If your professional and face fits?
If your professional and your face fits….
A case in which two premature twins were returned to their parents after one child suffered rib fractures, head injuries and subdural bleeding raises serious questions about the way in which first impressions are used in family proceedings.
The judgment, which was handed down by Judge Middleton-Roy in the family court at Watford concluded that the parents’ exemplary behaviour during medical and child protection investigations and subsequent court hearings, were proof that the parents were not capable of inflicting the injuries discovered by medical professionals.
Hertfordshire County Council had applied for care orders for both of the children but the orders were subsequently dismissed.
In his judgment, Middleton-Roy painted a picture of two loving parents who could not have inflicted the injuries sustained by their baby, and seemed to gloss over the father’s acute anxiety and nervousness during questioning, which was put down to a communication disorder by a Consultant…
View original post 665 more words
Natasha on September 13, 2019 at 11:04 am
It’s a step in the right direction. Most cases, domestic or international, take years to resolve, which means that children have bonded, often, with their carers or become adults. What this case does is make it very clear that forced adoption is not legal, or viable in terms of child welfare policy. It’s a judgment that was desperately needed. And it could well be the tipping point.
And yes, it could now be argued in a UK court and could lead to forced adoptions being taken off the table. That is the brilliance of this judgment.
Liked by you
In a groundbreaking case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that a child services agency breached a mother and her son’s rights by forcibly removing her son and giving him to a foster family several years after he was removed from her custody as a newborn.
The grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that Norway’s Barnevernet child services agency had violated Trude Lobben and her son’s rights to family life, and had not carried out adequate investigations into the mother’s parenting skills or provided adequate evidence to bolster its claim that the child was vulnerable and that adoption was in his best interest.
In a statement published on ADF International, a faith-based legal advocacy organization promoting human rights, Lobben’s lawyer, Grégory Thuan Dit Dieudonne, said:
“Human rights advocates have been highlighting the destructive practices of the Barnevernet for years. This ruling is…
View original post 122 more words