Family being torn apart by granddaughter being adopted

To decide, perhaps one would need to have ALL the facts- and we as the public never will. I'm glad most who have read the facts we have been given, came to the same conclusion as the Judge.

As Luckygirl so rightly said -'educated judgement and not an exact science'. Let's hope this child will grow in peace.

But.... did any of us really read it in the Daily Mail? I for one read the judge's ruling , linked to in the BBC News article. Surely the only way to decide for yourself?

Thank you NellieMoser.

Yes,
Think this puts paid to the age thing.
- Thank goodness.

Thanks Nelliemoser for this link.

Have a look at this one about the "dangers" of misinformed press releases.

“The grandparents of a three-year-old girl have been blocked from adopting her because they are ‘too old’”—Daily Mail, 21 July 2015

This sort of reporting is a fine example of why a number of us here on GN have "issues" with the general style of a lot of the DMs output. The DM bashers as we seem to be thought of.

fullfact.org/factcheck/law/too_old_adopt-46740
This link give the full details of the court judgement.

I think there must be other issues here - primarily the danger of contact with the natural parent which would be difficult for grandparents to deny. Perhaps a brand new start is what is required.

Btw, the grandparents will not be adopting their grandchild. That doesn't happen any more, because it was recognised a long time ago that these kind of adoptions created very mixed up relationships which was detrimental to a child as they grew up. Grandparents in this position usually get a Special Guardianship Order and remain grandparents, not parents.

nina not a daft question. Plenty of grandparents, aunties, uncles etc bring up relatives' children without any involvement from Children's Services. As long as there's no risk from a family member and everyone agrees that's all fine. Children's Services presumably became involved in this case because the mum had mental health problems and wasn't well enough to look after her child, she didn't agree to her parents doing so, and Children's Services then had to go to court to get a decision on the child's future. For reasons we still don't know, despite the tit for tat reporting, the grandparents were ruled out by the local authority at an early stage.

I think it's good that they will now get proper legal representation and the case will be heard by a Family Court judge - I can't think of anyone else who could decide at this stage in the proceedings. In my experience Family Court judges are usually very experienced, sensible, and often pretty confident about not blindly following recommendations if they think assessments have been flawed. No use speculating any further IMO.

It is a shame when these stories hit the headlines because we can never know what the full story is - I always think that before we judge we should ask ourselves what we would do if we were in the shoes of the SWs and the judge and had the responsibility for making a decision that would affect the whole of that child's life. Not so easy.

There is always a gamble - or educated judgement - and it is not an exact science.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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???

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?