Baby Ann Supreme Court Case

Kashkai

This case has brought to light the deficiencies in our constitution with regard to what constitutes what is right for a child. Leaving aside the individual decency or otherwise of the natural parents and the foster parents, this little girl has been raised by her foster parents since she was an infant and considers them to be her mammy and daddy. One can only imagine the effect that taking this little girl from her foster parents and handing her back to her natural parents will have on her emotional well being. I know the Supreme Court is to decide on how best to phase the handing over of the child but this whole situation just strikes me as wrong.

Her natural parents gave her up for whatever reason. Now I don't know the ins and outs of the adoption process and whether there was a "cooling off" period for the natural parents to change their minds, but a baby soon bonds with an adult carer and so why did the natural mother and father wait until the child was 14 months old to try and get her back? Imagine how your child would feel if you had to hand him/her over to another set of parents, hell imagine how YOU would feel. Bloody well heart broken I'd say.

Our constitution places supreme importance on the family unit, i.e. mammy and daddy living in holy wedlock:rolleyes: . Now while I'm happily married (most of the time), I wouldn't look down my nose at people living together and raising their kids in a happy family unit. However, it appears to me that it was because the natural parents decided to get married that swayed the opinions of the five supreme court judges as they were now a "family unit" as defined by our constitution. This is bloody well ridiculous in 21st century Ireland. It shouldn't have mattered a damn about the marital state or otherwise of the parents. What should have mattered, and I'd emphasis, what should only have mattered was the child's welfare. It appears to me that this was incidental to the Court's decision. Now we can't blame the Supreme Court for their decision as they have to abide by the constitution but their decision has shown how this child's happiness didn't come into account in the cold eyes of the law.

I'm normally not one to get emotionally worked up about a Court's decision but as a parent, I really feel for "Baby Ann" and her foster parents.

embee

Dave, I echo your sentiments exactly.

I think personally that there's something so wrong in this country where a marriage certificate (which is only a piece of paper) can make the difference in this case. My daughters only 9 months, but she knows who her Mammy is.. hell, she even calls me Mama. The idea of her being taken away from me just makes me sick.

A dark, cynical part of me worries that the natural parents in this case may have gotten married on advisement from solicitors. I worry that they've married purely for the sake of getting the baby back. Generally speaking, you don't get many couples who meet in college getting married as soon as they graduate... of course, I could be wrong. They could be madly in love etc but... a part of me wonders.

I just feel so sad for the baby and the prospective adoptive parents. I can imagine that Baby Ann, as a 2 year old (I wouldn't even call her a baby at that age tbh), has enough speech ability and recognition skills to know that her prospective adoptive parents are "Mammy and Daddy".... I know that it has been suggested that her moving back to her natural parents be phased in slowly and sensitively, but I can't envisage the day where she'll ever call them Mammy and Daddy. They say that children don't have very good recollections of their early years, but I'm not so sure about that. I was 2 years and 3 months old when my Mam had my sister, and I can remember my Mam being pregnant. I remember her bringing my sister home from the hospital. I do wonder, in years to come, if Ann will have any memories.... Its so sad. I know myself, I have taken thousands of pictures of my daughter in her first year of life, so that, when she's older, she can look at them, get a sense of herself and where she's come from. Ann's life will only "begin" from age 2 onwards... she's the biggest loser in this horrible case.

I think that the Constitution needs to be changed. There is absolutely no emphasis whatsoever placed on the rights of the child in our Constitution. That needs to be addressed. Ann's life (and the lives of her adoptive parents) are irreversibly changed now... I can't imagine how on earth her adoptive parents are going to cope with losing their little girl....

The Hill Billy

It breaks my heart to think of what that child must be going through. Not to mention the adopter parents. Everything else that needs to be said from my point of view has been covered above.

I also see that in this morning's Herald AM that 88% of respondents to a poll held yesterday "agree with the Baby Ann Supreme Court decision." WFT?!

beans

I have read that there was an 18-month period between the first challenge and the ruling. This is a further 18 months that the child has to bond with her parents before being removed from them. Clearly the child's best interest is not the main concern here - to my mind, once the natural parents give the child up, then the child is ward of the adoptive parents and they shouldnt be able to just change their mind about it.

Adoption isn't something to be entered into lightly and the law should be altered to reflect this. Where are the rights of the adoptive parents? I can see the negative press this is going to cause putting more people off considering adoption as an option.

Hill Billy, that illustrates nicely why I don't read Herald AM :rolleyes:

Edit: just become aware that the child was being fostered and that the adoption had not gone through. So not quite the issue I thought it was. Still feel for everyone involved though

sudzs

Hill Billy wrote:

It breaks my heart to think of what that child must be going through. Not to mention the adopter parents. Everything else that needs to be said from my point of view has been covered above.

I also see that in this morning's Herald AM that 88% of respondents to a poll held yesterday "agree with the Baby Ann Supreme Court decision." WFT?!

The "child" is a 2 year old baby. I doupt very much if she is aware of the legal battle that was fought for her to be returned to her birth parents. :rolleyes:

And you're right beans, something should have been done at the time when the birth parents said they didn't want the adoption to go ahead. They did this within the time frame allowed. The foster parents who had the baby then knew this, knew that nothing was finalised. They refused to cooperate and return the baby to her parents and dragged it into the courts.

Kashkai

sudzs wrote:

The "child" is a 2 year old baby. I doupt very much if she is aware of the legal battle that was fought for her to be returned to her birth parents. :rolleyes:

And you're right beans, something should have been done at the time when the birth parents said they didn't want the adoption to go ahead. They did this within the time frame allowed. The foster parents who had the baby then knew this, knew that nothing was finalised. They refused to cooperate and return the baby to her parents and dragged it into the courts.

Anyone can be a sperm or egg donor, but that doesn't make you a parent. While "Baby Ann" probably wasn't aware of the legal battle over her custody, she sure as hell is aware of who her mammy and daddy are, i.e. the foster parents who have raised her since she was an infant. They are the ones who took this child in when she was given up by her biological parents. They are the ones who loved her, fed her, clothed her and did all the things any real parent would do.

I'd accept that there may have been reasons why the biological parents put Baby Ann up for adoption. However, I would like to know why they did this. This isn't the 1950's anymore. The mother wouldn't have been shipped off to a magdelene laundary. Why couldn't she have kept her baby. Surely her extended family and the biological father could have supported her. Or was it the case that the baby wouldn't have fitted in with her planned lifestyle after college. The biological parents getting married soon after the failed High Court action smacks of crafty legal footwork to ensure that their "marital state" would help them win the supreme court appeal.

As for the foster parents fighting this case through the courts, they did this because they are the ones who love this child, not because they have to but because they choose to. No one forced them to take care of this infant, they went out of their way to take her into their home and to give her all the nurturing she needed to develop into a happy little girl (if they didn't, I'd presume the social services would have taken the baby back from them long ago).

On a final note, perhaps the biological parents should now make financial reparations to the foster parents for the care of Baby Ann for the past two years. At Dublin creche rates of €200 per week, that works out at €20,800 for her care alone, not including clothes, nappies, food, doctor's fees etc. Perhaps when the true cost of raising a child hits home, the biological parents may think twice.

sudzs

But Prosperous Dave, surely the foster parents are so altruistic in their actions they would be appalled by your suggestion of monetary recompense.

But wait, weren't they getting around 300 quid fostercare allowance a week anyway???

Nevyn

kizzyr wrote:

I was listening to the Last Word yesterday and a journalist who has met with the birth parents was on the show. No names were given as the identity of the couple is still be guarded.Apparently things went like this:
The couple met while at university and their relationship became serious with both of them moving in together. In the last year of their degree Ann's mum became pregnant. Both the mum and dad were too scared of their families reaction to the news to tell them and so considered abortion which they decided against and so that left adoption as their only option or so they thought.
A week before the mum's 23rd birthday she gave birth to Ann. Before she gave birth she had approached the HSE about the adoption and while had some concerns over it pushed ahead anyway and together with the HSE chose the couple Ann has been with for so long. Ann was handed over after 10 days (I think) and her mum went back to university.
4 forms needed to be signed at various intervals and while both parents did express doubts about what they were doing Ann's mum signed all forms most importantly form 4A. This was the final form giving over her parental rights to Ann. The only reason the adoption didn't go through fully was because the Adoption Board didn't complete the paper work on time.
The biological parents stayed together, left university, got jobs and decided that they wanted Ann back. They realised that being married would help their case hugely and so got married in January. To date neither the biological mum or dad have told anyone else in their families that Ann exists. Her grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc do not know that she exists. Both parents are still so removed from their own families that when they got married it was in a registry office with two strangers as their witnesses.
When in court the prospective adoptive parents (and thats what they were not foster parents) said that they couldn't deal with a prolonged hand over of Ann that this would be like a death to them and they were unsure how they are going to deal with this on an emotional & psychological level. They then left the court to go home and put "their" little girl to bed as they have done so many nights of her life.

So just think, if the Adoption Board had actually done the paperwork in a timely fashion then all of this may not have been able to happen.

The system is very very flawed.

sudzs

I agree Thaedydal, the system has let this baby down, without a doupt.

Why on earth couldn't something have been done in September 2005 when the birth parents said they wanted to stop the adoption??

I think it is going to be hell for that couple to hand back the little girl but I think it is the right decision that she go back to her birth parents.

I really hope that the 2 couples can do it in a gradual and amicable way and so minimise any emotional trama for all involved.

Kashkai

What a weird family set up those two biological parents must have. In their 20's and they are afraid to let their families know about the baby. If they are so goddamned ashamed of their little girl, why do they want her back? They sound like extremely immature frightened little children themselves.

And Thaed's right, the system sure screwed up big time but the only people who'll suffer are Baby Ann and her foster parents. The adoption board needs one big kick in the arse for this cock up but I suppose nothing will be done an no one will lose their precious job.

Kashkai

sudzs wrote:

But Prosperous Dave, surely the foster parents are so altruistic in their actions they would be appalled by your suggestion of monetary recompense.

But wait, weren't they getting around 300 quid fostercare allowance a week anyway???

300 a week for fostering:eek: Jebus, if I'd known this a year ago, I would have divorced the wife, and then fostered my own kids - now let me see 300 a week times 3 if 900 euro a week. What the hell am I doing raising kids the traditional way, sure isn't the money much better the fostering route as Sudzs suggests.

Then again, creche fees of 200 a week, food, nappies, clothes, toys, outings, doctor's fees would soon wipe out the 300 a week thats allegedly paid for fostering a baby so where's the financial reward then? Perhaps, these people fostered Ann because the believed they could give her a loving home where an abandoned child could have a second chance of a happy upbringing.

Tazz T

sudzs wrote:

I think it is going to be hell for that couple to hand back the little girl but I think it is the right decision that she go back to her birth parents.

It's not about the parents going through hell, altho they will go through much much more distress that the 'bological' parents if they lose the little girl. it's about the wefare of the child and this is not best for the child. The child knows who her mother are father are now and is set to lose them and be thrown into an alien environment.

It's appalling! Do the biological parents need the girl back to assuage their guilt or something? Do they have any concept of what is right for the little girl? I just don't get where they're coming from. Perhaps is they had a child of their own, they might have a better understanding.

trilo

sudzs wrote:

I agree Thaedydal, the system has let this baby down, without a doupt.

Why on earth couldn't something have been done in September 2005 when the birth parents said they wanted to stop the adoption??

I think it is going to be hell for that couple to hand back the little girl but I think it is the right decision that she go back to her birth parents.

I agree absolutely with this.
I personally think social services have a lot to answer for here, they could have prevented this whole mess from the time the mother first expressed her doubts about the adoption, which in fact was brushed over with its normal to feel that way.
Social services should have supported the natural mother and father in how many ways as possible when they decided not to go ahead with the adoption instead of brushing them off. The natural mother had stated she wasn't sure a number of times before she wrote the letter to the adoption board. She should have been listened to here and the adoption cancelled as within the law, the the childs best interest is to be with his/her natural parents as long as the parents have not abandoned the child or it would not be in the childs best interests to live with his/her natural family.

I do believe it is the social services who have let this child down.


Yes of course the constitution is deficient in relation to the rights of the child and i fully support changes in the constitution for children to have their own representative's in court. I had personal experience of this as a child and had someone on my behalf fighting for my right to have my own say in court in relation to a family law case.

squire1

I'm detecting a bit of hostility towards the biological parents in this thread which, while understandable, I feel is unwarrented. This couple made a bad decision when they were under emotional pressure, a terrible decision in fact. However, they did realise the mistake and changed their minds. The fact that it is 14 months after this that they got their little girl back is in no way their fault. The fallout from this is that for those wasted 14 months the child has being forming an emotional bond with its foster parents. How much easier would it have been on the child to go back to her biological parents 14 months ago? Much easier in my opinion (on the child).

I am not going to attempt to pass judgement on the biological parents as to their motives as I know nothing about them or the trauma they must have gone through over the last few years. I would take it in good faith that they want the child and will provide it with a loving and caring home. Hopefully I am not proven wrong.

While this whole situation is unfortunate in the extreme, there are five people who warrent sympathy from the public, not just the child and it's foster parents. It's a complicated situation where everybody looses no matter what the outcome.

Ickle Magoo

I agree that the system has let this little girl down. I'm completely torn over what is the right thing to do now she is in this situation. As an adopted child & a parent myself, I feel very little other than contempt towards the people that gave me away...I can only imagine how she will feel in years to come knowing her parents gave her up then came looking for her once they had their education sorted...and yet how would this little girl feel knowing her biological (and I deliberately use the term biological, I find the expression "real" parents fairly offensive) parents tried their best to stop the adoption going ahead & they couldn't - either way the little girl looses.

There has to be some changes made to the process whereby parents can't change their mind about something that affects so many people, so profoundly. Adoption should be an absolute last resort with all other options discussed and discarded. There should never be a situation whereby a child is living in limbo while the adults they consider parents & the adults who are their biological parents battle out where this poor child will live & who they should call "mum & dad"...

I think if you put your child up for adoption then that should be it - no going back. I think going back to parents who didn't want to be a parent in the past is not necessarily always in the best interests of a child & could cause major issues for these children later in life. Finding a loving, stable home with another family who does really want them & will always be there for them is the main thing & will do more for a child emotionally, mentally & phsychologically than the mere fact sharing genetics will...

Kashkai

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I agree that the system has let this little girl down. I'm completely torn over what is the right thing to do now she is in this situation. As an adopted child & a parent myself, I feel very little other than contempt towards the people that gave me away...I can only imagine how she will feel in years to come knowing her parents gave her up then came looking for her once they had their education sorted...and yet how would this little girl feel knowing her biological (and I deliberately use the term biological, I find the expression "real" parents fairly offensive) parents tried their best to stop the adoption going ahead & they couldn't - either way the little girl looses.

There has to be some changes made to the process whereby parents can't change their mind about something that affects so many people, so profoundly. Adoption should be an absolute last resort with all other options discussed and discarded. There should never be a situation whereby a child is living in limbo while the adults they consider parents & the adults who are their biological parents battle out where this poor child will live & who they should call "mum & dad"...

I think if you put your child up for adoption then that should be it - no going back. I think going back to parents who didn't want to be a parent in the past is not necessarily always in the best interests of a child & could cause major issues for these children later in life. Finding a loving, stable home with another family who does really want them & will always be there for them is the main thing & will do more for a child emotionally, mentally & phsychologically than the mere fact sharing genetics will...

If you were unsure you could raise the child yourself, the options of using family members or fostering to raise the child should be explored. However, once the adoption process begins, the last paragraph above says it all - if you put your child up for adoption, then there should be no going back.

FatherTed

The prospective Adoptive Parents were just that, not foster parents. So they were not profitting 300 euros weekly for taking care of her. The big problem lies with the Adoption Board and the adoption process in general. Why it took 10 months (November 2004-September 2005) to finalize the adoption is troubling. Also the fact that the father has no rights until he marries the mother amazes me. In the US, the father is notified and must give consent(at least in most states) of the adoption whether the birth parents are married or not.

As an adoptive parent, I have gone through the adoption process in the US and in Vietnam where my daughter was born. After several years of trying to get pregnant and subsequent failed infertility and miscarriages we decided to look at adoption. We initially had planned a domestic adoption in the US. We went through all the adoption paperwork and everything was set and we were selected by a girl in New York about 20 years old who was due to give birth. We had talked with her on the phone a few times and everything was fine. We were supposed to meet up with her a week before the due date but the day before we got a phone call from our attorney who informed us she had changed her mind and that she was keeping the baby. BTW it was my birthday so that was a nice present

Needless to say we were distraught for a while, we had gone through a lot of paperwork, countless interviews and meetings with the local adoption agency not to thousands of dollars lost. It was for the best that she changed her mind before the birth because if it had happened after, we would have placed with the baby and ended up having to give the baby back. In the US, different States have different adoption laws e.g. some States have a waiting period of 60 days before the adoption is finalized, other states it is 90 days.

After our problems with the domestic US adoption we decided to look at international adoption. We ended up choosing Vietnam, at the time the process was straight forward and there was no limit with the age of the child e.g. at the time China had a 1 year old restriction. We ended up making 2 trips to Ho Chi Minh City and apart from some skrewups by the US Consulate there, we had no real problems.

This was about 6 months after our first adoption attempt. A day before our second and final trip to Vietnam to finalize the adoption, our original adoption agency calls us to tell us that the 20 year old girl in NY had been to see them and that she wanted us to adopt her now 6 month old son. We gave them a very quick "no thanks". Who's to say that she would change her mind again the next week?

I guess the moral of the story is that adoption is a very tricky and emotional process. Adoptive parents who are usually more mature and have gone through the rigourous adoption application process are at the mercy of immature young birthparents who can very quickly change their minds.

I heart goes out to the prospective adoption parents in the baby Ann case. Thankfully our story has a happy ending. Our daughter is now a beautiful and happy 7 year old. Oh and we have a 5 year old son that my wife gave birth to.

The Hill Billy

sudzs wrote:

The "child" is a 2 year old baby. I doupt very much if she is aware of the legal battle that was fought for her to be returned to her birth parents. :rolleyes:

Sudz - The legal battle is immaterial.

The point I was making was that by two-years old the child would have pretty much spent every waking hour with one or other of her adoptor parents. In her mind - they are her entire life. They are the people that feed her, wipe her arse, care for her, love her. They are the people that she loves.

Now they have been taken away from her.

That is what breaks my heart.

Ickle Magoo

I have a two yr old & he knows if we have a disagreement - even tho we had the disagreement in private, without raised voices...I think to say that a 2yr old wouldn't realise what is going on is not giving very much credit to the child. The toddlers I know are all well capable of picking up emotional undercurrents way above their actual comprehension & I think this situation will undoubtedly affect the little girl.

fobs

I think this is a heartbreaking case but think the correct decision was made by the court. How would those adoptive parents have handled questions by "baby Ann"in the future about her parents. If she found out her parents wanted her back and they wouldn't allow it! The fact that the adoption was not finalised and the parents wnted her back should have been handled earlier and bay Ann returned at 10 months when it would not have been so hard. I think a child should remain with his/her birth parents where possible and only be adopted if this cannot be the case. this couple are willing and able (or the judge would have said otherwise) to raise their own child so she should not be adopted. The problem is the time lapse but with care this can be gotten over. how many of us remember when we were two so as long as a gradual process is in place she sould be fine.

jimmycrackcorm

So who here has vivid memories of when they were two years old?

Let's not start presuming that the handover is going to be straight out of a bad TV movie. If it is done gradually and time allowed for the child to get used to her biological parents then any emotional damage would diminish.

Seeing as the foster parents hired private detectives to spy on the biological parents, I hardly think that they will play along with that.

sudzs

Hill Billy wrote:

Sudz - The legal battle is immaterial.

The point I was making was that by two-years old the child would have pretty much spent every waking hour with one or other of her adoptor parents. In her mind - they are her entire life. They are the people that feed her, wipe her arse, care for her, love her. They are the people that she loves.

Now they have been taken away from her.

That is what breaks my heart.

Actually I don't think a 2 year old is suficiently developed psychologically or emotionally to "love" her carers in the romantic way some people like to think.

Having worked as a nanny for many years I have gone into family homes where the parents go away for a weeks holidays and I can tell you that as long as a 2 year old is kept clean dry warm, fed and entertained there is not a whole lot of love-lorn trauma.

Granted, the child is in her own familiar surroundings... and this is why if the handover of baby Anne is gradual there will be little or no trauma to her.

And again, it would have been even less had the authorities acted last September.

Ickle Magoo

I have to disagree with those saying it isn't going to affect her. Some of the people I know who are adopted (including myself) or have been in foster care & even when it happens when you are a baby, it still affects you for the rest of your life. To say that living in one house for the first two years of life & then being moved to another is not going to affect a child in any way - ever, is just wrong. Speak to some adults whose parents divorced or died or some other major change when they were little & see if they are all completely unnafected by it. The first three years are called the formative years for a reason. It may not affect her at the mo - often young children show no outward signs of seperation anxiety or stress - but they can squirrel these feeling of anxiety away & they can come out in later life...

GWolf

This pisses me off. The court is giving her baclk to the birth parents because now their married, and are a stable famly unit. And were the people she was living with unstable or something.

She's not being returned to her parents, she's being taken away from them.

SarahMc

I feel the right decision was made, the same decision would have been made had we enshrined children's rights in the Constititution, as the Convention on the rights of the child states that a child has a right to be with their birth family.

Countless research and studies show that unless there are very serious issues in the birth family (sexual abuse/chronic drug abuse for example) it is always in the child's interests to be reared by birth parent/s or relatives.

The only thing I disagree with is the fact that the birth parents had to marry to be deemed a family unit.

Blush_01

It's very, very sad. I can't possibly see how this isn't going to cause some kind of problems into the future. What if the birth parents decide they want nothing to do with "Baby Ann"'s (for the sake of ease) adoptive parents? Where does the child stand then? Her birth parents couldn't figure out a way to manage raising her as a baby - that's sad and unfortunate in itself - but signing a marriage license and buying a few rings and a dress don't make you any more able to raise a child, do they? The only way to minimise the problems here are to prolong the transfer of custody over a long, long period, starting very gradually and continuing contact between the two sets of parents and Ann for as long as possible. If that does happen, how do the adoptive parents stop themselves from disciplining and treating Ann as they always have, if the birth parents have different ideas about how to raise a child and want to use different parenting methods?

A friend of mine (let's call her Mary) has a young child. A friend of hers (Elaine, for argument's sake) was pregnant at the same time as her, and gave her baby up for adoption. In Elaine's situation, it was an open adoption, she is in contact with the child on a regular basis, has photographs and attends birthday parties, is part of her birth child's life. But at the core of it, the adoptive parents are her child's parents - they reprimand when it's required, they set bed time, they choose the child's school, who the child has "playdates" with, what extra activities the child undertakes outside of school etc. Mary raises her own child, and Elaine's child is raised by its Mum and Dad, but she's part of the child's world. If anything, I think the reintroduction of the birth parents should be done as benevolent outsiders rather than parents. They should know their child, and at Ann's age she'll probably accept these new people readily enough, if things aren't disrupted too much. It might be a bit unusual, that she lives with Mum and Dad, and has these other people who love her too, but these married strangers don't know her. They haven't raised her thus far. Only a fool would expect that taking on a child - whether married or not - is going to be easy, and if they're only married in order to win the court case, then how long will the marriage last under the strain of learning to parent a child who has been raised by people who have muddled through the initial stages long before she can remember, and have now reached some sort of routine and system that she recognises?

More than 5 people are effected here. But one little girl is really going to bear the brunt of all the political waltzing being done over her head.

2funki4wheelz

SarahMc wrote:

Countless research and studies show that unless there are very serious issues in the birth family (sexual abuse/chronic drug abuse for example) it is always in the child's interests to be reared by birth parent/s or relatives.

I'm sure there's research from the other side, quoting "countless research" does not make something truthful on such a seriously individual matter. IMO it's loving parents that make it work.

From my experience:
I'm adopted, wonderfully raised by excellent parents who had me informed I was adopted from day 1 (as soon as I could understand). When I was a couple of months old my birthmother changed her mind and took me back for a week, then decided a baby 24/7 wasn't as much fun as she'd hoped. Hence the original reason for adoption (she wasn't ready for a baby at that time in her life, I understand that). I also understand how brave it is to give up too.

The period I was gone, my adoptive parents were in a terrible state, having already bonded with me. They had to jump through the rigorous hoops that people do, including having their relationship examined, they don't have the automatic 'right' to parenthood that fertile people have.

Possible problems I imagine:

- The birthparents in this case have twice put massive strains on their relationship (adoption & court case) and the child will not enter a normal unit by any stretch of the imagination.
- Imagine the guilt that child will feel for leaving two other loving parents - even though it's not the child's fault.
- Imagine the pressure on the birthparents to be excellent parents, much more so than the pressure already on regular parents.
- Imagine the niggling doubt the child could develop about being unwanted (even it was only for a child) and the impact if they have further children.

Overall, in my opinion, a law leaving room for 'change of heart' is a joke, I'm sure it's desperately hard to give up a child for adoption and having the slightest notion that there's a get out clause can't help with the actual decision making process.
My heart goes out to everyone involved.

Ickle Magoo

SarahMc wrote:

Countless research and studies show that unless there are very serious issues in the birth family (sexual abuse/chronic drug abuse for example) it is always in the child's interests to be reared by birth parent/s or relatives.

I couldn't find any...other than some that talk about "damaged children" who are beyond being able to bond with another set of parents because they have been in care so long or were in such awful family situations for so long they have been scarred for life.

Anyway, you don't think deciding you don't want your child to the point that you are nearly the whole way through a rigourous & long adoption process is a serious issue?! A child is not always better off with their biological parents. Sharing genetic material does not make you any more able to love or look after a child the way they deserve. I can only imagine how this child will feel if she ever finds out her parents didn't want her - even if they did go on to change their minds.

Crea

I feel that the social workers in this case have alot to answer for.
Why when the biological parents decided not to go ahead with the adoption were arrangements not made for her to be given back to them? Why did it take 14 months further developing the relationship between the child and the adoptive parents and making the hand over more traumatic for the child?
Why when the natural mother breastfed the baby in the hospital were alarms not raised in the minds of the social workers? Social workers are supposed to be trained to look out for these bonding signals and arrange further councelling.
Also, the natural parents had requested an open adoption and did in fact visit this child regularly.
The natural parents married before the high court action - not after.
The parents have been fighting to get her back for the past 14 months so obviously it wasn't a spur of the moment decision.

This child will grow up with her natural parents and hopefully natural siblings. There is no reason in the world why she should find out what has gone on now.
If it had gone the other way I could imagine the conversation if she decided to look for her natural parents.
Her "Why did you give me up?"
Them " We tried for 14 months fighting through 2 court actions to get you back but failed"
Do you think she wouldn't regret missing out on being raised by her natural parents knowing that they did want her afterall?

I do think the current situation is terrible. She is old enough to suffer terrible separation anxiety by being taken away from her adoptive parents because of the time that was allowed to elapse between the natural parents requesting the adoption be cancelled and now.
Given that the social worker knows the adoptive parents i'm not sure that this wasn't done on purpose.

Ickle Magoo

You are right, it is awful social work Crea, the timescale just doesn't add up...if the biological parents wanted to nullify the adoption 14months ago - why wasn't that just accepted & the child given to them? They were perfectly within their rights...