How Could You? Hall of Shame-International Adoptive Parent UPDATED

By on 4-29-2013 in Abuse in adoption, Donor Conceived, How could you? Hall of Shame, International Adoption, Kazakhstan, Surrogacy, UK, US

How Could You? Hall of Shame-International Adoptive Parent UPDATED

This will be an archive of heinous actions by those involved in child welfare, foster care and adoption. We forewarn you that these are deeply disturbing stories that may involve sex abuse, murder, kidnapping and other horrendous actions.

From the UK, in one of the most depraved entries we have ever had to report, an American-born international adoptive mother of three forced her oldest adoptive daughter (a teenaged virgin) to regular inseminate herself with donated sperm purchased online so as to be a surrogate for the adoptive mother. The adoptive mother has been sentenced to 5 years in jail.

“The girl at the centre of the child cruelty  trial told the High Court she went along with her mother’s shocking attempts to  get her pregnant because she thought: ‘If I do this . . . maybe she will love me  more.’

The girl had been adopted as a baby and  raised in a ‘toxic cocoon’ of her mother’s making – an atmosphere of  intimidation and disapproval behind the closed  curtains of their terrace  house.

Despite the bullying and coercion, the girl  remained pathetically devoted to her adopted mother and obeyed her commands,  driven by a powerful mix of fear and love.

In a moment of unbearable poignancy  the  girl, known only as A, told how she had gone along with her mother’s plans to  win the woman’s affection.

She told the High Court: ‘Mum said to me, “A,  the only way I can have a fourth child is for you to get pregnant”.

‘I was shocked, pretty shocked at  first. And  then I suddenly thought, “Maybe if I do this then everything  will be over. Mum  will be happy like she was before”.

‘And I also thought from a selfish point of  view, “If I do this . . . maybe she will love me more”.’ A was only 13 when  her mother revealed her plans, and just 14 when the  humiliating and painful  ordeal of the insemination  ‘programme’ began.

In March 2009, aged 15 and having  already  suffered a miscarriage, she sent a Mother’s Day card. The girl  wrote: ‘Happy  Mother’s Day List (the things I cannot give you but would  if I could).’

She stuck photographs of her mother’s  favourite singers and  television programmes on the card.

Below them, next to a photograph of a positive pregnancy test, she wrote: ‘And the one thing that I can. And  will.’  Remarkably, A told the court hearing she was grateful to her  mother for  adopting her and her sisters, saying: ‘My mum has done as  much as she could to  give us a good and happy life.’

But Mr Justice Jackson heard  the  mother had excluded her  ex-husband from her daughters’ life and had  schooled them at home, leaving them isolated from the world outside.

She could be ‘critical, rigid,  suspicious  and obsessive’, the judge said, adding: ‘For the children,  who love her deeply,  the threat of her disapproval is always in the  air.’

Eldest daughter A in particular had  coped  with her domineering mother by becoming submissive to her, even  dropping her  voice so she could barely be heard.

Neighbours said she was so quiet and  timid  that they had wondered if she had a ‘vocal disability’.  Remarkably, it was only  by becoming a mother herself that A found the  strength to stand up to the  maternal bullying she had suffered.

Midwives noticed that she refused to  hand  her baby son to her mother, and she rejected the woman’s demands  that she call  him Kalei, instead choosing a traditional English name.

Fears for her son’s wellbeing finally drove  her to confide in a family friend, an act of courage and defiance she had been  unable to make on her own behalf.

A, now 19 and living in a foster home  with  her toddler son, told the court: ‘I was scared to go home, because I knew I  wouldn’t be able to raise him as my child and I was scared at  how my mum might  raise him.’

Her mother, an educated and highly  articulate woman, also gave the teenager recordings to listen to which  contained subliminal messages, saying: ‘I am going to conceive a  girl.’

The girl, who was adopted, had not wanted to  become pregnant but was terrified of jeopardising her mother’s love for  her.

The plan fell apart after the girl  gave  birth to a boy and midwives at the hospital became suspicious of her mother’s  ‘pushy and insensitive’ behaviour towards her and the baby,  and raised the  alarm.

The Daily Mail can reveal that social workers  were warned three times about the mother, but decided her  children were not at  risk. On one occasion a social worker closed the  case after speaking to the  mother on the telephone, without even  visiting the family’s home or seeing the  children.

The mother, a 48-year-old former  nanny, was  jailed for five years for bullying her daughter into the  surrogate pregnancy  plan and for cruelty towards another of her adopted  children.

The case raises worrying questions about the  regulation of adoptions from abroad and the sale of donor sperm over the  internet.

The High Court case was heard in secret but  can be reported following a legal challenge by media groups.

Family Division judge Mr Justice  Jackson  said he felt ‘an abiding sense of disbelief that a parent could  behave in such  a wicked and selfish way towards a vulnerable child’.

The court heard the American-born  mother,  who cannot be named to protect the identities of her three  adopted children and  her grandson – the child born to her daughter,  chose to be sterilised in 2001  so she did not pass her diabetes on to  any children.

Instead, she adopted three daughters  as  babies from foreign orphanages and foster homes, two while married to an Irish  man and a third as a single parent, and raised them in  Britain.

She was banned from adopting more children  but longed for another child, and forced her eldest daughter to  conceive.

She told the girl about her plans  when her  daughter was only 13, and the two-year insemination ‘programme’ began when the  teenager – identified in legal documents only as A – was 14.

The judge said: ‘A did not want to  take part  in the programme, but she allowed her body to be used by her  mother because she  loves her.

‘A’s participation in the programme  caused  her continuous anxiety. The physical steps that the mother asked  her to take  were degrading, humiliating and, on occasions, painful.’

The mother bought frozen sperm over  the  internet and prepared syringes full of it for her daughter to use to inseminate  herself.

She was desperate that any resulting  baby  should be a girl, and forced her daughter to follow a special diet  of dairy and  alkaline foods in the belief this would affect the gender  of the  child.

In July 2010, the mother wrote an   ‘affirmation’ on her computer, setting out her wishes for the future – a lottery  win and a healthy baby girl, who she wanted to call Kelia.

She wrote: ‘I desire to win the  Thunderball  jackpot of £500,000 and for A to conceive and carry Kelia to term for birth in  April.’ In October that year, A became pregnant and  she gave birth to a son in  June 2011, after a difficult labour which  left her needing surgery.

Nurses knew she planned to give her  baby to  her mother to raise, but were worried by her mother’s aggressive behaviour,  including a refusal to let A breastfeed her baby, saying:  ‘We don’t want any of  that attachment thing.’

Midwives raised the alarm when the  mother  tried to take the newborn baby from the ward, and A later  confided in a family  friend about her ordeal. All four children were  taken into care and the mother  was charged with child cruelty.

She initially denied the allegations, accusing her daughter of being a fantasist, and told authorities the  girl was  mentally ill. She later pleaded guilty to five charges of child cruelty.

The High Court heard she had raised  her  three adopted daughters in a ‘toxic cocoon’, teaching them at home  so they  would not go to school and isolating them from friends or  neighbours.

When she was 15, A was left alone to  look  after her youngest sister, then only four or five, while her mother and the  middle sister went to the US for a ten-day holiday.

A told the court she had seen her  mother  smack her youngest sister regularly, and said she had tied the  little girl to a  chair when she would not sit still and had stuck duct  tape over her mouth for  answering back.

The court also heard disturbing  details  about failed attempts to alert social services to the family’s  set-up.  Neighbours described the mother’s terrace home as like a  ‘fortress’, with the  curtains always closed and no one allowed inside.

In 2006, a GP neighbour contacted  social  services, saying she could hear the mother shouting and swearing  at her  youngest child, who was then two, and said the toddler was left  crying for up  to two hours at a time.

Social workers investigated and saw  all  three children and the mother, but decided there was no cause for  concern. In  January 2007, an anonymous letter was sent to social  services and other  authorities.

A social worker’s report warned that  the  mother ‘appears to be doing things secretively for her own gain’,  but concluded  there was no evidence of ‘significant harm’ to the  children, and the case was  closed again.

In 2008, the GP made another referral to  social services. A third investigation was launched but the case was closed  after social workers spoke to the mother on the telephone,  without seeing the  children or visiting the house.

Mr Justice Jackson said: ‘Between  2006 and  2008, the mother succeeded in keeping social services at arm’s  length so that  their investigations were essentially superficial.

‘Concerns were seen off by a parent who was  recognised to be domineering. The children were never heard.’

The local authority cannot be named  for  legal reasons but its Local Safeguarding Children Board has launched a serious  case review, due to be published next month.

The LSCB said: ‘Nothing can change what has  happened to the children in this truly terrible case. ‘It is clear that  public bodies must highlight the major public policy issues which arise from  this case.”

 

 

I thought, if I did this, my mum would love me more: The wicked mother so desperate for another child she inseminated her 14-year-old daughter

[Daily Mail 4/29/13 by Vanessa Allen]

REFORM Puzzle Pieces

Update: “A serious case review found that the local children’s social services department – which cannot be named – was contacted on four occasions with concerns before the girl gave birth to a son.

The report suggested that the health workers may have failed to intervene as they had been influenced by the “social profile of the family” who were “educated, articulate, middle class.”

The girl, referred to only as A, was told by her mother to inseminate herself with sperm bought over the internet seven times over a period of two years until she had a baby aged 16.

The review, published today by the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), found that the department was “fobbed off” by the mother, meaning opportunities were missed to assess what was taking place.

The case had been heard at the Court of Protection, which deals with cases involving people with mental health issues, and was told in April how social services were alerted on several occasions to the family’s set-up.

The court heard the well-educated American-born mother had adopted three children from abroad but when she tried to adopt a fourth she was refused after concerns were raised about her other children.

Neighbours described the mother’s terrace home as like a “fortress”, with the curtains always closed and no one allowed inside.

In 2006, a GP neighbour reported the mother to the local children’s service after hearing the mother shouting and screaming at her two-year-old child, who was said to have been left crying for up to two hours at a time.

Social workers investigated and saw all three children and the mother, but decided there was no cause for concern. In January 2007, an anonymous letter was sent to social services and other authorities.

A social worker’s report concluded there was no evidence of “significant harm” to the children, and the case was closed again.

In 2008, the GP made another referral to social services. A third investigation was launched but the case was closed after social workers spoke to the mother on the telephone, without seeing the children or visiting the house.

The report said when the child went to her local doctor’s surgery after suffering a miscarriage, the mother lied to the GP telling them she had been drugged and possibly raped at a party.

However, the girl, aged 14 at the time, was not appropriately assessed by the doctor, who should have reported a sexual assaulted or raped to the police or local authority.

The mother is currently serving a five-year sentence after admitting child cruelty.

The Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) said today it fully accepted the findings and saw it as an opportunity to “improve practice”.

In a statement, the LSCB said the nature of this case is “highly unusual”, adding: “It seems unlikely that any of the professionals involved could have anticipated the true nature of the abuse but this does not detract from the fact that some could have been more inquisitive and responses better, prompter and more decisive.””

Social services ‘missed chances’ to stop mother forcing daughter to impregnate herself

[The Telegraph 6/5/13 by Josie Ensor]

Update 2: “The now 8-year-old child was adopted from her home country of Kazakhstan when she was aged 7 months. The mother now applied for a declaration of recognition in respect of the adoption. The children’s guardian sought a declaration that the adoption was not recognised. Due to the fact that the adoption had not so far been recognised, the mother did not have parental responsibility and until a care order was granted no one held parental responsibility for her.

In a previous judgment it was found that the mother made the eldest child, who was also adopted, impregnate herself with donor sperm purchased by the mother from abroad in order that she should bear a child for the mother to bring up as her own. The programme, began when the girl was aged 14 and resulted in her giving birth at the age of 16. Following the fact-finding hearing the 8-year-old child remained in foster care subject to a care order. She would not return to the mother and had no direct contact with her. The mother was currently serving a term of imprisonment for child cruelty.

When the now 8-year-old child was adopted the mother, an American national who had lived in the UK as a British citizen for almost 30 years, used US procedures in the belief that it was more straight forward and encouraging than those in the UK. The report produced by the US social worker was wholly superficial and demonstrated that no enquiries had been made of the adoptive father of the two older children or wider family members in order to verify the mother’s account.

When the child was brought to the UK, the local authority was not informed and the mother obtained US citizenship for her. As documented in the earlier judgments, the mother was found to have struggled with this child’s arrival and to have used aggressive methods of parenting her. The child had been assessed as having suffered significant harm in her social, emotional and behavioural development.

The judge concluded that while the child’s adoption was lawfully obtained by the mother in Kazakhstan and the Kazakh concept of adoption substantially conformed to that in England, the adoption process that was undertaken was not substantially the same as would have applied in England at the time: the mother had no roots in Kazakhstan and recognition was not available on the basis of the decision in Re Valentine. While the mother’s strategy for bringing her into the UK was reprehensible and calculated to evade proper scrutiny, public policy would not demand refusal of recognition on that ground. Decisively, recognition would not in all the circumstances be in the best interests of the child either now or throughout her life. A declaration that the child’s adoption in Kazakhstan was not an adoption that was recognised by the law of England and Wales was granted.”

ADOPTION: A Council v M and Others (No 4) (Foreign Adoption: Refusal of Recognition) [2013] EWHC 1501 (Fam)

[Family Law.uk 6/6/13]

One Comment

  1. This story is so disturbing I had to read the second paragraph three times before I could process what was going on.

    So… is this an extreme form of child collecting? Having been denied getting her “hit” by adopting again, the AP tries to start her own human breeding farm, using her oldest child as “livestock”

    I’d like to know why she was banned from adopting again.

Submit a Comment

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