When the state takes your child

Saturday, 25th June 2005

Alasdair Palmer talks to a mother whose daughter has been forcibly adopted — and who, in common with thousands of other women, now faces the agonies of separation

There is no evidence from jurisdictions which have less draconian secrecy laws, such as Canada, Australia or the United States, that children’s interests are harmed as a consequence. The secrecy does protect experts, officials and ‘professionals’ from scrutiny and criticism. This has been justified on the grounds that psychiatric experts will be less willing to testify if their reports are liable to public scrutiny. It is of course true that every professional would rather that his or her opinions were not scrutinised in public for errors. That practice, however, has not led to the collapse of the criminal courts, nor has it resulted in a shortage of medical experts willing to testify in them. There is every reason to believe that, if expert testimony were subject to open scrutiny in the family division, the only effect would be to increase its reliability.

Because of the expert testimony in her case and the weight the judge accorded it, Rachel is unlikely to see Charlotte again until her daughter is 18. ‘I can’t think about that,’ she says. ‘I have to believe that somehow there is a way for me to get my baby back.’ There were more than 3,000 forcible adoptions in the year 2002–03. Most of them were contested. Rachel Drew’s case may or may not be exceptional — the secrecy surrounding the family courts means that nobody knows — but it is certainly tragically unjust.

The names of the mother and daughter in this article have been changed.