It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Couple wrongly accused of abusing their baby cannot have their children back because it is too late

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by skeptic1
While I agree that it was horrible that these kids were taken away from their parents due to a "mistake"
, what kind of impact would returning them now cause?

This is a horrible miscarriage of justice, but those kids are now settled with new families (or a new family) and haven't seen their natural parents for years. What kind of upheaval would returning them cause the kids? Especially if they were just snatched out of their current homes and returned to people who are basically strangers to them now.

I LOVE this argument cause it is so full of BS. So it is ok to take away a parents rights to be with their children, even though they did NOTHING wrong, because it will upset the kids?? Where was this kind of concern for the kids when they were removed from their parents home at the start?? Do you really think that removing them to begin with did not disrupt their lives? If people were so worried about what kind of impact it would have on the kids, they would have done a better job investigating the allegations from the start. Instead the investigation lasted years, but they pulled the kids out right away.

It is not too late. The kids can be placed in foster care and visitation can be set up and the kids can be worked back into a relationship with their parents. If they are not going to let the parents have their kids right away, this is the best next step.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by grimreaper797

No one is saying screw the parents.

The kids should not be taken immediately away from the family they are with now. It should be a slow process if the parents get their kids back.

What is best for the kids is what is important. Not wrecking their lives again is what is important.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by BorgHoffen
Its because they fled the country.

What else could they do? Government is taking your kids away from you on unfounded evidence. Put yourself in there shoes.

"Ive done nothing wrong, and they are taking away my children. They want to take away my only child I still have with us. They are going to give them to another family. They are going to tear apart what little family we have left."

Not to mention, they just took away three of your four children on false evidence. I have a feeling you wouldn't exactly be going "hm, what is the most reasonable course of action to take here." you would more likely be wondering how to stop them from completely ripping apart your family.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by MrWendal

That was what I said....if people would read and then quote my whole post, the BS moniker might fall away. :shk:

Slow reintroduction.....not snatching them away from the family they have now.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM
What a bad situation. What's the right answer here?

The children were already forced away from their family once. Is it fair to do it to them twice? What about the people who have been raising them, caring for them, and loving them since 2004? Does being a parent run deeper than blood? Is it not a task of the soul?

But then again, what right does the government have now to keep these parents from their children? They did no intentional harm - they followed advice from a professional, and the advice turned out to be bad. They couldn't have been expected to know this, and were surely devastated to learn about the harm it caused. It is not a patient's liability if a doctor mistreats them. They are innocent, loving parents - and the natural parents to these children.

What about shared custody? A compromise? But then, is compromise the right thing to do? Should the rightful parents, whoever that may be, be forced to give up their children part time? Should the children be subjected to a life of being raised under two separate and possibly conflicting moral values?

I have no idea. The arguments are too strong for both sides. All I know is, the idiot who had those parents raise their kid on fake milk should lose their license to practice.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

I think you already did a pretty good job of screwing up the kids when, for no founded reason, you stripped them away from their parents, and put them with a couple of adoptive parents, which to them=strangers.

You think that 5 year old girl thought "hm, my parents were charged with abuse, that may or may not be founded in evidence. It will take some time to sort this all out. In the meanwhile, I should just try to get use to my stay with these new adoptive parents"? No, a kid thinks roughly like this "my parents gave me away to these strangers. They must not want me anymore."

The two year old is probably most likely to be least effected by the change.

I agree that the parents should, AT THE VERY LEAST, be getting introduced to their children again, immediately.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:17 PM
Stories like this are sickening. Taking children away should be a LAST resort, after every other intervention/investigative measure has failed.

They'll take my kids away over my dead body and plenty of their dead bodies. I'm not giving up my kids for anyone, no matter what they accuse me of doing.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by skeptic1

This type of inquiry is not a matter of law. In defense of the wronged parents,
mind your business.

This hopefully will be reversed on appeal.

edit to add:

This judgement is , IMO, outside Judgicial scope. God complex on a bench.
just add one more crime against the parents and their family.

Next thing you know, the foster parents will get a judgement against the natural parents for child support.

God help anyone who thieves my kids, Robe or other.

[edit on 11-2-2009 by imd12c4funn]

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by MrWendal

That was what I said....if people would read and then quote my whole post, the BS moniker might fall away. :shk:

Slow reintroduction.....not snatching them away from the family they have now.

The harm was already done skeptic1, and it was how they were ripped away from their parents. So it`s ok to be taken away fast, but they have to be given back slowly....right?

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by Heike

How about you try understanding what I'm saying. I'll TRY to dumb it down for ya some more.

It doesn't matter now if the parents did anything wrong or not.

What matters is what is best for the CHILDREN

Let me ask one question. I'll even dumb it down so you get it.

Who are you, or anyone besides the natural law abiding parents to interpret what is the best for my children?

definitely, the doctor new what was best for the children.

This is proof that interpretation is what caused this whole dilema.

It also should stop anyone else from sticking their beliefs in a family's business, proven innocent and all.

I hope this makes sense, for, I tried to say it as easily as posible to be absorbed by those who think they should have a say in the matter, including the Judge sitting, hands covering his sphincter

1 Kings 3:

23 The king said, "This one says, 'My son is alive and your son is dead,' while that one says, 'No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.' "

24 Then the king said, "Bring me a sword." So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other."

26 The woman whose son was alive was filled with compassion for her son and said to the king, "Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don't kill him!"
But the other said, "Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!"

[edit on 11-2-2009 by imd12c4funn]

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:25 PM
this sucks!!! i've been a social worker for years amd in my country we look at the positives that close relatives can be / or mean. This ordeal i simply do not understand ...... where is the HUMAN factor in it??

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:25 PM
The parents need to sue the entire system starting from the government down.

Then let see if the "system" will keep talking BS after that.

Just sue for millions upon millions and more.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:53 PM
"Biological parents always know what's best for their kids"
"Kids are always better off with their biological parents"
"Biological parents have a RIGHT to have their children"

These are not facts, they're opinions, and they're often wrong.

All this outrage and defensiveness is based on "Nobody better take MY kids away."
You parents are thinking about your own wants and needs, and what's best for YOU, not what's best for the kids. You act as if your kids were your property, not as if they were innocent, fragile human beings who suffer permanent damage from childhood trauma. It's the parent's responsibility to care for the happiness and safety of their children, not the children's responsibility to be around so their parents can be happy.

How about instead of putting yourself in the parents' shoes, you put yourself in the children's shoes? I see it from the kids' point of view because I'm not a parent, but I was an abused child. Until I was three 1/2 years old I lived with my grandparents, and then my biological mother decided she wanted me back. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me, and 47+ years later I'm still not the same person I would have been if that hadn't happened.

I have worked for two different nonprofits now that deal with abused/neglected kids, and biological parents do things to their kids that shouldn't happen to a rat. Automatically assuming that the biological parents are the best place for children to be is illogical and unreasonable. The "rights" of biological parents to have their kids just sets up another generation who grow up to be lousy parents and mess up their kids.

Perhaps in this one particular case, depending on the details - which we probably don't know the half of - there might be some justification for trying to put the "family of origin" back together in a way that doesn't traumatize these kids all over again. But most of you jump right in without knowing or considering the facts and details and just declare that "the biological parents should get the kids." As if biological relationship = love. It doesn't.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:57 PM
I am NOT a violent person. But someone would not survive this experience.

'nough said.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:04 PM
although this case is sad for the kids & biological parents, its a much bigger problem in the uk for familys, the social servises backed up by the one sided courts makes for a nasty group of people you wouldnt want near you, in the uk, courts normally side with the woman getting custody no matter what happens, this leads to the father losing every thing, paying through the nose & if he`s lucky he may be granted 1 hour visit a month !!!, this type of case has lead to the birth of (farthers 4 justice) a group of fighting dads who dress up us super hero`s

also the nasty group of social servises & courts are quite often in the news on other very sad cases like the last one called (baby p) who was visited by social services many many times, baby p died of more than 60 injuries including a broken spine !!!, how on earth do social services & doctors miss injuries like this & watch baby p get beaten to death ???.
there is no shortage of cases where negligence & psycological bullying of familys & single parents are ordered what to do, how to do it, when to do it, & society as a whole encourages the breake down of family units, offering more support for broken familys.
men in the uk today actually have less family rights than dogs.
this case is a classic (pass the buck case) doctor made the first mistake but gets away with it cuase he is protected by the courts, courts pass the buck as they dont make the law, just enforce it. family runs away, they must have realised the nasty people had them in there sights !!. kids held captive by the law wich is ruled & enforced by yet more (pass the buck people) at this point the battle for the kids was already lost befor judgment was made !!.
trying to reverse this sad situation, well its now a horrible case every one in law just wants it to go away !!, the uk law will continue passing the buck, untill it goes away, or the case gets taken to the european court of human rights, the biological parents may stand a good chance of reversing the sad sittuation here, but it will take several years befor it gets heard in the eu courts !!, if the biological parents are to ever see there kids again, the parents may be in there 50`s & the kids will be married & have familys !!!, this way of doing things suits the social services, law, police & every one involved in destroying familys very nicley indeed.
i have no idea why social services think they are of any help to familys ?.
dont become a parent unless you live in a country where a prenuptual agreement can be legally enforced, like (our children-childs name-can not be adopted or taken away without our consent, & if taken by the courts then must be returned or the courts be liable for damages).
prenuptual agreements do not count for any thing in uk courts.
in this case the doctor should first be struck of & no longer allowed to practice becuase he advised a parent to give a growing infant an insuficiant diet wich lead to the problems, the rest of this case looks very much like knee jerk reactions from both courts, social services & parents, the people that adopted the children in this case should show understanding & mercy to the children & there biological parents, & make it posible for things to be healed.



social services


biological parents

my opinion

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:05 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Heike

Originally posted by FiatLux
Try understanding what I said.

How about you try understanding what I'm saying. I'll TRY to dumb it down for ya some more.

It doesn't matter now if the parents did anything wrong or not.

What matters is what is best for the CHILDREN. The parents are adults, they can deal. The innocent children who have already suffered are the ones who deserve to be happy, and that should override all other considerations.

You, as a parent, do not have a 'right' to have your own children back if it's going to upset and traumatize them.

Can you HEAR me yet?

You are dead wrong. It matters, and matters very much that the parents rights were abused, and now they will never see their kids again because of this. This can easily cause major depression for both parents. No they may not be able to just deal with it. I'll be surprised if they could just deal with it. Things like this are things that can ruin lives relationships, why people can not function in society, and think about suicide.

This sets an extremely dangerous precipitant that the courts can do anything they want to in the name of the child whether it is best or not for that child. When in question of whether to return a child back to their parents who have been fighting long and hard to get them back, the courts could go back to this case and tell the parents sorry even though you were not at fault.

Why do you think tearing a family apart, and not bringing it back together when the courts are wrong. How are you sure it is in the best interest of the children not to be reunited with their parents? How do you know that the children will not suffer, because they can't see their brothers and sisters they know they have?

If they are fortunate after they grow up, they might find each other and have a tearful reunion thinking of all the years that have been taken away from them that they could have been have with their parents, brothers, and sisters.

I'm sorry, but this is extremely detestable to me.

Also, I'm suspicious of the doctor in the first place. How do we know the doctor and child services weren't working together to get the child into foster care to be adopted? There can be money involved. The doctor could have been paid off.

The doctor should have known that the baby drinking soy milk without the proper nutritional supplements would cause the fissures in the bones. No, the doctor just out right accused the parents of being abusive. If all three kids are cute, no problem in getting them adopted.

I honestly do not believe child services acts or works in the best interest of the family. They rather see the children in foster care and get adopted. How do we honestly know the children were not abused in foster care, because many are. How do we know the adoptive parents are better for these children? How do we know the adoptive parents aren't doing a worse job, or not loving the kids as they should be loved?

Yea sure the child care service workers comes around every once in awhile, and asks some questions. The children could be bribed or blackmailed into telling the case worker what they want to hear. The house is cleaned right before the case worker is stopping by.

This isn't a rosy world as you already know. The children are better off with their natural parents if there is no abuse. The biological parents, especially the mother, has a natural instinct to love her children more so than anyone else.

I'll guarantee those children have scars with them wondering why their parents don't love them. They may believe their parents hate them. They will always have a hope that they will be returned to their parents even after two years. I know the oldest definitely will. I honestly believe it will scar them worse if they are not returned to their parents.

I hate to see the counseling bills when they are older if they are ever able to find out the truth. Have a teary reunion, and then found out that they couldn't be returned because too much time passed?

Then how much time is too much time? Next thing you know the courts will decide that if one year passes, that will be too much time. Then six months is too much time.

Heck, people will have to take courses to be parents. Lets not stop there, they will have to accept a yearly home invasion by child services. Wait, we can't trust anyone, so monthly home visits. Hmmm, weekly home visits would be better. What the heck child services can pop in at any time, any day, and you better be papered.

This is costing the government too much, so why not just take all children from birth, and put them in state run nursery's, and make sure they supposedly have all the care and education they need from birth until adult hood. We will hire everyone who hasn't given birth to work in the nursery's, boarding houses, and schools.

The parents don't have any rights to even see their kids. They are all bad parents to begin with, and this would be best for the children. That way they will not learn any prejudices from their birth mother or father. Their birth mother and father can not unduly influence them. They will learn what we want them to learn to become "good and productive" citizens of society.

Besides the parents don't have any rights or feelings. They can just deal with it.


posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:10 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Logarock

We are insane to say take it slow instead of traumatize these children all over again? And, make a freaking point without resorting to name calling.

Neither Heike nor myself have said that the biological parents should be kept away from the kids now that the abuse charge has been shown to be a big, fat mistake.

We've both stated that a slow reintroduction to the biological parents would do less to re-traumatize these children than to immediately snatch them away from the family that has loved and raised them for the past 4 years.

We aren't saying don't do it at all. We are saying take it slow for the sake of these children, their mental health, their emotional stability, and their futures.

Maybe if some of you all decided to actually read what we've said instead of jumping the gun or interpreting what you THINK we said, you'd readjust your perspective.

[edit on 2/11/2009 by skeptic1]

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in