You were put up for adoption … in error

A couple took their child to hospital because it was bleeding. The hospital were concerned it was maltreated and the child was taken into care.

The child was then put up for adoption and was adopted.

Now, three years later, the couple have finally been taken to court. The prosecution did not provide any evidence because it turns out the child has a disease which means it bruises easily - the parents are innocent.

But the child has gone. And it probably ain't coming back (link to story).

I was just wondering - how would you feel being told you were adopted because you were abused? And then later discovered it wasn't true? It's bad enough for the parents, but just how screwed up is that child going to be?

Calling a child "it" are we?

Calling a child "it" are we?

The media are not allowed to reveal the child's name or sex and English does not provide a neuter term other than 'it'.

Spreading the cult otherwise known as political correctness, are we?

Let me help you.

"And they probably won't come back"

A couple took their child to hospital because it was bleeding. The hospital were concerned it was maltreated and the child was taken into care.

The child was then put up for adoption and was adopted.

Now, three years later, the couple have finally been taken to court. The prosecution did not provide any evidence because it turns out the child has a disease which means it bruises easily - the parents are innocent.

But the child has gone. And it probably ain't coming back (link to story).

I was just wondering - how would you feel being told you were adopted because you were abused? And then later discovered it wasn't true? It's bad enough for the parents, but just how screwed up is that child going to be?

What about this then:

"A couple took their child to hospital because it was bleeding".

A couple took their child to the hospital because they were bleeding? Doesn't work.

There is ALWAYS more to these stories than meets the eye. Social services have to jump through a lot of hoops to remove a child, they must have had other reasons to suspect neglect than a few bruises. While the parents weren't convicted it's probably safe to say they also probably weren't model parents.

As for the child - they'lle probably be fine. I know adopted kids that have been through a lot worse and turned out ok.

A couple took their bleeding child to hospital.

The bottom line is that the parents were cleared of any wrongdoing, but the solicitor still doesn't believe that their child will be returned to them. That's messed up.

It would be worse for the child to be taken away from its current parents than it would to be left with them.

That's cheating.

@redferry

At the time there were suspected fractures. From the Independent:

"The baby was taken into care after hospital staff noticed minor bruises and an X-ray revealed what were thought to be healing metaphyseal fractures – damage to a piece of cartilage that turns into bone on adulthood which can be a sign of physical abuse of a child.

However, it was later discovered that the child was suffering from a blood disorder, Von Willebrands II, which causes someone to bruise more easily, and a vitamin D deficiency that causes infantile rickets. An expert radiologist, commissioned by the prosecution, also gave evidence on Tuesday that it was unlikely there had actually been any fractures in the first place."

The awful thing about this case is that it's taken 3 years for the parents to be cleared, and that the baby was taken away permanently before the parents had been tried. The parents were also denied legal aid to defend themselves.

"Lawyers for the couple said Ms Cox and Mr Carter had been refused legal aid to fight the adoption in the Family Court and criticised the decision to finalise adoption before the criminal court had made its ruling."

So sad for the child that's been taken from it's biological parents, the parents themselves, and also the adoptive parents who also have a bond with the child

Would it? The child must still be very young if it was a baby when this all started, and the parents had supervised visits until as little as a year ago.

If I was the parent, having done no wrong, I would want my child back. Even taking their welfare into account.

Of course you would, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing from the perspective of the state.

I think a big cause for this sort of thing is a severe shortage of good long term foster placements. The care system is a mess, there's no provision to just hold on to a child for a bit while the parents fight a case in court.

Also legal aid is another major contributing factor - scrapping that has been an absolute disaster for people like this.

But, as usual, the blame will fall on the social workers, who by the looks of things did exactly the right thing. Imagine if it had been a fracture and they had done nothing - and the child had died?

I feel bad for the parents but in terms of the childs quality of life, this certainly isn't a particularly bad thing to have happened to them.