Baby Ann case

[the 12 th man]

I think the Supreme Court got that one wrong.2 years is a long time to allow someone change their mind about an adoption.

I think the child should have been left with the adoptive Parents.

[anto1208]

its a though one i dont envy the judges in this case .

its very hard on the adoptive parents but the mother and father of the child where only students when she was born they put her in to foster care for 4 months then into adoptive care , After 3 months in adoptive care the mother withdrew consent which would have made the baby 7 months old . it was the adoptive parents that dragged it through the courts for the next 13 months .

i think the courts are right on this one

[pete]

Must say I don't know all the facts but how long is too long for birth parents to change their mind? 3 months? 9 months? 3 years?

:confused:

I think very harsh on adoptees as I don't understand how could change mind so quickly. Would birth parents have won ruling it they were unmarried? Should that make a difference?

[the 12 th man]

Would birth parents have won ruling it they were unmarried? Should that make a difference?

Probably not pete.That was the thing that swayed the verdict(if I'm reading this right).The couple got married to strenghten their case to reclaim the child.

[onceahoop]

Probably not pete.That was the thing that swayed the verdict(if I'm reading this right).The couple got married to strenghten their case to reclaim the child.

It would appear, from what I heard on the radio yesterday, that there was still one piece of the process to go when the natural parents changed their mind. It would also appear that Social Workers played a part in dragging the process out. It was an awful position for the Judges to be in and an even more distressing time for both sets of parents. I suppose you could say that there was no easy answer and that the Judgements of the Supreme Court Judges had to reflect the Law as it is.

[Block G Raptor]

Oh God love the Judges and the adoptive parents. what about the child? how do you tell a 2 year old that mammy and daddy aren't mammy and daddy anymore and here's your new Mammy and Daddy. I know some will say the same thing happens when a child is adopted in the first place but as most adoption's take place very early in a childs life it not so much an issue. Think of the Child for god sake

[anto1208]

Oh God love the Judges and the adoptive parents. what about the child? how do you tell a 2 year old that mammy and daddy aren't mammy and daddy anymore and here's your new Mammy and Daddy. I know some will say the same thing happens when a child is adopted in the first place but as most adoption's take place very early in a childs life it not so much an issue. Think of the Child for god sake


the child was 7 months old when the mother withdrew concent .

it was the adoptive parents that dragged it out for 13 extra months .

the child is allways better off with its natural mother as long as the mother is a fit parent , which in this case was never in doubt .

[onceahoop]

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1723919&issue_id=14890

Judge McGuinness in her ruling said she "remained uncertain and aprehensive about the effects of a transfer of Ann's custody and about her future in general but that the present case must be decided under the constitution and the law as it now stands." This is as clear a signal from the Judiciary to the Executive, notwithstanding the seperation of powers, that the rights of the child are not adequately covered in the Constitution. Mr. Justice Adrian Hederman noted what he termed a most disturbing feature of the case. At the time the natural mother requested the return of the child, Ann had been 10 months with her adoptive parens was was 14 months old. Ten months had now elapsed since that request.

The 5 Judges were unanimous in their decision.

[micls]

Oh God love the Judges and the adoptive parents. what about the child? how do you tell a 2 year old that mammy and daddy aren't mammy and daddy anymore and here's your new Mammy and Daddy. I know some will say the same thing happens when a child is adopted in the first place but as most adoption's take place very early in a childs life it not so much an issue. Think of the Child for god sake
Exactly. That child will without a doubt be traumatised. Yes i feel sorry for the parents but they made a decision....they changed their minds and now its the child who will suffer. Very Selfish IMO.

the child was 7 months old when the mother withdrew concent .

it was the adoptive parents that dragged it out for 13 extra months .

the child is allways better off with its natural mother as long as the mother is a fit parent , which in this case was never in doubt .

At 7 months all children identify the parents who have brought them up. It would still have been traumatic.

Id be more worried about what kind of people the adoptive parents were if they didnt contest it-they loved that child for 7 months(the most important time in bonding) and were expected to give her up because the parents changed their minds??

I disagree that the child is always better off with natural parents especially after a length of time. That child never bonded with the natural mother. How do you know she is a fit parent?? She has never been a parent.

I think they got this one wrong. Yes i can imagine how difficult it would be for the birth parents but they made a decsion-maybe the wrong one, but others shouldnt suffer-the child in particular- because of this

[onceahoop]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE3D7173CF93BA15751C0A961948260

An interesting view on bonding in the above link.

It's quite clear from the Judges in the Baby Ann case that they had to apply the law. It's now up to the legislators to come up with a solution to improve children's rights in the constitution. If you follow my link in my previous post to unison(it's free to register) you'll find an informative piece.

[micls]

Id have to agree there is some bonding during pregnancy but id say its quickly forgotten if not followed through on. Id think the main bonding would be on the part of the mother. There is obviously an instinctive thing with the child but i cat see this lasting as a child forms a bond with others.

Definately not enough emphasis on childrens rights in our constitution. something that will be changed soon hopefully.

[pete]

Has there been any action on the social workers or whoever messed up by delaying the case?

[Metrostars]

the child was 7 months old when the mother withdrew concent .

it was the adoptive parents that dragged it out for 13 extra months .




Incorrect:


At the time the natural mother requested the return of the child, Ann had been 10 months with her adoptive parens was was 14 months old. Ten months had now elapsed since that request.


The root of the problem is that the adoption board had not completed the paper work after 10 months. It was ultimately their skrewup.

In the end the courts got it right. The adoption was not finalized. Had the adoption been finalized, the courts probably would have ruled in the adoptive parents favour.



...

the child is allways better off with its natural mother as long as the mother is a fit parent , which in this case was never in doubt .

I cannot agree with this statement. If she was such a good mother, why did she put the baby up for adoption in the first place? Also the hasty marriage to the baby's father sounds a bit dubious to say the least.

People who choose to adopt have to go through a lot of crap to get approved to allow to adopt. Everything from blood tests, home visits from social workers, police checks, financial checks, employment checks, etc. All this and then your adoption board/agency can decide if you are eligible to adopt.

[Billsthoughts]

I cannot agree with this statement. If she was such a good mother, why did she put the baby up for adoption in the first place? Also the hasty marriage to the baby's father sounds a bit dubious to say the least.

.

That is a very harsh and smug comment.
The mother in these cases has a lot of conflicting emotions. I wouldnt begrudge her making a mistake. have a ****in heart for jaysus sake.

[micls]

That is a very harsh and smug comment.
The mother in these cases has a lot of conflicting emotions. I wouldnt begrudge her making a mistake. have a ****in heart for jaysus sake.

I wouldnt begrudge her making a mistake but i would begrudge her the selfishness shes showing now....she made a mistake, she should be the one that has to deal with it, not the adoptive parents who loved the child and certainly not the poor child.

[Metrostars]

That is a very harsh and smug comment.
The mother in these cases has a lot of conflicting emotions. I wouldnt begrudge her making a mistake. have a ****in heart for jaysus sake.

We can call her decision a mistake but she is really having it both ways: For whatever reason, SHE decided not to keep the baby. Now she wants it back. I have a problem with this. Where was she for the 10 months when the adoptive parents were taking care of HER baby? Seriously. You might call me cold hearted for saying that but I do think that is a legitimate question to ask because that is what happened. It was not a week or two or a month or two. But it was 10 months.

[Macy]

They were still prospective adoptive parents - they were foster parents as things stood. There's two parts to the adoption - the final consent is deliberately after a few months cooling off period. Real blame has to go to the process and the time delay, although it's hard not to be more sympathetic to the prospective adoptive parents. Should the cooling off period have been less? Should there have been more interaction with social workers with the young couple (another consequence of the public service employment number embargo?)? imo the real issues are being lost in the clouds of the moral high ground and the conveniently timed announcement of the referendum*


*a referendum that they won't discuss wording for, as there'll be too much debate about it according to our esteemed leader.