JUDGE HOLMAN IS AN ARSEHOLE

Judge rules Rotherham toddler should be taken away from ‘perfect’ adoptive couple and sent to live with family of the father who initially showed no interest in him

  • Justice Holman said toddler will live with family of father who rejected him
  • Ruled that the toddler should be moved from the ‘perfect’ adoptive couple
  • Toddler went to live with adoptive parents when he was seven months old
  • Five months later, genetic father said he wanted him to live with his sister
  • Judge said it was ‘finely balanced case’ but rejected adoption application

Mr Justice Holman (pictured) said that in almost 20 years as a judge of the Family Division he had rarely heard a more harrowing case

Mr Justice Holman (pictured) said that in almost 20 years as a judge of the Family Division he had rarely heard a more harrowing case
A judge has ruled that a toddler should be moved from the ‘perfect’ adoptive couple who have loved and cared for him for the last 13 months to live with the family of the father who initially shunned him. 
Mr Justice Holman said that in almost 20 years as a judge of the Family Division he had rarely heard a more harrowing case. 
Ruling that the 20-month-old boy should live with his aunt, he added: ‘I know, and deeply regret, that my decision will cause intense grief. 
‘After hearing all the evidence and argument, and after due consideration, I am, however, clear as to the outcome, which I do not reach narrowly or marginally.’
He admitted public reaction to his judgment was likely to divide opinion – with some agreeing and some strongly disagreeing with what he had decided.
The boy, who can only be identified as C, was removed from his mother, who has had problems with alcohol and drugs and has had two other children adopted, five days after his birth in March 2013.
The mother and the man she thought was C’s father registered the birth and C was fostered. 
He then went on to live with his prospective adopters when he was seven months old.
They were assessed as the ‘perfect’ adoptive couple and a social worker for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in South Yorkshire said that, if she could paint the ideal adopters, they were not far from the mark.
Five months later, said the judge in a ruling made public today, another man came forward claiming he was the true genetic father, and it was quickly proved that he was.
This man, although unable to care full-time for a child, wanted his son to move to live with his sister so that C could grow up within his birth family and have the opportunity to enjoy a normal legal and psychological relationship with his father, paternal half-sibling and other members of his extended family throughout his life.
The aunt, who lives in the Home Counties, had been assessed as a good parent to her own son, who is only a little older than C, and as a suitable carer for the child.
She had paid generous and sincere tribute to the prospective adopters and said she was grateful for what they had done.
She admitted her brother could been better towards C, but said he was a very caring father and brother. 
The judge of the Family Division ruled at the High Court (pictured) that the 20-month-old boy should live with his aunt in the Home Counties

The judge of the Family Division ruled at the High Court (pictured) that the 20-month-old boy should live with his aunt in the Home Counties
The judge said he accepted unreservedly that C was very secure with the couple who wanted to adopt him. 
They had a stable and loving relationship, had provided an excellent home and were deeply attached to him.
One of them had said: ‘He is such a happy, settled, loving little person who knows who we are…I am so proud of him. I love him so much. I will always love him. He will always be my son.’
The judge said the agony which the couple and their wider families must have experienced since C’s true genetic father came forward and opposed the adoption ‘must have been, and still be, appalling’.
‘Yet they have continued selflessly to care for the child with love and devotion to an exemplary standard.
‘They have also said that, if I decide that the child should indeed move, they will co-operate and participate fully in a process of phased introductions between him and the aunt, and a phased process of moving him from them to her.
‘That is very selfless of them and underlines their love for the child and that they will do everything possible for him.’
The judge said C’s father had known within a very few weeks of the birth that it was highly likely he was his son, but took no action at all. 
He showed no real interest in the baby, or even much interest in seeing him, although he did ask the mother if he could do so.
‘For almost a year, the father showed no interest at all in, or commitment at all to, the child, and denied rather than asserted that he was the father.’
A very heavy responsibility for events lay upon the father, added the judge: ‘If he had shown any real interest in the baby and put himself forward in any way as the likely father, then the true facts would probably have emerged much earlier and the baby would never have been placed.’
The judge said there was likely to be short, and possibly long-term harm if C was moved to his aunt, but that could be mitigated by specialist training and support for the aunt, which she would gladly accept.
‘The unquantifiable but potentially considerable advantage of a move to the aunt is the bridge to the paternal original family.’
He added: ‘It is my firm judgment and view that it is positively better for C not to be adopted but to move to the aunt. In any event, I certainly do not consider that making an adoption order would be better for C than not doing so.
‘Accordingly I must, as I do, determine not to make an adoption order and must dismiss the adoption application.’
He concluded: ‘I described this as a finely balanced case. By the end, I do not think that it is.
‘I am clear that the welfare of C throughout his life decisively requires that he is not adopted but moves to live with the aunt. It is my duty to make that welfare paramount.’ 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2862452/Judge-rules-toddler-taken-away-perfect-adoptive-couple-sent-live-family-father-initially-showed-no-him.html#ixzz3L3npO5an
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *