Should the adoption be reversed?

[fuji]

http://mobile.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/1003981

Woman wrongly convicted of murdering her son, spent 13 years in jail, and had her two other children removed from her and put up for adoption. She is now only asking to have her name put up so the lost children can find her if they want but it seems like the whole process was wrong from the outset.

What a mess.

 

[SS Sharla]

After 13 years you can't just "reverse" an adoption. The children have a new family and can't be uprooted to go live with someone who has spent the last 13 years removed from society. But they should abosolutely put her name on the registry so her children can find her if they choose to see her someday and build a relationship.

 

[fuji]

Maybe if the kids knew that their mother did not willingly give them up they would want to be uprooted. I think at least she should have visitation rights. No that's not fair to the new parents who adopted them but nothing about this is fair.

 

[Mervyn]

The kids would have bonded to their new parents at this point, undoing the adoption would not be the best thing for them imo, but they are old enough 14/16 to know what has happened with their mother and visitations should be allowed. Their adoptive parents wishes must also be taking into consideration as well.

 

[Aardvark154]

After 13 years you can't just "reverse" an adoption. The children have a new family and can't be uprooted to go live with someone who has spent the last 13 years removed from society. But they should abosolutely put her name on the registry so her children can find her if they choose to see her someday and build a relationship.

I agree. The standard is the best interest of the child - and at this point that is a loving and stable home - which presuming the Ontario child protective services agency has properly done its job - is the case with the adoptive family. The time for the children to be able to make contact is after they are 18.

I do agree Fuji it is indeed a mess. I must also wonder was another expert medical opinion ever presented at trial?

 

[fuji]

And when the children learn what happened and express their outrage at not having been put in contact with their birth mother sooner will you still claim it's their interest this served?

How can you say this is in their interest when they haven't been asked?

This is not just a custody issue, the truth itself is being denied to them. How is it not in their interests to know the truth, to learn that their birth mother loved them, that they were forcibly removed from her by government error?

 

[Sisyphus]

The question really is do we respect human rights? if we have a modicum of respect for human rights' the answer is simple. Everyone has a fundamental right to know and be cared for by their real parents. There is no debate. the right thing is to recognise and gradually enable the real mother to know and raise her kids. the adoptive parents 'needs and wants are inconsequential. They have a DUTY to make it easier to for the real mother to care for her kids.

 

[fuji]

I do see this as different than a typical adoption. In a typical adoption the mother voluntarily gives up her children in the belief that they will be going to a better life, and I can see it disrupts the adoption process if she's able to flip flop on that decision over the next 18 years. Moreover in a typical adoption the children grow up believing the truth: That their mother voluntarily gave them up hoping they would get a better life.

In this case the children are growing up believing in a lie--they do not know that their mother wanted to keep them, that they were forcibly removed from her, and that she is now searching for them.

At the very least the children should be given a choice. They should be told something like, "Your birth mother did not voluntarily give you up, you were taken from her, and she is looking for you now. Do you want to see her?"

If their interests are what matters, their opinion should be sought.

 

[Aardvark154]

And when the children learn what happened and express their outrage at not having been put in contact with their birth mother sooner will you still claim it's their interest this served?

How can you say this is in their interest when they haven't been asked?

It is a tough situation but again the Judge is going to consider the best interest of the children. Frankly all else no matter how it impassions you is irrelevant. Yes that may well involve not having the children make contact until the age of 18, indeed from the article in the Toronto Star you referenced, the mother is seeking nothing more than that.

The question really is do we respect human rights? if we have a modicum of respect for human rights' the answer is simple. Everyone has a fundamental right to know and be cared for by their real parents. There is no debate. the right thing is to recognise and gradually enable the real mother to know and raise her kids. the adoptive parents 'needs and wants are inconsequential. They have a DUTY to make it easier to for the real mother to care for her kids.

You are taking a general rule and attempting to apply it to this specific case where it just does not fit. As I already replied to Fuji above, the standard is the best interest of the child. In this case tearing the two boys away from the people who for all intents and purposes are their parents is most certainly not in their best intest to reunite them with their birth mother whom they haven't seen for over 13 years.

 

[fuji]

It is a tough situation but again the Judge is going to consider the best interest of the children.

I think it's in the best interests of the children that they know the truth. In fact, I think the children are as much victims here as anybody else, and by denying them the truth, they're being denied their right to sue for damages over what's been done to them.

The mother plainly was damaged by her 13 years in custody for a crime she did not commit, but the children, too, were harmed by being forcibly separated from the mother that loved them.

At 14 and 16 they are also old enough to make a decision on their own about what they want, if the information is given to them in a controlled and careful fashion by a professional child psychologist.

 

[customer]

The mother should press charges against those who took her children for kidnapping, because that is what they did.

That jackass doctor should be held accountable for his actions and made to pay. What kind of society do we live in where we allow a man to get away with ruining countless lives through lying, but want to string up another man for killing a raccoon?

 

[rama putri]

What a mess.

I could not agree more. The person to hang in this case is Charles Smith who's living free in BC.

 

[customer]

I could not agree more. The person to hang in this case is Charles Smith who's living free in BC.

Stick him in jail and let Bubba make him a bitch.

 

[Sisyphus]

Innocent people go to prison all the time.

 

[NYguardianangel]

I agree with serveral individuals that outline the adoption can't be reversed, but the children should have the opportunity to meet and get to know their "mother"; that said, I see a HUGH financial and legal fallout from all of this, the city of Toronto, Charles Smith, Child protection services, and Province of Ontario all should be held accountable, to that.... Your right fuji........ WHAT A FUCK'N MESS. I feel for the family. One thing that the justice systems should remember there is a reason that medical practice is still call a SCIENCE, we're still trying to get it right, all it takes is one Asshole (we'll call him Mr. Smith) and the whole process goes up in smoke.

 

[Dougal Short]

I must also wonder was another expert medical opinion ever presented at trial?

Unfortunately this has become "typical" of cases involving Dr. Smith. The lives that man has ruined through his incompetence...

 

[krazyplayer]

I can't understand why he isn't on trial. He has devastated so many peoples lives because of his ego. Most of these people were dealing with the death of a child. They all went to jail. Why is he out walking around? There is not doubt he broke laws. - criminal breach of trust, fraud etc.

 

[Aardvark154]

The mother should press charges against those who took her children for kidnapping, because that is what they did.

Overreaction does no one any good. The child protective services people acted in good faith following a lawful conviction, they did nothing wrong. Now the mother may have grounds for a civil suit against Ontario or against Dr. Smith but that is a very different thing than saying this was kidnapping.

 

[Aardvark154]

Unfortunately this has become "typical" of cases involving Dr. Smith. The lives that man has ruined through his incompetence...

Agreed, I still find it curious that other (defence) expert witnesses did not challenge his conclusions, or did juries regard Dr. Smith as beyond question?