It sounds like Laura may not have been adequately supported by social work services, and still doesn’t fully understand why the decision was taken to remove her baby.
If her version of events is remotely close to the truth, i don’t feel that Leiland-James should have been placed for adoption. Laura may have been able to care for him herself eventually, or she may not ever have been able to parent him adequately, but she clearly loved him very much, and I wonder if a SGO or similar long term arrangement would have been more appropriate, in order to maintain the bond between mother and child.
I think that the circumstances leading up to him being placed for adoption should be looked at separately from the adoptive placement itself. Not to dispute Laura’s version of events, but I have rarely met a birth parent who could be honest with themselves about why their child was removed, they are not just “removed by a social worker” as the BBC stated this morning. Social workers cannot and do not remove children themselves, it’s a complex process and involves other professionals.
Whether or not the correct procedure was followed, and the right decision arrived at, is important and if there have been failings that needs to be addressed, however that’s a separate issue from the poor baby’s eventual fate. Even if the original child protection proceedings were a total tit show, that’s not why he was murdered, and I’d be very interested to know how/why Castle was approved as an adopter.
it is a heartbreaking case, but ultimately the person responsible is Castle. I hope LJ’s mum doesn’t blame herself and I hope she is being well supported to deal with her awful experiences and lifelong grief.