This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/norfolk/7885047.stm
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Adoption case couple to fight on | Adoption case couple to fight on |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| A Norfolk couple who lost their bid to overturn adoption orders on three of their children have pledged to continue their legal challenge. | A Norfolk couple who lost their bid to overturn adoption orders on three of their children have pledged to continue their legal challenge. |
| Senior Appeal Court judges accepted Mark and Nicky Webster may be right in thinking they had suffered a miscarriage of justice. | Senior Appeal Court judges accepted Mark and Nicky Webster may be right in thinking they had suffered a miscarriage of justice. |
| But they said it was not in the interests of the children to set aside the adoption orders. | But they said it was not in the interests of the children to set aside the adoption orders. |
| Mrs Webster said the court case had "left a lot of unanswered questions". | Mrs Webster said the court case had "left a lot of unanswered questions". |
| The adoption orders had been made in December 2005 on the couple's three children, named in proceedings as A, B and C. | The adoption orders had been made in December 2005 on the couple's three children, named in proceedings as A, B and C. |
| We're going to discuss with our legal team where we go from here Nicky Webster | We're going to discuss with our legal team where we go from here Nicky Webster |
| This action was based on evidence of non-accidental injuries inflicted on one of the children. | This action was based on evidence of non-accidental injuries inflicted on one of the children. |
| The couple, from Cromer, applied to get their children back after evidence emerged in 2007 which appeared to show that the injured child's condition may have been the result of a medical condition. | The couple, from Cromer, applied to get their children back after evidence emerged in 2007 which appeared to show that the injured child's condition may have been the result of a medical condition. |
| After Wednesday's case, Mrs Webster, 27, said they had been warned "not to be too hopeful" and that they were "still trying to work out exactly what it all means". | After Wednesday's case, Mrs Webster, 27, said they had been warned "not to be too hopeful" and that they were "still trying to work out exactly what it all means". |
| Mrs Webster said she and her 35-year-old husband did not feel they had been cleared of involvement in injuring the child. | Mrs Webster said she and her 35-year-old husband did not feel they had been cleared of involvement in injuring the child. |
| "They've only skimmed the surface. They haven't dug deeper," she said. | "They've only skimmed the surface. They haven't dug deeper," she said. |
| "You see cases on the news about people harming their children. | "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." | "It's beyond belief that we were put in a similar pigeonhole to that." |
| In a summary of their decision, the judges said: "The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case." | In a summary of their decision, the judges said: "The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case." |
| Mrs Webster said the couple would meet their lawyers to decide on their next course of action. | Mrs Webster said the couple would meet their lawyers to decide on their next course of action. |
| "On the one hand they (the judges) are saying it's in our favour and they fully understand why we're doing what we're doing. | "On the one hand they (the judges) are saying it's in our favour and they fully understand why we're doing what we're doing. |
| "But on the other hand they're saying they can't help us. | "But on the other hand they're saying they can't help us. |
| "We're going to discuss with our legal team where we go from here." | "We're going to discuss with our legal team where we go from here." |
| The court added that doctors and social workers involved in the case had "acted properly throughout". | The court added that doctors and social workers involved in the case had "acted properly throughout". |