The child — whose name and gender have not been revealed — was initially put into foster care, but while the criminal case was ongoing, a family court ruled that it should be adopted.
no
the paramount interest is the wellbeing of the kid
that trumps the birth parents' rights
You understand the "not guilty" part right?
Couple cleared of abusing baby, but may never regain custody
Couple cleared of abusing baby, but may never regain custody - Yahoo News
I don't believe what I am reading...
How could a court, with the issue still in doubt, authorize an adoption? Is that how the system works in the U.K.?
Well, I'd say that the parent's having been cleared of charges, should get their child back. But since I am no expert on English law...who knows what their rights are over there.
I don't believe what I am reading...
How could a court, with the issue still in doubt, authorize an adoption? Is that how the system works in the U.K.?
Well, I'd say that the parent's having been cleared of charges, should get their child back. But since I am no expert on English law...who knows what their rights are over there.
These are good questions. *IF* the system truly has the best interest of the kid(s) at heart then they wouldn't take so long before they come to a conclusion. They would move faster so that the kid could either be severed from the parent(s) if they're guilty, or reunited if innocent. That's *IF* the kid(s) interests are indeed paramount. JMOI don't feel comfortable weighing in either way.
On the one hand, how does a six-week old get a vitamin d deficiency and rickets? And why would it have taken three years to come to that conclusion?
On the other, wtf was the court thinking in allowing an adoption before the couple was allowed due process?
More information.
yep
but what is more significant is the wellbeing of that child
severing him from his adoptive parents would be worse than denying custody to the deemed not-guilty birth parents
Of course they should get their child back. It was wrong for the court to have adopted the child out in the first place. To deny these parents their right is wrong and imo is tyrannical.
I doubt it's that cut-and-dried. This child was adopted through the courts, completely legally. They went through the proper channels and trusted they had irrevocably adopted a baby. Imagine the chilling effect it would have on their court system and, more importantly, their adoption system if the court steps up and says, "Oops."
I doubt it's that cut-and-dried. This child was adopted through the courts, completely legally. They went through the proper channels and trusted they had irrevocably adopted a baby. Imagine the chilling effect it would have on their court system and, more importantly, their adoption system if the court steps up and says, "Oops."
I doubt it's that cut-and-dried. This child was adopted through the courts, completely legally. They went through the proper channels and trusted they had irrevocably adopted a baby. Imagine the chilling effect it would have on their court system and, more importantly, their adoption system if the court steps up and says, "Oops."
The kid goes home to it's biological parents...period...end of story
if both sets of adults are mature about this and place the best interests of the child first, this could be done in an amicable way so that all four parents are involved in the child life in various ways
if they can't do that for this child then it is a sad situation indeed, this is not time to be emotionally limited and selfish
kids are resilient as long as they feel loved, the child will adjust IF the placement is done correctly
That's a much better way of phrasing what I said and meant.Imagine the chilling effect it would have on their court system and, more importantly, their adoption system if the court does NOT step up and says, "Oops."
it means they can remove your child and adopt them out whether or not you are guilty...that is terrifying
It does not not mean that, either. We don't allow for "innocent" as an option. Hence, the literal wording of the verdict cannot necessarily be relied upon.A child who gets rickets and has a vitamin deficiency at six-weeks old is, in all probability, being starved. A finding of not guilty does not mean innocent.
A child who gets rickets and has a vitamin deficiency at six-weeks old is, in all probability, being starved. A finding of not guilty does not mean innocent.
It does not not mean that, either. We don't allow for "innocent" as an option. Hence, the literal wording of the verdict cannot necessarily be relied upon.
Note: This is Britain, and I presume they are the same as us in that regard, considering that so much of our legal system is based on their's.
If the child was being starved there should have been obvious signs of that and "failure to thrive" would have been a part of the court case...that was not mentioned
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?