BBC News


Page last updated at 10:19 GMT, Monday, 16 February 2009

The ethics of keeping a child from its parents

Anonymous mother and daughter

A child is removed after its parents are accused of abuse. The child is adopted and settles with a new family. If the parents are then cleared, should the child be returned, ask ethicists Rebecca Roache and Barbro Bjorkman.

Mark and Nicky Webster have lost a bid to overturn adoption orders on three of their children.

Judges said the Websters may have suffered a miscarriage of justice

The children were removed in 2005, following concerns over injuries incurred to one of the children.

Subsequent investigations revealed that the injuries may have resulted from a medical condition, and that the Websters may not have harmed the child after all.

However, with the children now settled with their adoptive families, senior appeal court judges have ruled that while the Websters may have suffered a miscarriage of justice, it is not in the children's interests to overturn the adoption orders.

Assuming that the Websters are indeed innocent of harming their child, has the court made the right decision?

Different case

One reason to answer "no" is that, in most cases where the state removes a child from its parents, consideration of the child's interests overrides consideration of the parents' interests. This is what has happened in this case, too.

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

But this case differs in an important way from other cases of state intervention. When a child is removed from abusive parents, we generally think that by abusing their child, the parents lose their claim to have their own interests considered.

However, without reason to believe that the Websters have harmed their child, they can demand that their interests are considered alongside those of their children.

But this may not be enough to warrant overturning the adoption orders. The demand that the children are returned to their parents may be motivated by the belief that doing so would "undo" the wrong committed when the children were removed.

Not all wrongs can be undone, however, and reuniting the Websters with their children would not put things right in the way that returning a stolen item to its owner would. It could cause great distress both to the children and to their adoptive parents.


In this case, perhaps the best that can be done is to compensate the Websters financially. While this would not solve the problem, it is a symbol of recognition that a serious wrong has been committed.

Even so, paying compensation does not excuse the state from making the right decision about whether to reunite the Websters with their children.

Is the court right that the interests of the children are best served by upholding the adoption orders?

Distress and disruption

Removing them from their adoptive parents would almost certainly distress and disrupt the children - but, except in extreme cases, we do not generally view distress and disruption as reason to keep children from their parents.

Children are distressed and disrupted when their parents divorce, when they are forced to change schools, when their parents prevent them from keeping certain company, and so on.

Most would agree that the benefits to children of living with their biological parents outweigh the distress and disruption that they sometimes suffer at the hands of their parents.

In the case of the Websters' children, even if the distress and disruption of removing them from their adoptive parents is significant, it is not obvious that it would outweigh the benefits of reuniting them with their biological parents.

Rebecca Roache is James Martin Research Fellow at Oxford's Faculty of Philosophy. Barbro Björkman is Marie Curie Postdoc Fellow at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.

Add your comments on this story, using the form below.

Why couldn't the Websters be introduced to the children as natural parents? With so many families living with multiple sets of parents, and with good parental influences of uncles, aunts and grandparents generally in decline because of geographic mobility, if the Websters and the adoptive parents genuinely want to optimise and maximise the good parental influences over their children's lives, this compromise ought to be workable. See them as god-parents or step-parents or aunts and uncles, let them be part of nurturing them. But if "possession" is the argument, then the children are best kept away from any such argument and from the people who support it.
Claire Wilkinson, Woodbridge Suffolk

I cannot understand why councils are permitted to adopt out children whose parents are suspected but not proven abusers. Surely there could be a way for the children to be fostered and parental visits supervised. That way the children would be cared for but not lose contact with their parents.
Caroline Brown, Rochester, UK

This is utter madness. There can be no justification for not returning children to parents who have been cleared of abuse. Are these children going to grow up and feel that a childhood away from their biological parents was a fair exchange for some short term turmoil in being removed from their adoptive situation? This is nothing short of abduction by the state.
Robert, Kinross

It is extraordinary that a decision can be made to keep children away from their natural parents when the latter have done no wrong - this is jurisprudence gone mad. The distress caused to the children now is as nothing compared to the distress they will suffer when they find out as adults (as they almost invariably will, given the permanence of information) what happened. If anything, compensate the adoptive parents. An example of bureaucratic decision-making at its worst!
Rustam Roy, London, UK

Surely one way out of this mess would be to keep the children with their adoptive parents, but to gradualy re-introduce them to their biological ones? At some stage the children will have to be told they are adopted anyway, and from that point on would probably like to be in contact with their actual parents, especially given the circumstances. Presumably the worst thing for the Websters is the thought that they will never see their children again. Allowing them contact in the future would seem to offer them some small comfort.
Keith Barrett, Leighton Buzzard

This 'distress and disruption' means the children would have to leave all their (new) family, friends, schools, familiar surroundings, possibly their toys and clothes. In short everything they know and that makes them feel safe. Again. As they already would have done this when being taken into foster care, and then again when adopted. There really are no easy answers in this. It's a very sad, sad case, and everyone loses in the end.
Phillippa, Doncaster, UK


Your e-mail address

Town/city and country

Your comment

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.

Print Sponsor

Judge lifts family reporting ban
02 Nov 06 |  Norfolk
Couple allowed to take baby home
03 Nov 06 |  Norfolk
Missing children
02 Jul 07 |  Panorama

Has China's housing bubble burst?
How the world's oldest clove tree defied an empire
Why Royal Ballet principal Sergei Polunin quit


Americas Africa Europe Middle East South Asia Asia Pacific