shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

This is appalling. Look at the harm miscarriage of justice causes.
This poor family.

Adoption of three children upheld despite possible miscarriage of justice

By Stephen Howard

Thursday, 12 February 2009

A couple whose children were taken from them and adopted cannot have them back, even though they "may be right" in believing they suffered a miscarriage of justice, three Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

Nicky and Mark Webster, from Cromer, Norfolk, were seeking to set aside adoption orders made in December 2005 for their three eldest children, identified only as A, B and C.

The children were taken into care in 2004 because the local authority believed that one child, a boy, had suffered non-accidental injuries inflicted by one or both of his parents. Two were adopted by one family; the third went to another. Evidence came to light in 2007 showing that the child may not have suffered deliberate injury, as his fractures may have been attributable to scurvy or iron deficiency caused by a feeding disorder.

The couple applied to the courts to try to get their children back. But a summary of yesterday's decision released by the three Court of Appeal judges reads: "The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders. The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case. The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.

"It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong."

The statement continued: "Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right. It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout. If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual."

The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order – a move which could have enabled the children to be returned to them or at least allow them to have contact.

At the hearing in December last year, their counsel, Ian Peddie QC, told Lord Justice Wall, Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson that it was an "exceptional" case. "We say there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice and the natural parents' primary concern is to correct it," he said. "It is our assertion that the children need to know the truth as to why they were adopted."

Mr Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland to stop their fourth child, Brandon, six, being taken into care at birth but last year the local authority dropped proceedings after accepting that he was in "robust good health".

In his judgment, Lord Justice Wall said: "For Mr and Mrs Webster... the case has been a disaster, quite apart from any breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights." He added that the case had been a "deeply regrettable experience for the local authority" and a "painful learning experience" for the medical profession.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

This is horrifying.

What comfort can it be to hear the judges say that their case highlights the need for second opinions. What in the name of god are we doing taking kids away from their parents on the word of one person in the first place?

There have been far too many medical "experts" getting it wrong - for something as serious as permanently removing children from their natural parents, the investigation should be exhaustive, and include several experts.

The sense of helplessness that cases like this bring is overwhelming - one begins to wonder if there is anything that can be done to take back control of a justice system which has become a monster.

Notice, again, the wording of the judges' report - "the finality of adoption orders.....circumstances (to set aside) are extremely limited.... none applies in this case....wrong to criticise doctors or social workers.... all acted properly throughout..."

It's all about ticking the boxes - the rules are there and there's nothing we can do about them. The doctors and social workers obeyed those rules.

Yes, that may be so, but something still went horribly, horribly wrong, and someone, somewhere, has to find out what that something was, and make sure it never happens again.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Openness, Transparency and Accountability is a must for any Just System

These experts must no longer be able to hide behind this nonsense that has become "Absolute Immunity"

Lets unite for Transparency and Disclosure.

Lets unite and call for these experts to be prosecuted like "Sir Roy Meadows" in the Sally Clark case.

The GMC had the decency to strike him Off but the High Court Re-Instated him "Absurdly"

Lets unite to have all experts history before any court when they give evidence.

Having spoken to one of the Edinburgh Three for some time over the past few days one thing he said made me think about these so called experts.

He Said: This K H tells every Jury: This is the worst case I have ever come across.

Could this be true and if so what repercussions could this have for our so called experts reputations ?

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

I'm all for a united front on disclosure and the need for "experts" to have a proven track record.

How do we create such unitedness (if that's a word!!). No, the word is unity! Sorry.

Everyone is so caught up fighting their own injustice - that's not a criticism, it's totally understandable - but they have no time left over for "extra" fighting, if you know what I mean.

How do we get enough people together to start the ripple that will eventually become the tidal wave that forces the CJS to address these two interlinked issues?

I'm not meaning in any way to be negative here, I just really don't know how to be part of "getting the ball rolling." I'd be really interested in anyone's thoughts on this one.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

A Petition to the Justice Minister would be a great start highlighting the need for change and cases of non disclosure that our Crown Office are still denying.

I am up for starting any ball rolling and to come together with anyone willing to participate and help draf any complaints.

Letters to all our MSP's would also be another avenue to start any ball rolling and to gather any support, Perhaps an E-Mail to EVERY MSP in Holyrood would be a start asking for their support before taking any petition to the Justice Secretary.

We need to outline the problem and also suggest any reforms needed or at the very least suggest a way forward.