UK: take your baby to hospital, have it taken away from you permanently

[Deleted]

Couple wrongly accused of abusing child "likely to never see their baby again"

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6685471.html

A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.

Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.

Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.

However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.

Mr Carter, a former soldier, and Ms Cox, both 25, now plan to try to win custody of their child back. “We took our child to the hospital seeking help and they stole our baby from us,” Ms Cox said.

However their lawyers believe it is unlikely the adoption – made legal by a Family Court earlier this year – will be overturned by a court as such rulings are usually final.

Medical evidence

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.

Government position

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.

Defence lawyer Emma Fenn said: “This tragic case highlights the real dangers of the Government’s drive to increase adoption and speed up family proceedings at all costs”.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said the criminal case was brought after “expert medical evidence which supported the original charges of cruelty”.

“The case was then reviewed following new medical evidence which concluded that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction on any of the charges,” he added.

A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”

Cases like these and even I sometimes think the conspiracy nuts may be on to something. Oh, and the irony of that final statement ...

[Deleted]

That's retarded. If they had done that to me, I'm pretty sure I would've flipped and killed someone that was responsible for that happening. <.<

[Kalis]

Cases like these and even I sometimes think the conspiracy nuts may be on to something. Oh, and the irony of that final statement ...

This is a fuck up because they allowed the child to be legally adopted before the investigation was concluded. I highly doubt that we made adoption legislation years ago, in the hope of getting a child from a couple in Guildford who were probably children at the time it was enacted.

[Breccia]

Perhaps this case will become a breakthrough in the "such rulings are usually final" front? I mean, how badly do you want to be the judge that denies this request? How badly do you want to be the country that denied this request? Administrations make mistakes, but what matters is how you learn from them.

[Kalis]

Perhaps this case will become a breakthrough in the "such rulings are usually final" front? I mean, how badly do you want to be the judge that denies this request? How badly do you want to be the country that denied this request? Administrations make mistakes, but what matters is how you learn from them.

Having the ruling as final would have been okay had the abuse case been finalised beforehand, unfortunately they didn't appear to have taken possible innocence of the couple into account and went ahead.

Whichever way it goes, somebody is losing a child.

[Primalthirst]

The issue here is the adoption being made before the court proceedings were finalised, not that someone had their child taken away. Which is a bureaucratic fuckup, not a moral one.

[Deleted]

So now UK is a socialist Republic territory.

Intredasting, like the 1933 Jugendamt aka legal kidnapping politic of our best eastern FREUND.

Il y a des juges à Berlin.

[Socialhealer]

That's retarded. If they had done that to me, I'm pretty sure I would've flipped and killed someone that was responsible for that happening. <.<

agreed, taking my child away then giving it up for adoption because YOU FUCKED UP? then you can't do anything about it because the law is suddenly useless?

"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
oh yeh great fuck the parents who went through 3 years of hell, and are completely innocent.

[Puri]

Well, the problem is not that the officials took away the baby - which in no doubt was meant to be the best for the child.
The problem is it took three years for something that should have been cleared within three weeks. Obviously cases like this should be highly prioritized in court.

Now I agree that there is a problem, and taking a child that has been raised three years by other parents from them might be pretty traumatic for it. Still considering the best for the child it might be best to leave it to the foster parents.

[Socialhealer]

Now I agree that there is a problem, and taking a child that has been raised three years by other parents from them might be pretty traumatic for it. Still considering the best for the child it might be best to leave it to the foster parents.

i can agree with this, then the court needs to cough up and pay the couple millions in damages.

[Deleted]

So now UK is a socialist Republic territory.

Intredasting, like the 1933 Jugendamt aka legal kidnapping politic of our best eastern FREUND.

Il y a des juges à Berlin.

The UK has had a conservative government that is more extreme than any previous government and most of europe, for the past six years.

[Deleted]

i can agree with this, then the court needs to cough up and pay the couple millions in damages.

That's more of an American thing. I highly doubt they will get any kind of cash settlement.

[Socialhealer]

That's more of an American thing. I highly doubt they will get any kind of cash settlement.

yup, thats why they might need to take some "personal" revenge against the people involved in this case, i mean they did just kidnap their child and no-one will help them, gotta take some personal justice.

[Primalthirst]

yup, thats why they might need to take some "personal" revenge against the people involved in this case, i mean they did just kidnap their child and no-one will help them, gotta take some personal justice.

That's more of an American thing. I highly doubt they will get any kind of vigilante justice.

[Deleted]

Well, the problem is not that the officials took away the baby - which in no doubt was meant to be the best for the child.
The problem is it took three years for something that should have been cleared within three weeks. Obviously cases like this should be highly prioritized in court.

Now I agree that there is a problem, and taking a child that has been raised three years by other parents from them might be pretty traumatic for it. Still considering the best for the child it might be best to leave it to the foster parents.

The best solution would be joint custody for the child. Natural parents have a right to access to their child. It is desirable that the child isn't wrenched away from its foster parents. The only possible happy resolution can come with both parties working together.

There's an additional factor here: I can't imagine the impact this will have on juvenile preventive care. Who is going to take their child to hospital for an apparently minor issue if they fear their child will be taken away. It could put thousands of kids in danger from treatable conditions.

- - - Updated - - -

That's more of an American thing. I highly doubt they will get any kind of cash settlement.

There is no amount of money that could compensate for this. The suggestion is frankly offensive.

- - - Updated - - -

yup, thats why they might need to take some "personal" revenge against the people involved in this case, i mean they did just kidnap their child and no-one will help them, gotta take some personal justice.

Great, then to add to the human misery the child grows up with criminals for parents. You people are obsessed with violence as a solution to everything, grow up.

[Kalis]

The UK has had a conservative government that is more extreme than any previous government and most of europe, for the past six years.

If you think the current administration is extreme, then it must be the only one you can remember.

[Boogums]

There is no amount of money that could compensate for this. The suggestion is frankly offensive.

Everyone has their price.

[Deleted]

If you think the current administration is extreme, then it must be the only one you can remember.

This administration is worse than Thacher/Major who did remarkably little to reduce welfare, even less than the New Labour administration that preceded it. Thatcher's main crime was to accept very large unemplomyment figures and impose morally bankrupt freemarket monetarism. That aside her policies look increasingly moderate, she didn't kill off disabled people or victimize other people desperately in need of help. Nor did she participate in the direct and massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich via quantative easing as both modern conservative and New Labour governments did.

Pre-Thatcher most conservative governments espoused consensus politics and/or paternalistic conservatism.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone has their price.

Not when it comes to their kids.

[rayden54]

After 3 years, I think it'd be best to leave the kid where it [did anyone see a gender?] is. Kid's old enough by now to think of the adopters as its parents. Not only would that you'd be ripping the kid away from it's new parents who have also done nothing wrong. There's no really good solution.

Unfortunately, the officials were right and this whole mess was done "in the best interests of the child." It sucks for the parents, yes, but it would suck worse if they'd let them keep the kid and it turned out they really were abusing it.

[Deleted]

After 3 years, I think it'd be best to leave the kid where it [did anyone see a gender?] is. Kid's old enough by now to think of the adopters as its parents. Not only would that you'd be ripping the kid away from it's new parents who have also done nothing wrong. There's no really good solution.

Unfortunately, the officials were right and this whole mess was done "in the best interests of the child." It sucks for the parents, yes, but it would suck worse if they'd let them keep the kid and it turned out they really were abusing it.

You didn't address the problem about preventative health care. If this ruling stands no one will take their kids to hospital and thousands of children will die as a direct result of deaths from entirely treatable conditions.

This is the problem with your heartless utiliatarian reasoning, there are always secondary and tertiary effects.