad you’ve found it. No doubt members of the community will offer their support in a bit, but please do know that there are people out there who care, very much, and who are trying to turn things around.
LikeLiked by 3 people
‘The case is believed to be the first of its kind to reach the Court of Appeal since the implementation of s.51A in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). The legislation allows for contact with family members and other significant individuals in a child’s life, after adoption.’
This Case is ‘not’ the first Case of it’s kind, like the Judgement is stating. They have got their information wrong. I made my Post Adoption application in 2013 and it’s a real shame my Case could not have been used to help other parents or that my Judgement wasn’t published or that I never received it. I was told there wasn’t one but I beg to differ because I recall the Judge I had asking the other side to send it me.
But didn’t Kirsty Seddon’s Case take place in 2015. If you Google her name, followed by Judgement then you will find it.
It seems to me it’s appearing only the Cases where natural parents have lost are being published for all the public to see?
Notice, my Case with a more successful (most successful to date, with doors left open) outcome which eventually led to said child/young adult returning home to live has been kept hush hush?
Now why would that be I wonder xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Tumtum, they mean the first to reach the Court of Appeal xxx
LikeLike
Thank you Natasha and hi.
Kirsty Seddon’s was the first to reach Court of appeal if I remember correctly with a Judgement out there public from 2015.
It’s not anything you’ve done in error though, it’s whoever said it was the first …. on the said Judgement referred to here Xxxx
LikeLike
Hi Tumtum, can you confirm that please? (R Kirsty Seddon). If you can share the judgment or some other document that would be wonderful xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: S1, Ep 4. Non-consensual adoption – VOICES OF FAMILY LAW
Pingback: New Study Suggests Children Suffer Most Harm After Entering the Care System | Researching Reform
Well here we go again when the Law triumphs over nature and Adopters cling to socially encouraged illusions that “the child is theirs” ..
Yet underlying this case is once again the “Church Of Adoption” and the establishment’s priestly social fears that Adoption itself will be undermined .. The system finally defends itself against the onset of the demonised natural contact and the Adoptee is the victim-invisible ..
Ghosted, and “Cared For” by being in the arms of the unnatural …The Law priests have sacrificed the child on the altar of the unnatural..
Is it any wonder why many more Adoptees now are “coming out” and saying they want to be their “birth identities” and are not grateful for being mis-described as the “child of the marriage” of the Adopters ?
When you lived in this ( I am an Adoptee) it makes your body senses and memory of development clothed in a form of primal ant skin crawling disgust …. You never get over it …. Never … Many Adoptees are dissociative and with good cause…
LikeLiked by 1 person