Family being torn apart by granddaughter being adopted

Lesser of two evils.

It makes me sad that this child could be denied being brought up by loving Grandparents. I was an orphan ( really don't like that word) just after my 3rd birthday and my 63 year old Granny became my legal guardian, I don't think it ever had to go to court but I was to young to know), I definitely never had a social worker and Granny did a brilliant job all on her own.

First of all, there is no 45 year rule. I have assessed many grandparents to care for their grandchildren where there was a much larger age gap than 45 years. Part of the assessment is always to look at contingency plans within the family in case the grandparents can't continue to care for the child until adulthood.

Secondly, yes, this is a public law case but the grandparents are presumably not parties in the proceedings. They will not therefore qualify for legal aid.

Thirdly, there may well be other factors here that we are not aware of that have ruled the grandparents out. Alternatively, it could just be a bad decision. It happens. I'm glad it will be heard by a court, thanks to the solicitor who has agreed to represent them free of charge. I will be interested in the outcome, and hope we get to hear it.

The only thing I feel it's relevant to add to night owl'so accurate representation of the way in which decisions are made in public law is about legal representation of grandparents or other relatives. Me experience was that the children's guardian often asked the court to suggest the local authority pay for independent legal representation for grandparents if they weren't entitled to legal aid.

I had that experience too Iam, although to be honest it only happened when the local authority was encouraging the grandparents to become involved. They are probably less eager to pay in this case since they have made up their minds the grandparents are unsuitable (rightly or wrongly). But it would seem only fair that they should pay this new, altruistic legal representative!

Guess what, we didn't have the full story....new report (see here, 50 mins in www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b062n4n2) shows that the grandparents' ages were irrelevant. The reason for the grandparents being rejected as adopters was that there was a history of abuse from them to the child's mother, and that the mother did not want these abusive people to have the care of the child.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-33649090 is this story, too.

Crumbs, having read that - and the fact that mother didn't want her child placed with them speaks volumes - I'm relieved the child has been adopted outside the family.

I'm wondering if there was anything legal about my sibling born before mum met and married dad being brought up by my mum's parents. I won't go into the reasons. I suspect there wasn't. This would have happened early '50's when she was about 4, when my GP's were in their 50's she lived with them until she married.
With people having children later in life the GP's ages seem insignificant.

nina, I know of a few cases where children were brought up by other relatives. It's not of itself illegal - and if there are no problems, and no challenges from the biological parents, and everyone is happy about it, it would not be challenged even today, AFAIK.

So, a mother blames her parents for the way she is now. Don't a lot of people?

I am sure that pompous judge is thoroughly enjoying his game of playing God. "Scary experiences"?! A lot of children have them, and are not taken away from their natural families because of it. Children are resilient.

This talk of a "forever family". Sounds very sweet and twee. But how can the judge be sure of that?

One lesson for all young mums to learn. Don't whatever you do, become mentally ill. Your child could well be taken away from you permanently. You might feel ok about that now, but what about a few years down the line? When medical science has perhaps helped you?

jingl- the daughter may well be unfair in her accusations, but really- it would be unbearable for the child to be adopted by grandparents with the daugther making such accusations- in the long term. Surely?- can't you see as the child growing up would be caught in the middle in such a dreadful way- and then, if accusations were true and repeated- what then for social services and the Judge- and much more importantly, for the child???

I'm not getting into an argument granjura. I've said what I think.

The "can't you see..." is part of why I don't want to discuss anything with you.

No, you are wrong in this case. The grandfather was interviewed live on the BBC Essex Breakfast show a few days ago, and they have not been granted legal aid and, as they could not afford a solicitor, were not legally represented during the court case.

So, as you advise all of us in one of your posts, you should really not comment unless you are in possession of all the facts.

No, SineDie, you are wrong in this case (your comment of Wed 22-Jul-15 15:18:28). The grandfather was interviewed live on the BBC Essex Breakfast show a few days ago, and they have not been granted legal aid and, as they could not afford a solicitor, were not legally represented during the court case.

So, as you advise all of us in one of your posts, you should really not comment unless you are in possession of all the facts.

According to the lunchtime news, the judge who ruled on the case has published his findings (a very rare, if unprecedented, event). According to the report, it had nothing at all to do with age but that it was thought the child would be at risk with the grandparents. The child's mother did not want them to have her as she said she was physically abused as a child and did not have a good childhood which, she said, led to the problems of self harming, etc. Age was never mentioned as being a reason for not letting them adopt the child. Like most of you, I was amazed that they would think it better the child was adopted by a stranger rather than her grandparents. A case of sensational media reporting without knowing all the facts.

SineDie suggests in her post of Wed 22-Jul-15 17:34 that “the mother will have had legal aid. The father will have had legal aid and the child will be represented by the independent Children's Guardian. All free.” The mother has been sanctioned and quite obviously not in a mental state to deal with this matter. There is no father on the scene.

She then goes on to state “it is the court which makes the decision, based on all the evidence.” How fair and reliable is that when the grandparents had no legal representation.

Furthermore, she suggests “it is not a good idea to rely on a biased and partial account from one source. The grandparents will have been assessed if the parents put their names forward. The child's best interests come first, not the desires of grandparents.”

How can the parents put the grandparents’ names forward when one is absent and the other one has been sanctioned?

I would suggest that SineDie takes her own advice on this occasion, as it is quite apparent she is no more in possession of all the facts than the rest of us.

From the report I heard on the radio this morning it sounded as if other outside agencies knew of the way the mother had been brought up and so did not want the grandchild to have the same upbringing. The mother has agreed to her being adopted. I did not get the impression that it was simply the mother's evidence/story or whatever.

The family court is not one of confrontation or 'sides' arguing against each other - it is to decide on the best interests of a child.

Whether the grandparents have legal representation or not is irrelevant.

How could it possibly be a good idea to have the grandparents adopt the little girl, when there is such hostility to the idea of it from the mother? If there is evidence of physical abuse in their backgrounds, how could the court be sure the girl would not be subject to the same ill treatment?

PetitFilou, by 'sanctioned' I assume you mean 'sectioned'? How do you know whether her mental state would preclude her from having a view of her own childhood and her desires for her daughter? 'Sectioned' does not mean someone is unable to make decisions.

So if as elena says it happens a lot that children are brought up by relatives with no legal formalities and this childs mother agrees. Why are SS involved. Sorry if this is a daft question.

jingl I have met some grim grandparents in my time as I am sure other GNers have. They were bad parents and were not any better as grandparents! This may be a situation where this is the case. Maybe the child does not even know her grandparents properly. If her mother prefers that the child is adopted outside the family that should be respected.

Oh dear! More speculation on a child care case.
That Essex case link is one I saw earlier while pursuing a different newspaper story.

It seems that the Grandparents themselves suggested that they were prevented from caring due to their age. I would always be wary of that statement. It is understandable that they are very distressed and would make such a comment.

Many parents and grandparents in this situation really do love their children but that does not mean that these people are always capable of giving a child the safety and levels of care that is needed to keep them from emotional or physical harm. Social workers do recognise the distress the parents feel. It is quite possible to feel very sorry for them but to still see that these parents cannot be trusted to keep their child safe.

The local authority seemed to feel that they had to make it quite clear that this was not an issue about the Grandparents age, probably just to stop this idle speculation.
This case is yet another one where forums like this should not go speculating about issues where the full information should not generally be in the public domain.

There is a vital need for confidentiality in such issues to protect the identity of any children concerned and that has to be kept confidential by those involved in decision making on these issues.

These issues are fully considered by the legal team and the social workers who know the complete history of issues in these families.
Social workers have a duty to look at placing children who are removed from their parents care with family members as a first resort.

You can probably bet that if this does not happen then there are sound reasons for that decision. In any situation where the child is not placed with relatives we should all "Assume" that there are other "issues" with the other relatives.

"There is a vital need for confideniality in such issues" I couldn't agree more.
Far too much publicity here.