Check out some similar questions!

cheekimunki11 · Dec 10, 2011, 07:36 AM

Our daughter went up for adoption back in October 2011 and we strongly felt that the decission was wrong as it wasn't in our daugther's best interest and also they forgot all about her two full brothers and how it would affect them, as they have seen her several times.
They are now very confussed as to why they can't see her any more, so they hadn't thought about their best interest in this situation.
The only person they were thinking about was themselves end of.

We were duly notified of the adoption proceedings and also given the opportunity to oppose it.
The grounds for termination of your parental rights, were:- that we are never going to be good enough parents, we are a risk to our daugther, yet they allowed me to keep our daughter in hospital for 5 days whiel they go their interim care order against our daughter.

We feel that the grounds for termination of your parental rights were unjustifed.

The country that this happened was England, UK

The reason why she was being put up for adoption in the first place, is because we are unfit parents. The local authoirty in the UK. The family situation is that as far as the local authority are concerned, we would pose a risk to our daugther and also she would come to significant harm if she were to be placed in our care. I am the child's mother. She would be 8 months old. The siblings are 2 years old and 3 years old

No drugs weren't involved so that wasn't the reason why they took her off us

Our daughter went up for adoption on 12 Oct 11 and we felt that it wasn't in her best interest and also it wasn't in the best intrests of her two full brother either, as they are now asking my partner, me and my parents where their little sister is?

So we feel that the local authority were wrong, and also the paperwork that they actually used against my partner and I in the court case of our daugther, is more than 12 months old and we were wondering if they can actually use this?

Our daughter went up for adoption, because the local authority felt that we are unfit parents.
Because I suffer from Aspergus Syndrome, due to this I apparently wouldn't be able to parent her. They also said that she would come have come to significant harm if she was to be placed in our care, and also that we are a risk to her as well. But they allowed me to keep her for 5 days while they started the court case against us. She was taken from us on the 12 October 2011 and she was born on 9th April 2011

Our daughter went up for adoption on the 12 October 2011 and we felt that it wasn't in her best interest to go up for adoption and also we are thinking about her two full brothers as well, which is something that the local authority didn't think about at all.
The reason why she was put up for adoption were:- That they felt that my parnter and me were unfit parents, because we haven't got the parenting knowledge required to parent our daughter. They also said that we were a risk to her and that if she were to be placed with us then she would come to significant harm. But what we can't understand is why they allowed me to keep her with me for 5 days after her birth, if I was a risk to her? If I was a risk to her now, then why was I not a risk to her then?
She was born on 9th April 2011

How do I delete my other threads?

She was taken when she was 5 days old and then they finally put her up for adoption on the 12th October 2011 our children were taken when the eldest was 6 months old and our youngest son was taken from birth.

Yes I have posted this same question recently.
There wasn't a complaint or anything made against us, all it was more than anything was my mother-in-law, who took our eldest son, and the relationship between us got very heated and that was when the Children's service got involved
It's not unusual in my State (NY) for the parents to retain (keep) custody while the investigation is ongoing. If something happens OR CPS steps in, then the child is removed.

So - what happened?

AK lawyer · Dec 10, 2011, 07:40 AM

Were you duly notified of the adoption proceeding, and given an opportunity to oppose it? What were the grounds for termination of your parental rights? Where (what state or country) is this?

ScottGem · Dec 10, 2011, 07:43 AM

You need to explain the circumstances with much greater detail. Why is she being put up for adoption in the first place? Who is putting her up for adoption? What is the family situation? Who is adopting? Who are you in relationship? How old is the child? How old are the siblings? ANY question on law needs to include your general locale as laws vary by area.

Please help us help you by answering these questions and filling n the blanks.

AK lawyer · Dec 10, 2011, 07:48 AM

And to answer your specific question, a notice of appeal normally has to be filed within a month or so. If the decree was entered in October, you may have missed the opportunity to appeal.

AK lawyer · Dec 10, 2011, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by cheekimunki11

the country that this happened was England, UK

OK. Well, as I say, appeals have to be made prompty. I don't know the appeal procedures in England, but you need to check with a solicitor immediately about the possibility of appealing. It may be too late.

ScottGem · Dec 10, 2011, 07:56 AM

Let me see if I understand this. You are saying that your newborn daughter is being put up for adoption by the state (government) because you are unfit and a danger to her. Yet you have other children that are not being taken away? And what is the reasons that you are unfit? There are too many questions here that you are not giving us info on.

karissa.elise · Dec 10, 2011, 08:07 AM

Are drugs involved. If she's a newborn possibly she was using while she was pregnant and that's why they are taking the newborn and not he other children?.

Wondergirl · Dec 10, 2011, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by cheekimunki11

No drugs weren't involved so that wasn't the reason why they took her off us

Why did they take the baby away but leave the other two with you?

ScottGem · Dec 10, 2011, 09:36 AM

You already told us they deemed you unfit. But you aren't telling us WHY? They just can't say you are unfit without explaining why! And it is unusual to take one child while leaving others.

If you want our help you have to be honest with us and tell us the whole story. If you don't we can't help.

ScottGem · Dec 10, 2011, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by karissa.elise

are drugs involved. if shes a newborn possibly she was using while she was pregnant and thats why they are taking the newborn and not he other children?..

Certainly drug use was a possibility but why not wait for the OP to respond to questions instead of speculation?

JudyKayTee · Dec 10, 2011, 11:02 AM

In NY (again, I don't know about the UK) it is possible for a Court to decide that the parent is a danger to a newborn (failure to thrive is usually the "pat" answer) but NOT a danger to the other children. Therefore, older children remain with the parent(s) but the newborn goes into the system.

Hopefully OP will come back with more info.

JudyKayTee · Dec 10, 2011, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by karissa.elise

are drugs involved. if shes a newborn possibly she was using while she was pregnant and thats why they are taking the newborn and not he other children?..

Please don't guess at answers. It could be a lot of things. Hopefully OP will come back.

I'm not going to address the legal issue you have addressed until/unless I find out it is valid.

I suspect drug use is not involved or all of the children would have suffered and would be either in care OR adopted.

Wondergirl · Dec 10, 2011, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by cheekimunki11

No drugs weren't involved so that wasn't the reason why they took her off us

She stated this earlier in this thread.

GV70 · Dec 11, 2011, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by cheekimunki11

The reason why she was being put up for adoption in the first place, is because we are unfit parents. The local authority in the UK. The family situation is that as far as the local authority are concerned, we would pose a risk to our daughter and also she would come to significant harm if she were to be placed in our care. I am the child's mother. she would be 8 months old. the siblings are 2 years old and 3 years old

Originally Posted by ScottGem

You already told us they deemed you unfit. But you aren't telling us WHY?

That's the question. WHY?
I know England is an adoption unfriendly country.
By the way there are no such legal terms as legal parent, custody and visitation in the UK. The biological parent is always the parent unless a lesbian couple is involved/ that's the only case where a father may be excluded completely from his child's life/

If you not agree to the adoption, then the court has to be asked to dispense with the consent of you and your husband/partner. This will involve a hearing in front of a sheriff called a 'proof hearing', during which evidence will be presented. Again -EVIDENCE will be presented.

According to The Adoption and Children Act 2002,
(1)A placement order is an order made by the court authorising a local authority to place a child for adoption with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the authority.

(2)The court may not make a placement order in respect of a child unless—

(a)the child is subject to a care order,

(b)the court is satisfied that the conditions in section 31(2) of the 1989 Act (conditions for making a care order) are met,

31 Recovery by parent etc. where child not placed or is a baby

(1)Subsection (2) applies where—

(a)a child who is not for the time being placed for adoption is being provided with accommodation by an adoption agency, and

(b)the agency would be authorised to place the child for adoption under section 19 if consent to placement under that section had not been withdrawn.

(2)If any parent or guardian of the child informs the agency that he wishes the child to be returned to him, the agency must return the child to him within the period of seven days beginning with the request unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of.

(3)Subsection (4) applies where—

(a)a child is placed for adoption by an adoption agency and either the child is less than six weeks old or the agency has at no time been authorised to place the child for adoption, and

(b)any parent or guardian of the child informs the agency that he wishes the child to be returned to him,

Unless an application is, or has been, made for a placement order and the application has not been disposed of.

(4)The agency must give notice of the parent's or guardian's wish to the prospective adopters who must return the child to the agency within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.

(5)A prospective adopter who fails to comply with subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

(6)As soon as a child is returned to an adoption agency under subsection (4), the agency must return the child to the parent or guardian in question.

24 Revoking placement orders

(1)The court may revoke a placement order on the application of any person.

(2)But an application may not be made by a person other than the child or the local authority authorised by the order to place the child for adoption unless—

(a)the court has given leave to apply, and

(b)the child is not placed for adoption by the authority.

(3)The court cannot give leave under subsection (2)(a) unless satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances since the order was made.

(4)If the court determines, on an application for an adoption order, not to make the order, it may revoke any placement order in respect of the child.

(5)Where—

(a)an application for the revocation of a placement order has been made and has not been disposed of, and

(b)the child is not placed for adoption by the authority,

The child may not without the court's leave be placed for adoption under the order.

GV70 · Dec 11, 2011, 12:55 AM

A Local authority must apply for a placement orders if they conclude that adoption is in the best interests of the child, and the child is at risk of significant harm and the parents does not consent to placement for adoption.But the LA must give EVIDENCE, and you should know what reasons they used...

karissa.elise · Dec 11, 2011, 06:02 AM

Sorry I'm trying to help you guys help her.

I was just saying because why else would they only take the new born. And because she keeps avoiding the question everyone is asking. Why are you an unfit parent. Why did they take the baby not the other 2?

JudyKayTee · Dec 12, 2011, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by karissa.elise

sorry im jus trying to help you guys help her.

i was just saying because why else would they only take the new born. and because she keeps avoiding the question everyone is asking. why are you an unfit parent. why did they take the baby not the other 2?

- Because they are capable of caring for an older child. They are not capable of caring for a newborn.

Happens in my area frequently.

Perhaps OP will return and give us more info.

karissa.elise · Dec 12, 2011, 11:06 AM

If you can't care for one child how can you care for another.
I don't think its right to just take away one child if they are unfit parents they are unfit parents. A child is a child.
But I'm not dcf so I can't make that decision..
Hopefully you do the right thing and get your baby back.
Good luck

sexykim · Dec 12, 2011, 12:44 PM

My kids are up for adopstion and me and my boyfriend done everything and they let us down

ScottGem · Dec 12, 2011, 12:48 PM

Karissa, A reminder that we are dealing with the Law here, not what we feel may be fair or right. What Judy is saying is that, in her experience, the law draws a distinction between the ability to care for a newborn versus the ability to care for a toddler or older child. I understand your thinking logically that the toddlers or older children might not have gotten to be toddlers or older children if the parents couldn't care for them as infants. But if the law draws that distinction, then its possible. It could be that circumstances have changed. It could be there were issues with previous children and the DCF doesn't want them repeated. But this is all speculation until the OP returns to explain.

The main point is, when dealing with matters of law, if you don't know or understand what the law is in the circumstance, then you won't be helping by answering the question.