Again in the Daily Mail there is a story of a couple wrongly accused of abusing their baby. (
Here is the last one I wrote about.) This time the baby was adopted while the case was still in progress. By the time the couple were cleared (the baby had rickets and possibly a blood disorder) the adoption was official and there is almost zero chance that they will get their child, now three years old, back.
You can read the
story here.
Of course the child should never have been adopted while the case was still open. I wonder if the adoptive parents knew that the case was not finished? Shouldn't they have been warned before the adoption was finalized? Big mistakes were made but it's the attitude going forward that I don't understand.
The precident is that once the child has settled with its new family it would be too traumatic to uproot him/her again and return him/her to the birth parents. So the child is brought up by others because the authorities feel that this is best for the child.
They talk about attachment issues which can be very real and life changing. I'm sure some children might suffer long term attachment issues but why assume that this is probable for all children? Parents die and the children are brought up by other adults without attachment issues. During the war children were sent away for years and then returned afterwards. Many suffered from this but many got over it with no lasting effects. It does happen that young children change parents without attachment issues so why not consider some of the disadvantages of not returning the child to his parents?
Many adopted children (not all by any means) grow up with identity issues. Why not consider this? At the very least, most adopted children (not all) want to know the circumstances of their birth and adoption, and who their birth parents are. All these children are going to have to deal with the fact that they were removed from their birth parents for no good reason.
I feel desperately sorry for the adoptive parents as they are going to have to deal with the emotional fallout from this either sooner or later. Maybe it would be better for them if they dealt with it now while the boy is still only 3 years old. Let a wrong be put right, and allow everyone to heal. The alternative might be an angry 18 year old who doesn't want to forgive them.
I don't have the correct answer. There are no guarantees that either route will produce a happy ending, My concern is that there is a legal precident of never reversing an adoprion that rules out any real consideration for the people involved, including the child. How can a one-size-fits-all policy possibly be applied to children and parents in these cases? Where is the discussion about the possible benefits to the child of returning him to his parents?
It feels like they don't want to open a Pandora's box of what might happen if adoptions could be reversed under special circumstances. I don't for one minute think this is entirely about what is best for the child.