They also have to wait 3 years after said abuse to give the parents a chance to do right by the kids, i learned it while in foster care.

Mrs Pacheco - I don't understand what you mean by 3 years? I'm curious, as I've not heard this before.
Missing Chaya Eliana - I don't think they always need medical evidence as some things there won't be medical evidence for. Like emotional abuse, or abuse that has done emotional damage rather than physical damage.

I've heard this story before (or one very similar) and I just can't help but think there's more to it then what the parents say..That there MUST be some good reason why the children weren't returned. No one will ever know for sure...

That's why I said "or something". ;-) Abuse that has done emotional rather than physical damage can also be proven. It just takes a different manner to find it.

I know the doctor was just doing is job & what he thought was right. However, I feel that he should have gotten a second opinion before making such an accusation. If that happened I highly doubt this would have gone to court & those parents would still have their children.

Well this is in the USA, I now realize that this story isnt, but anyway, in the USA there is a sequence of events. First an investigation is done, then the child is removed from the home, then there is a three year period from when the children are removed and when the parents lose their rights. For example.

My foster sister is now seven, she was three when I moved in with her and my foster mom. She was a meth baby, her parents beat her, her mother didnt feed her, or get her medical care, and she was so sick she had to be brought back to life 3 times, she had to eat out of a tube. Reguardless of all of that her mother had three years to get her shit together, and prove she was going to be a good parent. When the three years were up my foster mother filed for adoption. The parental rights of my foster sisters real parents were taken away.

Oh I see. I wonder if that's the same in every case in the USA then? I mean, in the UK, sure parents still get given opportunities to improve and turn things around but I don't think there's a specific time frame for that to happen? It's different depending on each case. I'm pretty sure that if there was a chance that the parents might "sort themselves out" then the child would be fostered rather than adopted.

In each state they set different time frames, but there is a definite time frame.

I know of a few families who have had children adopted after care proceedings but were allowed to maintain access to those children (not personally). I'm not sure why that hasn't been implemented here, probably because the children were so young at the time of the adoption order.

Mm that's what I'm thinking, they probably don't remember their real parents. Shame.

Actually, what angers me about this case the most is the fact that in my nursery, we have a child who is clearly neglected. (I shan't elaborate as it's more than my job's worth!) But, despite this, social services won't do anything since he is 'loved'.

Some of the stuff I hear in my job is horrendous. Children die under the care of Child Safety here. While I believe that being over zealous is far far better than a tiny corpse, sometimes they ARE wrong.

oh.my.God.
this is horrible. no matter what happens now,some one is going to be hurt on a very deep emotional level!
if the kids were very young when they were adopted out,then if they get returned to their biological parents,then its going to be horrible on them,because they're basically going to be strangers.but at the same time.i totally understand this couple wanting their kids back!
If the courts absolutly refuse to give them back their children,maybe they could work out some sort of agreement with the adoptive families that will atleast allow them some sort of visitation rights?

scurvy is only caused by a lack of vitamin c - a quick peruse through google (including a search for rare causes) shows that. if scurvy was the problem, the parents are definitely responsible for neglecting their child's health. there are plenty of visible symptoms (like bleeding gums) that arise long before bone damage like described in the article would have occurred, and they should have gotten medical attention for their child. perhaps the other children were exhibiting some of the symptoms as well, and that's why they were all removed?

i don't know that returning the children to their biological parents would be a good move at this point - stability is SO important for children, and after four years in an adoptive home (unless there are abuse issues there, as well, which isn't indicated) staying put is probably for the best for them.

I have quite mixed emotions on this for many reasons. Among them, I was adopted and went through a long drawn out custody case until I was alittle over the age of 5. But I am also a parent. I should hope that like here in the US, the court system there will look at what is best for the children, and the children alone. The oldest two might remember their birth parents and want to go back, but for the youngest tearing her away from yet another family which is quite possibly the only family (sorry I cant see what I am typing thanks to the Ad) anyway teaing the youngest away from the only family she probably knows and can remember would do a lot of emotional and mental damage to her.