[sploop!]

Couple vow to fight adoption 'miscarriage of justice'

Appeal court judges say removal of three children may have been wrong but law prevents them being returned to family

* Press Association
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 February 2009 09.14 GMT

A husband and wife whose children were taken from them have pledged to fight on after a court decided they could be victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Nicky and Mark Webster, from Cromer, in Norfolk, said there were "a lot of unanswered questions" resulting from yesterday's appeal court ruling.

They were refused permission to apply to set aside adoption orders made in December 2005 for their three eldest children, identified only as A, B and C.

The ruling of three appeal judges said the couple "may be right" in thinking they had been harshly treated but added the court could do nothing for them.

Nicky Webster said last night: "It has left a lot of unanswered questions.

"On the one hand they are saying it's in our favour and they fully understand why we're doing what we're doing. But on the other hand they're saying they can't help us.

"We're going to discuss with our legal team where we go from here."

Care proceedings were taken by the local authority on the basis that one of the children had suffered non-accidental injuries allegedly inflicted by one or both of his parents.

Evidence came to light in 2007 showing that the child may not have suffered deliberate injury. His fractures may have been attributable to scurvy or iron deficiency caused by a feeding disorder.

The couple applied to the courts to try to get their children back.

But a summary of yesterday's decision released by the three appeal judges reads: "The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders.

"The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case.

"The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.

"It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong."

The statement continued: "Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.

"It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.

"If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual."

The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order – a move which could have enabled the children to be returned to them or at least allow them to have contact.

Nicky Webster said: "The decision was something we were expecting, to be honest. We were told not to be too hopeful. We're still trying to work out exactly what it all means."

When asked if she felt their names had been cleared by yesterday's ruling, she said: "Not really. They've only skimmed the surface. They haven't dug deeper.

"You see cases on the news about ­people harming their children. It's beyond belief that we were put in a similar pigeon hole to that."

Mark Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland to stop their fourth child, Brandon, aged two, being taken into care at birth but last year the local authority dropped proceedings after accepting that he was in "robust good health".

The parents have not seen their other three children since January 2005, when they were five, three and two. They have always denied they caused the fractures.

Brandon has never had contact with his siblings.

Nicky Webster, who is expecting the couple's fifth child on 1 April, said: "I've never stopped thinking about my children. We don't want Brandon to grow up on his own."

source

This is a truly terrible story. I don't have any idea what the 'right' answer is, but I really feel for these parents, who have had their children stolen from them by the state as the result of an awful error of judgement.

For the state it's one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' stories. For everyone else, just a disaster.