Reasons why children become available for adoption?(141 Posts)
Re children available for adoption at either Local Authority or private adoption agencies, is any detailed information provided as to why they were removed from their natural parent(s)?
Well, generally children will be taken into care because birth parents have proved themselves to be less than able to care adequately for a child.
Occasionally some birthparents relinquish a baby but more often than not it's because they've neglected or abused a child and are simply unable to provide a basic level of care.
As an adopter - if that's what you're asking about - you will be given a lot of information about a particular child and some of his or her background. You don't though, in my experience, always get the full story.
@ walesblackbird et al :- So does that mean the prospective adopters aren't told the details of why the child was removed from the natural parent(s)?
Yes, you are given the story of why they were removed. How much information you are given really depends on the LA and their policy and the individual SW's. Some LA's have a policy that the adoptive parents must read the whole of the childs file before they decide to adopt. Others SS decide how much to tell. Sometimes they will not give the whole story, usually because if they said how badly the child was abused and the effects on the child, then it becomes much harder to place the child
I didn't know my oldests full story, because SS didn't actually know it. They barely knew a sixth of what was going on, and that much was enough to remove her (though far too late) but after she lived with me for a few years she started telling me about it, and it was so much worse than what I had been told
So i agree with Wales - yes you are told why, but sometimes not the whole story because the extent of the abuse is played down, or hidden from you, or is not known about
Does anyone know what the adoption agencies say when there hasn't been any physical abuse of the child?
ie do the adoption agencies say the child was removed from the natural parent(s) because the Local Authority thought the child was at risk of being harmed in the future?
My friend is going through the adoption process at the moment- she has been approved by the panel to adopt a child 4years+. So far she has been given a fair amount of information on the child she registered an interest in. e.g. 60 page report commissioned by the child's LEA. There is a lot on information about the family background; what led to the child being placed in care; the child's schooling; psychological assessments etc. Her own social worker is helping her to "read between the lines" though- it seems a facile example but it's a bit like buying a house- you need to understand what is implied by the terminology.
Thank you walesblackbird and RipVanLilka and Fayrazzled for your comments. I've heard that children are sometimes removed from their parent(s) because the Local Authority believes them to be at risk of suffering emotional harm if left with the parent(s). Have any adopters seen that stated as the reason why the child was removed from the parent(s) and made available for adoption, even though there had been no physical harm to the child?
No, I have never seen it. Both times I was approved I only heard details of children who had been abused
My youngest (bio sib of second) was removed because of risk of neglect and abuse. I guess emotional harm goes along with that, but it was never given as a reason. But remember in this case, older siblings had been abused already and very badly, so it was almost certain that at some point harm would come to him as well
@ RipVanLilka :- In your case it seems the younger child was removed to avoid any possibility that he or she would suffer the same or similar physical harm that the older child had suffered. Does anyone know if the same thing happens in relation to emotional harm, ie without any physical harm having occurred to either child?
A child doesn't have to have been physically abused to have been the subject of abuse you know. A child could be neglected, not fed properly, not cared for properly, not had his or her basic needs met.
If a birth mother has abused substances during pregnancy then, frankly, she has abused her unborn child because alcohol/drug intake can and does affect the unborn child. It affects the way their brains are wired and has life long effects.
I'm not really clear on what exactly you're asking but what I will say is that every social worker I've known has tried their damndest to enable mother and child to stay together. The decision to remove a child from birthparents is never taken on a whim and is never solely the decision of one social worker.
For a child to be removed then there has to be grave concerns for the physical, emotional and mental health of that child.
As I said, there is more to abuse than physical harm.
Melvinscomments: I think you can probably answer your own question if you think about it carefully enough...How on earth would the LA be able to quantify / detail any emotional harm that has occurred? It's not as if the birth parents would necessarily even recognise that they had caused emotional harm to their children - and even if they did they are hardly likely to admit it , particularly if they plan to contest the adoption, which many do. Most likely they are too caught up with their own emotional needs to be able to recognise or meet their children's emotional needs. Likewise, very few children would be able to tell someone "I'm being emotionally abused". The best indicator of how a child is doing (on the inside) is their outward behaviour - particularly in how they relate to themselves (anger, frustration, self abuse, low self-esteem) and others (inability to form trusting relationships/attachments, separation anxiety etc etc).
I strongly suspect that the full extent of the damage caused to children who need to be removed from their families and placed for adoption is never known/uncovered before placement. I think it's fair to say though that most adopted kids are going to come to adoption with considerable "baggage" (even being removed from an abusive home represents a "loss" for that child)...
Can i ask why you want to know?
yes the reason a child is removed from the natural parents is passed on.
Yes a child can be removed for reasons other than Physical harm. Neglect for example.
Yes they can definitely be. I know of a child who was because the potential was there (and there was neglect).
@ walesblackbird :- I think the things you refer to like not fed properly and the effects of drugs on an unborn child are physical harm, but cases are quite often reported in the press where there has been no physical harm, only emotional harm, so what was the emotional harm?
@ smiledotcom :- Re your comment "How on earth would the LA be able to quantify / detail any emotional harm that has occurred?" :- If the LA can't quantify or detail the emotional harm that has occurred, in the absence of any physical harm, how can they say it was sufficient to justify the removal of the child from his or her natural parent(s)?
Why are you asking? And yes, adoptive parents are told because they need to be able to deal with the fall out
Why do you want to know? Are you asking for our personal stories? Do you want to know what the LAs/agencies told US about our children?
Emotional neglect occurs when a
parent deliberately or ignorantly
overlooks the signs that a child
needs comfort or attention and
includes withholding love,
rejecting a child and ignoring a
child’s emotional needs.
Parents who emotionally neglect
their children fail to speak to their
children or play with them.
Neglectful parents also refuse to
show affection and fail to
encourage growth and learning.
Emotional neglect is a serious
problem and has long term
consequences. This form of abuse
has been found to inhibit a child’s
emotional and physical growth.
Have you had a children removed by SS OP?
Melvin, I have recently adopted a baby, and during the process we received lengthy reports on about a dozen children, all taken into care at birth so had not been directly physically abused or neglected by their birth parents.
So, my answers to your questions:
1. Yes, in theory you do get the full story on why the child is available for adoption. The quality of that information is a different matter.
2. There is nearly always a number of reasons for the adoption, not just one. In my category (children under 2) the most common reasons seemed to be: drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, learning disability, chronic domestic violence. Critically, for this age group, there were always older siblings who had stayed with the birth parents, and eventually been removed because they had been hurt or neglected.
3. I have never seen 'emotional abuse' cited as a sole reason for adoption, let alone potential emotional abuse. But I have seen it as an additional factor e.g. parents who took children shoplifting, incited them to assault strangers in the street, displayed no sympathy or support to a child who had been physically or sexually abused.
4. With older children, I would expect direct abuse and/or neglect to be cited more commonly. I would expect emotional abuse to be part of the picture, but not all of it.
So no, I have never heard of a child being adopted purely for potential emotional neglect. I can fully imagine that it would be possible and reasonable, but obviously way harder to provide the level of proof of risk that the courts would demand.
I don't think you'll get many more answers here melvin - because the fact is, I actually don't know any adoptive parents whose children were removed for risk of emotional abuse. And i know quite a lot, both personally/irl and through forums. All have abuse involved. The press might like it to sound as if removals for 'risk of emotional abuse' are happening right, left and centre, and most children are removed for this. The reaity is quite different
excellent post Hester.
Mrsdevere - from the pther posts by Melvin that is what i have concluded.
"I have never seen 'emotional abuse' cited as a sole reason for adoption" nope me neither and Melvin as you don;t seem very forthcoming with your reasons for asking (despite being asked a couple of times) I'll reserve any more personal experience until you do - I'll show you mine if you show me yours... you first.
Melvin often posts about this topic.
He basically think that anyone who goes to their doctor seeking help for mental health issues is at risk of having their kids taken off them. He also thinks SW all lie because they want to take everyones kids off them and have them adopted
He is best avoided and ignored as he has his own private agenda.
@ thefirstMrsDeVere et al :- I haven't had any children removed by social services, nor have any of my relatives.
So what is your interest n this subject? and where did you get all the experience of self litigating?
So why are you interested, melvin? We have given up our time to respond to your question; perhaps you could do us the courtesy of explaining why we are having this conversation?
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
i am a foster carer and know of one case were children were removed for emotional abuse.
sadly even though mum was offred help the children were witnesing mum being beaten on a daily babsis.
mum refused to leave of get rid of her oh when police took matter in to their own hands mum refused to testify at court as is her right but fell apart
mum did leave after being told she would loose the kids if she didnt get rid but left the refuge after a week and went back.
it all came to a head when the boy stabbed the dinner lady with a folk for his dinner being cold we can all guess were he got that behaviour from so the children were removed and mum is still with the oh
Can anyone who is interested in this thread please look here before you get too upset about it all .
I really think that Melvin might be John Hemming Mp. He use to post on here under his real name. If you google his name and adoption you'll see what I mean.
That thought crossed my mind as soon as I opened this thread madmommaMemoo. He does seem to have an ulterior motive.
Perhaps, especially when the reasons why a child has become available for adoption aren't very convincing, the Local Authority says as little as possible about the "reasons" to the prospective adopters. An example of an unconvincing reason being, the child hasn't been harmed in any significant way in the past but we the LA thought the child may be harmed in the future and therefore felt that our decision to chop down the child's family tree was fully justified.
mr hemming different day same shit
Yep, same shit. I could point out all the bits about your post that are wrong, but why do I have a feeling you actually could not care less??
Do child care social workers ever put anything like this in an adopted child's Life Story Book? ... Your parent(s) didn't actually harm you, but we thought they may do, so we got rid of them. Hope you don't mind. Hugs. xx
No, but then in the vast majority of cases they don't write "your birth parents stubbed out cigarettes on you, threw you against a wall, didn't feed you and allowed their partners to sexually abuse you. Hugs xx" either. I have experience of children with all of those things but not this "no harm" scenario you fondly seem to think is prevalent.
I'm not naive, I have come across social workers who have an agenda and I'm sure there are miscarriages of justice occasionally and for those families it is heartbreaking. BUt as adopters on here have told you, that isn't our experience. Not one of us have either children who where forcibly removed without a serious degree of neglect or know anyone in the same boat (unless relinquishment is voluntary).
I don't understand what you hope to achieve by this persistent posting - are we suddenly going to see the light and recover lost memories of what we're talking about? I'm sure we are all intimately aware of the problems within the adoption service but we're not going to suddenly convert to seeing a problme that we haven't experienced when in fact more of us have experience of childrne returned to birth parents who go on to continue abusing them.
Having had my say, sadly I think this is the time to hide my first adoption thread as I don't wish to engage with this any further.
Does anything like this ever enter your brain (although I don't know if there's much in there to speak of)?
"You know, I really am being an ignorant idiot, think i'm going to go away and stop making myself look stupid"
No?? Ah well, I'll just have to live in hope that you get some brain cells soon
Lilka - his assertion that he hasn't had childrne removed and doesn;t know anyone who has had childrne removed doesn't quite ring true does it Maybe his ex-wife is a evil social worker intent on wrecking lives for the hell of it. Will get around to hiding soon as it like that single bloody fly in teh room that you can't get rid of.
Social workers have to cover their arses in six different ways, just like every other public sector worker nowadays. They can more remove a child from its parents on a hunch or a whim than I can.
Arrrh, that was supposed to say "NO more remove...", of course
It seems that some children become available for adoption while still in their mother's womb! Because one of their already born siblings was adopted. The social workers having decided that the mother will not be allowed to have children. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/adoptions/1176715-Concurrent-planning-Foster-care Here is Child Protection Worker. Resistance is futile! www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2qzk8S10
"Because one of their already born siblings was adopted" no, because one of their already born siblings has been abused or neglected badly enough for a court to deem that a child is not safe with that parent.
That youtube video is a) american b) a subjective opinion c) not actually real.
You are basing your argument on a cartoon that someone with an agenda has made. You have grasped that it is a fictional character talking on that video - yes? Its not a fly on the wall documentary.
At the risk of repeating myself - most adoptive parents are well aware of the shortcoming of the system. Many are also dealing with the effects of significant parental abuse and neglect.
You are wasting your time here. And ours.
and I'm sure you must be aware that concurrent planning is a highly succesful tool for allowing those birth parents who are able to step up to the plate and get their shit togteher the chance to get their child back. The foster parent is obliged to work with social services to ensure that this happens. Very hard for foster parents but they still do it. ONly if the parent is deemed to not be able to succesfully parent the child is it placed for adoption. About 15% of children are placed back with birth family.
Also other members of birth family will be given the opportunity to care for the child instead . I know of a mother who had two childrne placed for adoption (severe physical and sexual abuse) who subsequently got pregnant by a differnt man. Father has custody on the basis that mother cannot live with the live and only has supervised access.
I find it sick that you would rather that baby was subjected to the same kind of abuse than placed somewhere else.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Melvin's real name was John! I know people who have irl experience of him, he's an idiot and a menace to be polite and understate things!
Children aren't made available in the womb they're made available at the moment of birth. One sw will be at the hospital and one with the judge, when the baby is born the call goes between them to say so and boy/girl and the judge completes the papers. As Kewcumber says it's done because previous children were abused and removed and the parents they've proven they won't change. I think a lot of people have this idea that sw's work alone. They're like police they have a version of a sergeant, cps and judge not to mention all the other agencies they work with on the way. There are bad sws but most are not and there are enough other people involved to usually pick up when someone is on a crusade.
using an american cartoon as evidence is slightly unhinged though, don't you think Dot? I had previously though he had a child taken away for reaosns he didn't agree with and was understandably bitter about that but his most recent post moved my opinion of him into the spittle flecked/tin foil hat arena.
This link was posted on another thread where melvin and wasthattheguy appeared (coincidentally apparently). Mumsnet have deleted that post, and say there is no (known) link between the two posters, but I am reposting it in case anyone is getting too upset by these threads.
No doubt it will be deleted soon , but might (for some) help clarify the situation.
I'm on my phone so haven't seen it yet, almost glad! Americans have a totally different social service to us and it's something else that makes me glad to be British! My cousin may skip the country and come back to the UK because of how badly she's being treated out there (I'm not being a John or Melvin, it's honestly stuff that wouldn't happen here) her father already did because of it.
Tin foil hat sounds about right! I'm totally convinced he's either John or something to do with him. The fact he has an account here and has spewed his vile ravings at us in the past adds to the suspicions. I can't see why else anyone would behave like this.
Here is Senator Nancy Schaefer talking about Child Protective Services in the USA :- www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1HjVU-UIQU ......What she said seems very similar to what Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said about Social Services and the Family Courts here in the UK :- www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynf3eyfqrfM
thank you wastht/melvin/whomever won't be clicking on anymore links of yours. Good luck with your crusade. I'm still a bit confused about what you want form us? Surely we are the enemy?
Does anyone care about the US system? I know it's far worse than ours and apart from my family suffering that side of the pond I don't care. I know a lot about ours and happen to think on the whole we have it pretty good. You'll never stop the wrong people going into a profession whether it's Harold Shipman or a bad social worker but most doctors are brilliant and no Harold Shipman just like most social workers are good and working damn hard to do their best. More children are protected than either are removed wrongly or not removed when they should have been.
Agree with Kewcumber.
"Does anyone care about the US system?" well presumably guy does! The more pertinent question might be - do we care that he cares?
Why is the US system worse than yours? (Genuinely curious )
I thought you were going to say the Americans do! Yes, apart from the Yanks and guy/ Melvin/ John, I don't think anyone else around here does or even that the annoying trinity do.
I know he really has no understanding of the uk system let alone the us one social workers their have far more powers of removal and the child go to adopton far quicker also its far more easy to become an adotive parent far less checks
Hence why madonna had to use her us nationalty to adopt as she wouldnt of been aloud to here .
Clearly knows little about adotion here on in the sates
Heres a joke lady how many time dose it take a troll to change his id
Thing with the US system, it's hard to say anything definite because ever state has slightly (or majorly) different rules. I know in some/most(?) there is a time limit of like 15 months before Termination of Parental Rights is filed for automatically if the parents hasn't worked a case plan. Also some states have Trial by Jury available for parents to request if their rights are being terminated. Plus children are usually adopted by their foster parent, who are licensed for both adoption and fostering (fost-adopt, although some counties don't have that). But some counties will be rubbish, and some will be very good. I'm not sure you can generalise and say it's all worse, because the state laws can be very different - and we sure have some rubbish LA's over here!
Kewcumber Adopters aren't the enemy. The enemy are medics and social workers who recommend children for forced adoption for no obviously adequate reason, eg the child hasn't suffered any significant harm in the past but the medics and social workers think the child may suffer significant harm in the future.
But the only reason that happens is if there is evidence - that the parents are leading a lifestyle that makes them incapable of caring adequately for children or if they have abused previous progeny. They don't take children into care on a whim.
<not entirely sure why I am engaging>
Hard not to engage isn't it christine. My dd was removed at birth so no actual evidence of harm to her. I have never had a moments doubt that SS did the right thing though.
Two of mine were removed at birth due to them having very experienced and knowledgeable social workers who knew birth family very well and for a very, very long period of time.
One of mine wasn't removed at birth despite bf having extensive involvement with police, social services, prisons .... you name it. My child has likely developmental trauma, has a psychiatrist, is medicated, is about to start long term therapy, is unable to access mainstream education - and it's all down to dangerous, chaotic, violent, drug and alcohol abusing birth parents.
So please .... don't preach to me about the rights and wrongs. I live it every day.
Yes ps and wales. Would
melvin , john wasthatthatguy like your children to be returned to their birth parents until there is physical evidence of abuse (possibly death, perhaps ).
In some cases there is evidence (very strong evidence) of abuse to previous children, or inability to live in such a manner that the parents could bring up a child. In those cases what should happen? Should the babies be removed at birth? Or it it your contention that this never happens ?
I dunno why I bother really . He never listens to anyone else's arguments, just continues banging on about "forced adoption" as if the very fact that it is forced makes it automatically wrong . But wrong for whom - the parents or the children? I just hate seeing such crap go unchallenged.
It's all about the parents rights mary (it's ladybiscuit here - had a namechange) in his world, children are but chattels of their bio parents until such a time as they break them irreparably and then SS are allowed to step in (presumably - or maybe even that isn't okay)
Part of the reason you don't get a balanced view on the paper is that SS (at least where I come from) doesn't ever comment on cases because of strict privacy laws. So parents are free to say whatever they want and you get an unbalanced view.
Emotional injury in legislation here in Canada is defined as :
(a) if there is impariment of the child's mental or emotional funtioning and or if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the emotional injury is the result of:
-emotional, social, cognitive or physiological neglect,
-depreivation of affection or cognitive stimulation
-exposure to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony
-inappropriate criticism, threats, humiliation, accusations or expectations of or toward the child
-the mental or emotional condition of th guardian or anyone living the the same residence
-chronic alcohol or drug use by the guardian or anyone living in the residence
A social worker cannot just "take a child away". They have to make application to the courts and show that there is just cause. It is a very long and difficult process to permanently keep a child away from its parents. AKA parents have to have seriously F*#&ked up in no uncertain terms and totally failed to resolve the situation over the course of many chances.
And remember - parents aren't just hapless victims (though perhaps sometimes just hapless) - they get to have lawyers and they get to give the judge their side and all that. The law is tilted to the parents rights so again -you really have to be ridiculous to have the kids taken away as opposed to the court granting some kind of supervision order where the situation is monitored with the children remaining in the home. And its not just one court application - its many. So parents get multiple chances to fix things.
All this Human Rights stuff really annoys me. Who says that the rights of the birth parents should take precedence over the needs of they helpless children who didn't ask to be brought into the world. What about their rights?
walesblackbird Thu 24-Mar-11 19:10:05
"All this Human Rights stuff really annoys me. Who says that the rights of the birth parents should take precedence over the needs of they helpless children who didn't ask to be brought into the world. What about their rights?"
I agree with this - what about a child's right to not be totally screwed up for all time because their parents had a zillion chances to do better and all the while the child suffers? By the time they can get adopted they are too old for it to be likely they will find a forever home and/or they are incredibly damaged. It sad. Sorry to say I'm not that empathetic about parents who can't get their shit together and put their kids first.
Forced adoption my ass.
I knew a dad who wanted more than anything to keep his kids, because he liked having three little girls to rape every night. But let's worry about his rights, shall we?!!?!
my friends (a) daughter was taken into care shortly after birth having minimal abuse and neglect because of severe violence and sexual abuse of her 2 year old brother who was filmed by a neighbour flying across the room hitting the wall. Guess they should have taken him into care and left her until there had been actual similar abuse to her.
The children I've come across (friends' children) who have been adopted despite not coming to any direct harm themselves were all the 6th, 7th or 8th child of a mother who had patently shown that she could not cope with the older children, all of whom who had generally also been taken into care, sadly only after neglect or abuse had occurred. I'd say the lucky ones were the ones taken at birth on the whole. It doesn't always seem to happen though- if the mother has taken active and meaningful steps to ensure that she is not such a shit parent*, I have heard of nth number baby (7th in 11 years in the case I'm thinking of- mother still only 26/27 herself) being left with her.
*battling the addiction, going on parenting courses, chucking out the low-life she was living with, etc...
My DD1's parents sure knew all about their rights when their children were taken away! They really didn't think that she or her siblings had any at all, in fact they regard her as a peice of property and nothing more. I don't understand why 'forced adoption' is even a bad thing, it gave her another family, and a chance in life
The children must come first. I know I have an enormous amount of respect and empathy for DD2 and DS mum, because although they were taken away from her, truly it wasn't her fault. She always put their needs first when she could look after them, she adores them, and sacrificed everything for them..just like we all do here. Trouble is, she was abused all her life, and has PTSD just like DD2. So when she got triggered by something, or had horrendous nightmares, the kids suffered. There was no other family there. So onto the scene comes her one time boyfriend and his family, who forced her to let them into the house, and they abused her and the children. Kind of hard to escape or help your kids when you're physically chained up with a knife at your throat though. Thank God a neighbour realised, although after an entire year had passed, and the police got there (but only one bloody person got prison time. One!!)
So the kids were taken into care. Mums mental health went to the point she was in hospital, but she always asked afte rthe kids, and thanked God they were with a loving foster family. But she just needs so much therapy and help, she couldn't care for them, so they were adopted. It is devastating, because she never did anything wrong, never harmed them, or put her own needs above theirs. But she can't parent them. And i have huge respect for her, as I say, because despite this, she supports the adoption, she shows how much she loves them...in fact DD2 and I will be sitting down this weekend to make her a mothers day card
My poit being, the same as what everyone else said. So called 'forced adoption' isn't bad or wrong in the right circumstances - where the children need a new family. The children always come first, even if that harms the parents. It upsets me we even have to have this conversation (mind you, I don't think the troll cares one bit)
Yes, my dd was also not abused or neglected, having been taken into care at birth. But of course there are siblings, who went through hell. One in particular who will NEVER recover - a child who is already damaged for life.
Mr Troll probably sees this as a forced adoption, as a terrible abrogation of the rights of parents who have not - yet - directly abused a child. But can he come up with ANY cases of forced adoption in which the birth parents have not either abused/neglected a child (this one or another one) or being given a chance to develop proper parenting skills e.g. by being placed in a mother and baby foster placement? Because all I'm hearing is a repeated assertion that children are being forcibly adopted where there is only a hypothetical risk that they may be emotionally neglected/abused, but nothing at all in the way of evidence.
Someone has tweeted that I am melvinscomments. I am not. I don't know who the person is.
However, to answer hester. Look at Rachel Pullen's case. She is identified with the agreement of the Court of Appeal. Her case is in the European Court of Human Rights. Her daughter has been put up for adoption because she is stroppy.
No, not because she is stroppy. Because her daughter has medical problems, having been born prematurely, that the court/social workers felt that - given her learning difficulties - she would unable to cope with. I have googled it and nowhere have I seen it written that she is stroppy. Just not able to cope with the demands that may be placed on her by having a child with medical problems.
Children simply aren't removed on a whim by social workers. Not in my experience. Social workers move heaven and earth, quite often to the detriment of the children involved, to keep children within the birth family. Often to the cost of the children's mental health.
Social workers are damned if they do, damned if they don't. There are too many cases when children have been allowed to remain with abusive parents - Peter Connolly springs to mind. I live with what happened to my son every day. She didn't physically abuse him but he witnessed things that no baby should have - and he remember those things. Pre-verbal yes, but the body keeps score.
OK, I think the collective name from now on needs to be "Beetlejuice"
OK Beetlejuice of the same agenda but many forms... what would you like us adoptive parents to say? That the system is full of cases where childrne have been removed for no discernable reason and that we all know of at least one. Would that make you go away?
I'd really like to know becasue frankly at this point I'll say whatever you like as I'm rapidly losing the will to live.
<wishes it were facebook, and she could jab 'like' 'like 'like' at Kewcumbers post>
RP doesn't have learning difficulties. Perhaps the most evil aspect of this is that the courts have accepted that she has when she hasn't.
You know, I can easily accept that there are cases where the social workers get it wrong. Where the social workers are inept, unprofessional, malicious, careless. All parents, surely, can understand how completely terrible it must be to have your child taken from you. I'll happily stand on the barricades to protest miscarriages of justice.
But accepting that there will be those cases does not mean that, overall, social services are too quick to take children into care. I would bet any amount of money that it is the opposite; you really have to go some to have your children taken off you. Many, many children are raised in grossly inadequate families, and SS do nothing because they simpliy don't have the resources to take effective action where there is not real evidence of significant harm.
THIS is the crux of it, surely? Mr Hemmings can quote individual cases (which are hard for any of us to judge because we don't have the full information) and we can quote individual cases back at him (ditto) but that doesn't get us very far. We know that the system is under-resourced, creaking under the strain, bureaucratic and inflexible. But is it biased - in ideology, system, process or resource - against the interests of loving families? Can you give us evidence for that, Mr Hemmings? What proportion of cases do you think SS get wrong?
>But is it biased - in ideology, system, process or resource
Yes in system, process and resource. There is an ideological issue as well which means that the system will remove children because of an assertion of possible emotional harm in the future.
Prior to the adoption targets perhaps 40% of 5 year olds who left care were adopted. After them more like 60% were adopted. The rest of the children (pretty well) returned to their parents.
More importantly the adoption targets were followed by a material increase in the numbers of children taken into care under 5 (and particularly at birth).
Like like like Hester post too Lilka, perhaps we could petition for that.
JH there isn't one parent on here who has yet experienced the "possible emotional harm" scenario so we're just not going to get behind you on that one. You are entirely within your rights to crusade for a cases where you beleive that this has happened as it is obviously very personal to you. Personally I will be continuing to advocate for the rights of a child to live without neglect or physaical or sexual abuse or even emotional abuse, because that very personal to me and in my very humble opinion way more common.
I'm not sure that the rise in numbers being taken in care after adoption targets is relevant - you interpret that as a bad thing but I could equally be horrified by the fact that so many of those children who should previously have been removed from their parents were not. My personal experience is that child are far more commonly not removed from their parents soon enough when they should be than those who were removed without cause.
And I'm no starry eyed innocent. I have been personally involved in two cases where friends have had accusations of abuse/neglect and social workers have been crusading in their attempts to prove it to be the case. In both cases despite repeated efforts to prove some kind of a case, they failed and the childrne were never removed, because there was NO PROOF. So I am prepared to accept that there may be miscarriages where somehow despite no proof a removal happens but I also know that despite (in one case) a sw seemingly desperate to find reason to remove a child, they couldn't.
I see the case for reform, for having an independent fast track appeal system, to separate out the function of supporting struggling paretns from teh legal ability to remove a child so that social worker have more focus on a specific role. But I still beleive and will not be convinced otherwise by the small evidence I have ever seen that this is a widespread problem.
And certianly one I do not wish to engage with myself so I ask again... what exactly would you like me to say? What would convince you that we are not the audience you need?
The difficulty of the debate is that of having access to the truth of the process. Without people having more information as to what actually goes on it is difficult to conclude what is wrong.
The proposal for an ombudsman to look at things independently of the courts I think is a positive proposal.
I am trying to ensure that parents are protected when they complain to their MP. That will also assist.
It is, however, generally the poorer less articulate parents who find themselves targeted. It is much harder for them to cope.
Your statistics don't evidence your assertions. If you understand statistics, you'll know that yourself.
You keep saying that there is an ideology of removing children because of possible future emotional harm, but there is no evidence of that. I could counter you by asserting there is an ideology that children are best kept with their birth families wherever possible. In one way, both statements are true: I'm sure social workers, and most of us, would agree with both. But what happens in practice? How does an 'ideology' (which I think you are using to mean a principle or an opinion) get expressed in daily practice? How does the ideal get compromised by resource and process issues? Are the cases where sw get it wrong down to poor implementation of sound policy, or an inevitable product of a system that is not fit for purpose?
You say, "Without people having more information as to what actually goes on it is difficult to conclude what is wrong" and on that we can agree. So why are you so dogmatic about your diagnosis - from what I can see, you are no better informed that the rest of us on these threads. Why don't you devote your resources to supporting research, analysis and policy development, rather than elaborating wild conspiracy theories? Forgive me for saying this, but it does sound a bit like MP-itis (that condition in which you meet a few ranting constituents and conclude you are now an expert on this issue and have heard the authentic voice of The People).
I see large numbers of cases. The documentation for these cases is legally privileged which means that I cannot provide copies without going through parliamentary proceedings.
I have to emphasize again - social workers do not take children away - COURTS and JUDGES do. The social workers job is to bring to the courts attention all of their information so that the judge can make the decision as to whether their is sufficient cause for the actions taken. The children's parents get to have lawyers to contest applications to the enth degree so this is not an informal process where someone gets to be malicious and spiteful - there is a full court hearing, witnesses called, professionals subpoenaed. It is damn hard to have your kids taken away and many kids have to stay in terrible situations because it is so hard to get judges to grant permanent guardianship.
johnhemming "It is, however, generally the poorer less articulate parents who find themselves targeted. It is much harder for them to cope."
They aren't "targetted" but yes, those are the families - those of low socioeconomic status, poor education, low income, historical familial issues that have the most problems. What can be done about that is better early intervention, more community programming so that SS doesn't have to become involved and better funding into the whole system. That is not within a social workers power to fix - those are larger societal issues.
MollyMurphy What judges in courts can and can't do re forced adoption, ie adoption without the consent of the parent(s), depends on which country one is referring to. I don't know what the situation is in Canada, which is where you indicate you live in your comment above of Thu 24-Mar-11 18:40:42. In Ireland, married parents can't consent to the adoption of their child even if they want to! Whereas a single mother can consent to the adoption of her child in Ireland. Also, a judge in a court of the Irish State cannot forcibly adopt a child if the parent(s) do not consent to adoption. In the USA a judge can order that a child be forcibly adopted against the wishes of his or her parent(s). In France, and I think most other European countries, a judge can't order a forced adoption. Here in England, although a judge can order a forced adoption, it is medics and social workers who decide that a forced adoption should be applied for. In practice, here in England, all a judge can do is either issue the requested orders or refuse to do so. If the judge refuses to issue the orders, he or she can't tell the Local Authority what to do re the care of the child. The relevant law in England is largely based on a DHSS (Department of Health and Social Security) report of the mid 1980s. It appears that medics and social workers, or civil servants representing them, effectively wrote the law they wanted to use. One could say that judges here in England are more or less obliged to agree with whatever the relevant medics and social workers decide is the "correct" care plan for a particular child. Any significant resistance by the judge is futile!
Here is a case where two children have been removed from a single mother, who became pregnant twice to the same, apparently or allegedly unsuitable, father. However, there is no evidence that either of the children have been harmed in any way. And it appears that the father is not currently involved in the mother's and children's lives in any significant way :- www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8392887/Another-horrible-case-for-you-Mr-Loughton.html
Yes well I live in the Irish system - and give me so-called "forced adoption" any day over thousands of children living in limbo for their entire childhood. There are many children who spend their lives shifted from addict or abusive parents, to incapable grandparents, to short-term care, and back to the parent. There are more children die in care in Ireland (proportionally) than in any other EU state - simply because many of them are so badly damaged they end up as addicts or with mental health issues. By their early teens they are almost feral, moving from hostels to the streets. If your version of "forced adoption" at a young age could make life better for these children, I find it hard to see how you can be so vociferously against it in all cases .
You can pick out single cases all you like, but they don't prove there is systematic abuse of children by social services or that there is a system of forcibly taking children from parents with no reason.
That story you linked to has so many holes in it, it should be a sieve. I simply don't believe that she only saw him once, and got pregnant - she was obviously seeing an extremely violent man.
And since we only get one side (the parents') in any newspaper article, I take many of them with a pinch of salt. I accept there may be occasions where social workers are over-zealous, or even where they make mistakes, or even the odd rogue social worker who twists evidence. But you will never make me believe that this is the system, that taking children from responsible parents is the norm. And you will never make me believe that a lifetime of being shuttled back and forth from inadequate parents to short term foster care, with no stability and security is the best decision for any child.
So I wish you and all your sock-puppets would find somewhere else to post your never-ending drivel and conspiracy theories .
Mr hemming, I am sorry that you have had such an unsympathetic reception here
In my opinion, the work that you do and the experience of a parents here are opposite sides of the same coin
The same deeply flawed system ( poor staff, poorly trained and supervised, lack of accountability etc) leads to some children being left in terrible situations and permanently damaged. While others are unfairly removed from good enough parents
When you have seen mostly one side, it's hard to believe that the other exists
I applaud those who are campaigning for a fairer and more open system
Just as I repect and admire those who cope every day with the effects of neglect and abuse on their children. Sadly , for many children, that abuse has been perpetrated by social workers as well as in their family of origin
KristinaM - For my children, the damage also came from the court delays, and moves in foster care
I am quite happy to support the courts being more open to public scrutiny. And that they move a lot more quickly in deciding cases, and giving courts more whatever they need to hear cases quicker. Everyone knew DS would not be going home from about 8 months, and his mum wanted him to be adopted by me. But they didn't get a placement order till he was 22 months old! The delay was inexcusable IMO
I am sure there have been cases where children have been adopted when they could have been supported at home. BUT I think there are more cases where the opposite happens. I just get incredibly annoyed when people assert that this makes all 'forced adoption' wrong (as far as I'm concerned, it isn't wrong to adopt someone without consent PLUS nearly all blanket assertions are wrong whatever they are), and when they assert that this means there is some massive conspiracy, with everyone making big money out of it! They claim ridiculous things like adoptive parents are paid!! Ha ha ha. And it gets my back up when people claim foster parents are somehow overpaid and making money out of it all!!
The FC I know personally gets about £120 a week without extra allowances for one child. That is 73 pence per hour!! How is 73 pph a reasonable allowance for anybody in this day and age! And there was me thinking we actually had a minimum wage in this country!
So by all means campaign for open courts, for more scrutiny, but for heavens sake stop with the ridiculous hurtful comments about massive conspiracys that don't exist, especially involving FC's and AP's, who have didly squat say at all
Mr Hemming will always get an unsympathetic reception on here because of what he does. I've tried very hard to be polite about him because I could identify myself if I say the things I know about him. He isn't a nice and pleasant person, he's a conspiracy nut who uses his position. If he didn't come here spouting nonesense or spout it IRL then just maybe he'd get a better reception.
Can I just say that in the past I have attempted to debate with John Hemmings this issue of "forced adoption" and have given up as he is completely incapable of having a rational debate. His contention is that social workers "snatch children from decent parents to get them adopted, to meet adoption targets" - he has used these very words time and time again. He never answers direct questions, he posts odd, random comments and is incapable of understanding research and statistics as Hester says and whilst what you say is Molly Murphy is absolutely right (and others on this thread too) you are really reallywasting your time and energy on trying to debate with John Hemmng.
He actually believes that there is a conspiracy going on between social workers, psychologists, children's guardians, GPs, psychiatrists, independent parenting assessors, and anyone else involved in care proceedings, and the Judge, who merely rubber stamps what all these professionals write in their reports. He has been ordered out of the Birmingham County Courts by a Judge. He was seriously criticised by a High Court Judge Wall LJ a year or two ago (the full text was posted by a barrister in family law and a MNetter.here on MN.
Several social workers, lawyers and others have complained about him to Nick Clegg and until I saw JH on this thread I thought maybe NC had agreed with those of us who were complaining. He actually tried to sue Birmingham City Council for £30,000 and said the social workers should pay out of their own pocket!! This was based on a case that involved him personally and this is the origin of his consistent belief in the conspiracy theory, even though he will deny this.
JH helps parents who are involved with social services who may have initiated care proceedings to "flee" to other countries, which means of course that these children are still at risk of significant harm. He purports to have a team of workers (none of them trained) who assist parents who are involved with social services. I feel that this is actually doing more harm than good to these parents as they believe that because JH is an MP he has the authority to overturn decisions made by all the professionals involved in casesof care proceedings, which of course he doesn't. I once asked him how many cases involving care proceedings where he (or his team) had intervened had been successful in that the children were returned to the parents and his response was "we don't keep figures on that issue" yeah right!
I think Melvin is JH or is someone whose thinking is as warped as JH. SO please MNs don't waste your time and energy on Melvin/John because he/they are just not worth it and his/their view will never be changed. Believe me I and others have tried, many many times. We have all given up. I advise you do the same!
Walesblackbird have just read your reply to JH who asserts that a child has been put up for adoption because Rachel Pullen (the mother presumably) is stroppy!! Your answer is right on but it won't change him one iota. He once told us on here that a child had been removed from his parents because the mother had called the social worker fat!!
I do actually have a collection of all his nonsensical posts and sent them to Nick Clegg. I think that for an elected MP to be making such ridiculous assertions is seriously irresponsible. However Clegg has clearly done nothing about it. I would have thought that any party leader would be very concerned that an MP was bringing his party into disrepute by making such claims about social workers. Oh yes, forgot to say he thinks the lawyers acting for the LA are involved in the conspiracy too and once posted that they just "roll over" and agree with the social workers because it paid their mortgage!! Needless to say this angered the family law barrister I mentioned before (don't like to post her name) but if she sees this she may come back, and many other lawyers. He should be stopped from posting such rubbish but I decided long ago to ignore him - it's much the easier way.
I don't usually come on the adoption threads, but have been concerned about this melvin bloke because he was posting on the mental health threads with some ppotentially very damaging asertions about mental health and many of us requested that the whole thread be removed and MN agreed and it was removed.
NanaNina, I had to laugh reading your post. I have heard first hand accounts of exactly what you describe, you could be the person I heard them from except I happen to know they was already in bed when you posted them. Whether he is right or wrong, his behaviour is not a good representation of who he claims to work for (no matter who that it, no one would want to be connected to that) and I agree it should be acted upon. I'm surprised that it hasn't been.
Returning to the question of reasons why children become available for adoption. If an adopted child asks one of the adopters why he or she was adopted, what can the adopter say? Well, a social worker told us a medic thought it would be a good idea, but the social worker didn't tell us why it would be a good idea. It must have been something significant. Who knows? Not me. What would you like for dinner tonight?
well the adopters who have posted on this thread don't have that issue wttg as we have repeatedly explained. And in my very humble opinion, its a crass thing to ask of parents who have to explain to their children why they were beaten, starved and sexually abused.
Shall i pretend its true in my case?
"Well DS I didn't totally understand the reasons myself so its hard for me to explain them. When you are 18 you will be allowed access to the court records for your case which I am not allowed access to and you can read for yourself. I will do my best to help you make sense of it and of course you can also make clear that you are open to contact from your birth family at that point. I will support you in any way I can and I think before you make any decisions you should talk to someone who has more experience than me in these things and I can help arrange that for you".
Your flippant "Who knows? Not me. What would you like for dinner tonight?" is ridiculous and offensive to just about everyone involved.
Trust me, wttg, for us it is more a problem of how to give the child access to truly shocking facts, in a way that is truthful but they can receive without being traumatised further.
If only, if only we were struggling to make a non-issue sound serious enough...
Your post is crass beyond belief.
That last post by wttg really epitomises exactly how little he knows about the whole situation . It is shameful.
I had a two-hour long conversation with dd about this very issue yesterday, one of literally hundreds of conversations I have had with her over the last 14 years. I certainly didn't say "Who knows? Not me. What's for dinner?" . Or even "Who cares", which is presumably what you mean.
I do wish you would disappear. I can't see what you get out of posting on these boards, unless it is to upset people? If you have any other reason, I would love to hear it, as you are neither helpful nor interesting.
"Returning to the question of reasons why children become available for adoption. If an adopted child asks one of the adopters why he or she was adopted, what can the adopter say? ".
The truth. We tell our children the truth. Not sugar coated but we tell them how chaotic their bps lives were. We tell them that they were singularly ill-equipped for parenthood. We tell them they were incapable of providing even the most basic level of care. We tell tell them that they didn't look after them. That they neglected them. That they abused them.
I have no idea what you're talking about and frankly I'm not sure you do either. You clearly have no understanding of how adoption works, you clearly have no understanding of what children are witness to.
I think you're completely bonkers quite honestly.
I don't think I will have any trouble explaining to dd why she was removed at birth. She is sibling number 7. I think the people who adopted siblings 2, 3, 4, 5, are probably having trouble explaining why they were left to live in extreme neglect for several years which I believe has led to at least three them being unable to lead normal adult lives (children were born over a period of 23 years). Sibling 1 was of course first born and had no choice but to suffer until the neglect came to light.
Sibling 6 was also removed at birth.
What a mess but I know which children were the fortunate ones.
Not going to go into my experience of adoption here but how dare the OP make such sweeping generalisations about forced adoptions.
And as for you John Hemmings you should be ashamed of yourself. You think a child is taken because she is "stroppy".
If social services taken children on a whim and "for no reason" how the fuck did the Baby P case happen?
This thread has angered me (not any of your lovely adoptive parents) but people such as the OP who cannot be honest about who they are and what their agenda is.
I strongly suspect that melvin'sccomment and whowasthatguy are one and the same person and are best ignored. If they become as offensive and potentially dangerous as melvinscomment did on the mental health thread, we can ask MN to remove the thread, which they did on the MH one.
As for JH. He has always posted under his own name so don't think he is one of these other odd blokes. Mind I do think JH is a tad unhinged! I notice that he has not come back to deny any of the comments that I made about him in my last post, because he knows they are true! Think that says it all really. It just angers me that an elected MP can get away with posting such nonsense. I think he actually believes it too, which is even more worrying!
I have tried again and again to tell him exactly what happens in care proceedings (in numbered points) and how all professionals who write reports have to be able to evidence what they said in statements. Does he really believe that any professional is going to court to say to a judge "I removed the child because the mother was stroppy" or "I removed the child because the mother called me fat! What do you think!
I have explained that all professionals writing reports have to expect to be cross examined for 3/4 hours by the lawyers for the birth parents (I am not objecting to this as they should be represented) but to stand up to that amount of cross examination means that you have to be as certain as you possibly can be that you can evidence what you are saying. At the end of the final hearing (which can last between 5 and 10 days) the judge makes the decision on the child's future.
JH has another bee in his bonnet about the issue of the wording of the Children Act in relation to initiating care proceedings - the grounds for requestig persmission of a magistrate to remove a child on an emergency protection order (child cannot be removed without this as many of you have said) are that the "the child is suffering or is likely to suffer from significant harm"- he is incapable of understanding the issue of likely significant harm and talks nonsense about social workers looking into crystal balls. I have given him examples of when the likely isssue is used in care proceedings, to remove a child at birth.
An example of this I recall was when a birth mother and father had mild to moderate learning difficulties and mother was dragging the 2 year old child round the kitchen by her hair and screaming at her. We were already involved with the family and monitoring the situation, however can't be there 24 hours per day. A neighbour intervened and after a lot of thorough assessments the child was removed. Mother immediately became pregnant again and the case was handled by a new sw and team manager and they argued that the mother should be given a "second chance" - many of us thought this wa putting the new baby at significant risk of likely harm as the mother had proved she was incapable of caring for her first child because of her learning difficulties. The new baby was fathered by another man with a history of criminal offences and had served 2 custodial sentencesin the past.
However the new tm mgr got her way and care proceedings were not initiated when the second child was born. When he was around 10 weeks of age the mother left him in a pram outside at night in the middle of winter, totally inadequately clothed while she played the oije (can't spell it) weegie? board with her mates. Needless to say the new sw and tm mgr quickly realised that the child should be removed. The HV was very very concerned about the care the child was given in his first 10 weeks of life and he could have been spared this had be been removed on the issue of likely harm
Sorry to go on so long.
I think all you adoptors are doing a brilliant job and please don't let these stupid men who presumably have their own warped agenda to make you angry and frustrated. I do understand however how this can happen when you are doing your utmost to help some of the troubled children that may be difficult because of their pre placement experiences.
I bet abusive parents just love john hemming being safe if the knowledge they can abuse their child and jh will support them when any. One trys to intervene
Dear lord if these are our law makers no wonder children linger in abusive home for so long
Thing is Maypole JH has no authority to intervene except in cases where he assists (financially I believe) natural parents to flee the country to Southern Ireland (where the laws are different) or one of the mediteranian countries, to get away from social services in the UK. He has actually admitted to doing this and I just fail to understand why an elected MP can get away with doing this. Fortunately the families who flee are usually found by social services in whatever country they go to.
The only other way he can intervene is when he (or one of his many volunteers he claims to have) advise the nat parents to get rid of their lawyer and be represented by one of theses volunteers who is not a lawyer. Permission has to be granted from the courts for this and I know on one occasion it was granted. I would like to have been a fly on the wall to see this volunteer stanbd up to hours of cross examination by a barrister.
Natural parents can have someone to support them in court (known as a McKenzie friend) but they are not allowed to speak unless asked a direct question from the judge. They are there for moral support to the parents really.
In actual fact I think it is the natural parents who are being exploited by JH, as they are almost sure to believe that he can intervene and overturn all the professionals and lawyers and the judge which of course is not the case.
I you ask him about what happened in a particular case, it's always the same answer "it's going through the court of appeal" or is in the "Court of Human Rights."
I think he is just blows a lot of hot air without much susbstance. Though I do think action should be taken against him as an elected MP when he finances nat parents to flee the country to escape child protection procedures in the UK.
This might be the first thread I ever hide, and that's saying something. For the reocrd, and this is more for the benefit of any other MNers passing by and to all you kind people here than for JH/wwtg etc, because they don't seem to care one jot about the children -
No, we tell our whole children the truth, as and when they are ready for it, if they don't remember themselves. I practise in front of a mirror if a hard coversation is coming up, because its very hard to talk about "why did x do that to me?", "why didn't they go to prison then?" without crying. God knows what I'm going to say to DS when he's older, because he was removed due to the abuse of his elder sibling. How is he going to feel if and when he finds out what was done to the "sissy" he adores?? Do i have the right to tell him what happened to her, given she will be an adult by then, and its very sensitive?? How much do I water it down by, keeping it real whilst protecting her?? What if she doesn't want to tell him anything?? He has a right to know why he was taken away, but doesn't she have a right to hide her story from people?? This is the kind of thing we are talking about right now between DD2, me and the therapist, as she is thinking har about what others know about her atm
I would love Nick Clegg to actually do something about some of the tings JH does. But even better, half of the most uninformed things I ever read are in newspaper articles (ap's get paid 400 a week to adopt etc), and i think "shouldn't it be an offence to say something in the media when it can be proven it's false??"
children the whole truth, not whole children the truth. I do tell all of her the truth, not just her arm, honestly!
You are absolutely right RipVan - I once asked JH if he had ever seen an abused children (as I have many times through mylong social work career) and he came back with some random comment that meant nothing. He does not care about the children because he actually believes what the natural parents tell him. Of course they are going to say the children were removed because we were stroppy/because we said the sw was fat etc etc. And JH swallows it whole. Of course they are not going to say "the children were removed because we abused/neglected them" etc. I understand why parents need to make out the sws have snatched the children for not good reason, but for an MP to actually believe it is alarming.
One incident stands out in my mind. Three children were being kept outside in the daytime in a sort of pen made out of chicken wire and bread was being thrown to them. Thank god we were able to remove them and the mother told the foster carer that the children were removed because she hadn't taken them to the dentist!
Most of us take any increase in adoptions as a good thing, meaning more children are being protected but of course JH doesn't because he believes totally in his conspiracy theory and is impervious to any attempt to demonstrate how wrong he is. It's interesting because he doesn't usually post on adoption threads. He usually posts on "In the News" and it turns into a social worker bashing thread, with many people sticking up for him, so glad he is getting his come uppance on this thread. He's gone very quiet thank god.
As far as what is said in newspapers, especially the tabloids and the Daily Mail, I think a good 50% is fabricated but who has the money to take out libel actions against them. The couple whose child was abducted in Portugal did do this but they clearly had the money to do it.
You are clearly a very insightful adoptor and I'm sure whatever way you decide to tell your children and in what way, it will be incredibly well thought out with great sensitivity.
I have contacted Nick Clegg once re JH and did not get the courtesy of a reply. I
It seems there are a whole range of reasons why children become available for adoption without the consent of their parents, related eg to parents drinking or taking drugs excessively, parents having mental illnesses or disorders, parents in conflict with one another, parents who intentionally physically and or emotionally abuse their children.
The severity of the circumstances which lead to the removal of the children from their parents must vary a lot and I think it is entirely possible that in the less extreme cases the children will have perceived no problem with their bio-parents, even though social services did.
Children adopted at age circa three or more years will have come to know their bio-parents and bio-relatives quite well before adoption.
If the adoptive parents are not told, or do not discover, the severity of the circumstances which led to the adoption of the child, and or do not heed any wishes expressed by the child to remain in direct contact with his or her bio-parents and or other bio-relatives, I think the child will probably suffer psychological damage as a result and will probably also become resentful towards the adoptive parents.
I think adoptive parents should make all efforts to arrange direct contact between the child and the bio-parents and or other bio-relatives, unless there are compelling reasons why such contact should not happen, eg no contact with anyone the child is clearly afraid of.
wasthat - I have tried several times to draft a reply to your last comment (10:04am), but have completely failed due to my incredulity at the complete ignorance displayed in your post.
Thatguy. No-one cares what you think. Off you toddle.
Hi I just wanted to add a few ideas.....but I should point out that I havent been around on other threads so I am only going on what john / other people perhaps posing as him have said on this one.
I actually think the guy has some valid points.
The problem is he seems to be directing them at the wrong people.
Adoptive parents are doing something good and they dont make the decisions, they should not be getting any grief over the system.
I have a family made up of people who work in these areas. Some of the stories I have been told, not just of abusive parents but of complete incompetence by SS, are shocking. They dont help themselves with the "conspiracy theories" surrounding adoption, when for instance, they take two children off one young mother but leave the middle child, who has downs syndrome with her.
And the point that was made about poor, less articulate parents again is true. Some people dont have the capacity to fight SS like perhaps we all would, that does not mean they are bad parents.
I think the main point I wanted to make is that social workers are human, just like the rest of us. This means that, just like every other job around, there are bad apples, and ones that make things personal vendettas. The reason they get all the grief is because of the fear that people have about their children bieng taken away. If your nieghbour has a vendetta, oh well just move, if its your social worker, you might lose your child, that kind of thing.
Lastly (sorry for long post) I should point out that there are many children who are terribly abused and its a bloody good job there is someone around to save them. I think some peoples hated of SS is born out of the fact they dont like to accept how prevelant child abuse really is.
I agree that all sws (just like everyone else) are not all the same - some are excellent, some are good enough and some should be in another job. However I take issue with you that sws have "vendetta's" about people and just trot off to court and get the child adopted. This is simply not the case. There are many professionals involved in care proceedings, psychologists, sometimes pyschiatrists, GPs HVs a child's guardian (totally independent of the LA) besides the sw with case responsibility. Also the LA lawyer is involved of course as he/she has to present the case to court.
Everyone who makes a statement to the court has to give a recommendation on the best way forward for the child and whether they think a Care Order or Placement Order (allowing child to be adopted) are made. The birth parents are represented by a lawyer (quite rightly) and all professionals are examined and cross-examined for anything up to 4 hours. They have to evidence anything that they say about the family and the child and they know this, which is why removing a child is the last resort. Defence lawyers (those acting for the natural parents) fight vigorously for their clients (which is their job to do) and believe me they will cross exam any professional recommending a Care or Placement Order for 3/4 hours at atime. The Judge listens to all of this of course and the notion that a social worker with a "vendetta" could stand up to all this in court is ludicrous. Most sws are wary of care proceedings and know that they will have to evidence what they are saying. The LA lawyer also has to be certain that the threshold conditions have been met for an application for a Care or Placement Order.
At the end of all this it is the Judge that will make the final decision and I can tell you that judges are very astute and will pick up very quickly on anything that is not in order.
I get so cross that so many posters think the sw can have a "vendetta" and get a child adopted - hey presto - sorry but this is patent nonsense. Quite why people who have no experience of care/court proceedings spout this sort of stuff is beyond me. Maybe they take notice of the rubbish that is churned out in the tabloids and the Daily Mail.
wasthatthatguy, the article you linked to sounds very much like the story of my adopted children... told from their birth mother's perspective. In reality, there was a lot more to it. She blames SS for her children being taken away and is completely oblivious to her part in it. Do not believe everything you read in the papers.
We can assure you that professionals do get it horribly wrong and can ruin lives even if the children have not been adopted. We used to be like many of you and believe no smoke without fire. Now in our own experience we can tell you this is totally untrue in our case.
The reason can be as precarious reasons as potential emotional abuse due to a possibility of fabricated illness syndrome with not one shred of evidence. We have yet to discover if the label given was the cause of the failure to diagnose our childs real medical condition or if the label was used to cover up the misdiagnosis.
We truly believe that if we were not very able, competent and organized and had many professional friends including lawyers, GPs, paediatricians etc then our children would have been taken. We are certain not everyone would be so lucky. We still dont know if the risk has gone for the moment or how many investigations are still ongoing as it is all done in secret but presumably the risk will now always be there. Unless anyone has any advice for us on clearing our name.
Our children lived a happy life in a beautiful home with loving parents and had never suffered from any trauma, death, divorce etc and we had never had any involvement with any so called professionals. We like many of you thought this type of thing could never happen to us. We trusted the professionals and welcomed them into our house.
We have been absolutely horrified at not just the twisting of facts but the downright lies. The only reason can be to make the label fit but it is just too scary to think that there could be a multi disciplinary conspiracy to cover up an NHS mistake so we hope it must be a case of trying to make the situation fit by misinterpreting facts to get a result and being poorly trained and overworked. If anyone had told us how these type of investigations were conducted we would never have believed this. In fact we are still struggling to believe it could happen to people like us.
We are left with no trust in any professionals and to be honest feel totally destroyed despite not having lost our children. Please trust us there are horrendous miscarriages of justice and it is just heart breaking to read some of these posts suggesting otherwise. We have no axes to grind, have always worked in very different industries, have never read the tabloids and have no idea who any of the posters are.
It could happen to anyone. All advice welcome.
Dear misdiagnosis, it sounds like you have had a horrendous time and I'm very sorry for that. I don't believe that any of the adoptive parents on here would say 'no smoke without fire', and I think many of us have said that (a) the system needs reform, and (b) there are doubtless miscarriages of justice and they are horrendous for both parents and child. I for one would love to have a thoughtful, informed discussion on how things could be improved, and were it not for the constant taunting, bullying and misinformation provided by these strange guys that might be possible.
I don't have any advice but I hope you are getting some good advice from somewhere?
After my poor Sisters treatment by social services, I have nightmares about ss turning up on my doorstep. She was failed badly, both by ss and my parents, it was all a bit of a nightmare.
I literally have had weeks of nightmares after reading threads on here about malicious reporting. I would love to live in a world where Social workers were fully trained and supported. Where "bad apples" were weeded out, transparency was the name of the game, also enough social workers around, that they could actually do their job, instead of fire fighting.
I shouldn't be scared of social services, I should be confident that my children are happy and fed and clothed and looked after to my own standards. But if they turned up on my doorstep I would shit myself.
Why is that? Because of all the stories of innocent people losing their children.
I realise that these cases are rare, but they do exist, and they put the fear of God into parents everywhere.
My Ds2 managed to break his leg on his first birthday, he fell down the side of the sofa, accident, could have been prevented by pushing sofa to the wall, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
We were made to feel like criminals at A&E, we were asked for our "versions" of the story about 10 times, ds2 was stripped and examined, he had a bit of oreo juice on his nappy(only food available was vending machines), which the paediatrician noticed, she said ds2 had a dirty nappy(poo), I did correct her.
She explained to us that because he had a fracture before 18 months she had to go through child protection protocol, which I was fine with, our other children were with us, I'm surprised she didn't ask to strip search them too.
She had to get the go ahead to "release" us from a consultant and thankfully thought we posed no harm to our children. Even the frigging receptionist kept staring at us for the 6 hours we were there.
I do "get" it after baby P, but lets face it, there was quite a bit more to the baby p case than one random A&E attendance.
I was actually half expecting a ss visit after ds2's injury.
This thread is about adoptons though, not social services?
I'm a birth mother and do wonder what my son's adoptive parents were told. They were brought onto the scene by social services while I was trying to fight to get my child back.
The adoptive parents knew that it was possible that I may win and he would come back to me, but as I lost, they got my son.
I put up a good fight in court and had support from a few different professionals who helped try to tell the judge in court; I hadn't done anything wrong, I just need support and a chance.
Social services won in having him adopted however so didn't have to pay out all the funds for supporting us in staying together.
The adoptive parents know I didn't do anythign wrong and I love my child.
I don't have anything against them, they've turned out to be good parents to my boy. And they're good to me too, in all they send to me.
There may even be a chance of me meeting my son again when he starts secondary school. Fingers crossed. It's all good.
But yes, I've had social services do breif checks when I had children after that, and they said it was very unclear the reasons for the first adoption being enforced.
It would be difficult for them to put reasons across for the adoption when their reason aren't necessarily comprehendable reason for many others.
In my case 'risk of possible future emotional harm' was what the judge said at the final hearing.
My two younger children, (born only 4yrs+ later) are fine with me though.
Their decisions for 'reasons for a adoption' in my experience, are at the very least; questionable.
While children may usually be removed for good reasons, from what I've seen it isn't usually the case that they're removed.
The parents are manipulated into agreeing to voluntry care with threats of 'we'll remove them anyway, but it will be better for you to agree to it if you want to get them back in future.'
When the child is in voluntry care social services gather up other reasons to apply for an intrim care order.
In my case, the got an intrim care order after 6 months, saying I didn't have appropriate housing, hadn't actually asked for my child back etc..
Of course I had asked for him back many timesand they said no.
I didn't know it was actually voluntry care until they had the intrim care order.
But then again I wouldn't have known, as they didn't give me my own social worker as they should have- as I was also a child.
I can say with total honesty, that I have never seen a single adoption profile for any child, where the child had not been physically/sexually abused or suffered severe neglect. And I've seen a lot of them. I am sure there are cases where mistakes were made, I don't doubt that, but saying that that is 'usually' the case is going too far.
OP_ I think if the children are lucky, they're only severely neglected or have a substance dependent mother with a poor choice of life partner.
If they're even luckier, they are the 7th child and removed at birth because all the older ones have been taken into care and the mother is not fit to look after them. Three cases of recentish adoptees (within the last 15 years) that I know of.
I can say with total honesty, that I have never seen a single adoption profile for any child, where the child had not been described by social workers as having suffered physically/sexually abuse or suffered severe neglect.
Of course they will say that, they have to, to get the adoption through.
There probably is usually neglect or abuse, but I suspect there are many unjust cases that you don't know about, because you're only reading one side of events.
Oh come off it
I've never heard one adopter say that they didn't think their children had it that bad in their first home.
On the other hand, I have personal experience of them downplaying and hiding abuse. And I have heard a LOT of adopters fining out that things had been hidden from them (ie. knowledge of sexual abuse, medical conditions in the birth family and so on). Sadly there is an incentive for them to HIDE abuse from the profiles because the children are easier to find homes for then.
"Of course they will say that, they have to, to get the adoption through."
It's not about saying that. It's about PROVING it. Which they do have to do
Yes, it's very easy to fake bruises/burns/broken bones. Maybe the children's disclosures of sexual abuse were faked as well, even when on police tapes. And the positive drug tests the birth parents took.
Our friends who recently adopted a sibling group have been finding out more and more about their children's life before adoption as the children casually reveal details. It's quite shocking. And these were kids who were removed for neglect.
Many adopted children can speak for themselves, and do, about what life was like for them in their first homes.
Many adopted children have indisputable evidence of harm e.g. injuries, neonatal drug withdrawal, fetal alcohol syndrome.
Many adopters meet the biological parents these days, and many will also know how older siblings in the family are doing.
I'm sure there are unjust cases, but all the evidence I have seen points to the conclusion that neglected and abused children are removed from their families too little, rather than too often.
When injustice does occur, it needs to be exposed. But that isn't helped by suggesting conspiracy theories, that hard-pressed, under-resourced social workers are hellbent on invading happy families and concocting a web of fantasies about what goes on there.
I don't want to say too much but I know of a young woman who is living a dangerous game with social services with her four young children. She is a good mum but her partner is a violent drug addict with a history of violence towards her and who has been violent to their toddler son. She KEEPS going back to him, even after having been put in a safe house by her SW a long way away from him after a botched (by the CPA) court case against him.
She objects vehemently to what she sees as SS intrusion but refuses to see that she is putting her children in danger merely by allowing their father back into her life all the time. It is like watching a car crash in slow motion.
I don't doubt that there are injustices on both sides of this debate and have been on both sides (supporting a friend who was accused of abuse and investigated as well as an adoptive parent).
If social workers remit is to remove babies to get them adopted as seems to be the public perception then they are doing a really shit job of it as they predominantly remove children who are hard to place. By far and away the smallest proportion of children taken into care are preschool children who go on to be adopted.
I don't know another adopter who doesn't have physical proof of their childs injuries/neglect where the child was removed eg cigarette burns, video evidence taken by neighbours or the child being old enough to explain what life was like. That doesn't mean that I don't accept that cases like yours, Fred, don't exist and I'm not sure why you feel that adopters have such a rosy view of the system when we have all been through it and are intimately acquainted with its failings.
Tbh as an adopter I get a bit tired of having to justify time and time again why the majority of children are removed and placed for adoption fairly and in some cases too late.
I said this about a year ago earlier on in the thread:
"I'm not naive, I have come across social workers who have an agenda and I'm sure there are miscarriages of justice occasionally and for those families it is heartbreaking. BUt as adopters on here have told you, that isn't our experience. Not one of us have either children who where forcibly removed without a serious degree of neglect or know anyone in the same boat (unless relinquishment is voluntary)"
Absolutely, Kew. It feels really uncomfortable when these threads get polarised as though birth parents and adoptive parents are mutual enemies whose interests must always be pitted against each other. BECAUSE I love my dd I wish that she hadn't had to be taken from her birth family, with all that entailed and will continue to entail. BECAUSE I love my dd, I feel desperately sorry for her birth parents who didn't want her to go and who are missing out on a very special little girl. BUT part of the experience of adoption is coming to terms with the reasons our dc got taken into care, and then helping our dc to come to terms with it. I have real evidence of the harm caused to my daughter by her birth mother - including in utero - plenty enough to convince me that my dd is where she needs to be.
I don't doubt that injustice happens. I've met brilliant social workers and also ones so crap that I can't imagine the harm they could cause in a child protection context. I imagine the other adopters here would all agree with me when I say that we have no reason to doubt you, we certainly don't doubt the possibility of what you say happened to you, but that doesn't mean that the entire system of adoption is corrupt and that we are keeping our children from responsible, loving parents. It's just such a pointless debate to keep having, and it would be good to move on from.
I'm sure you're experiences of what you've seen and heard are completely different to mine.
But there's no need to say 'come off it' and get sarcastic.
I didn't say abuse doesn't happen.
I'm saying that despite whether or not there was neglect/abuse, there WILL be either documented, if there wasn't a forced adoption wouldn't have happened, so it's simple logic.
However, accounts of neglect or how the parent probably would have neglected aren't always accurate.
There are some inaccuracies on my son's file.
There's no proof of neglect or abuse to my child at all.
He was adopted because it was said that I could have possibly caused him emotional distress in the future.
duchesse, I'm surprised SS haven't taken her children already.
I was in a refuge and was told by workers that they had seen SS take children when the woman had gone back to an abuser, no ifs, no buts, no second chances.
My own theory, is not that social workers are on a mission to snatch up as many babies as possible, but that, very seasoned social workers who are probably past caring having been in the game too lomng, can make dangerous assumptions, and make it so vulnerable new mothers don't get all the chances they should be given. Perhaps these SWs think there's no point in giving the chances, so they build cases up where they don't tell new mums of their rights and support available, they mislead them, and build up a case to adopt the baby out without letting the mother know.
I believe they did this with me, and I think that's why I wasn;t given an opportunity in a mother and baby unit (as the child gaurdian stood up in court and said why the hell wasn't I already offered that support). I think they did not tell me I should have had my own social worker due to being a young vulnerable person, because they wanted they wanted to get the adoption through quicker and not waste funds messing around.
I think they did not tell me I could have had my child back at any time and that he was just in voluntry care, because they were waiting for me to not collect him back over a period of time, so they could get the intrim care order.
They lied about how I'd be arrested if I tried to take my baby home at a time when I had every legal right to do so.
They lied about how I would have him back soon and theyre just waiting on this and that. And they kept it all from my until last minutes, and told me in the bloody evening that the next morning they'd be getting and intrim court order as they want to put him for adoption, and they lied that I would not need to attend that court hearing and there's no point in doing so.
They knew I was clueless and had no chance of hgetting a soliciter in time to protest the intrim care order. They didn't even tell me I could have protested the order, they said it was just paperwork.
Absolutely everything that happened seemed to prove that they could really be bothered to spend their time supporting us, when they assumed I'd probably fail.
So they built up an entire case, just to try and go through the motions of giving me a fair trial, but there was no fair chances at all.
And if they do this with other people, as I read about, then that should show why I have this conspiracy about SS.
the social worker said I'd need a lawyer for the big hearing, but social services don't lose cases anyway, so he would be adopted.
message to all ............... social services have all got adoption targets set out by the goverment and when each local authority reaches their set target they get a cash bonus from the goverment for reaching the target to have so many children adopted in their area during a certain time period. alot of the children that social services take from their parents are loved and cared for but they are taken anyway. the social services then use professionals who will write up false reports which are them used in court to get the child adopted. this is fact. google forced adoption or look up the social workers that have been found out to have provided false reports to court and used them in court to back up their case against the childs parents. (cafcass workers also do this and some have even been taken to court over the said reports) also a doctor who has been found out to be doing false reports is Dr HIBBERT (google him and have a look for yourselves.
Can I just say...why, Why, WHY are old and unpleasant threads like this getting dredged up for another churning...?!
Leave it people
misspollysdolly these threads may be old and unpleasant BUT THEY ARE EXPOSING THE TRUTH ABOUT SS.
THE TRUTH MAY HURT BUT IT DOESNT HALF HURT AS MUCH AS IT HAPPENING TO YOUR FAMILY.
WHY SHOULD PEOPLE LEAVE IT ?????????????????
IT THAT SO THE SS CAN GET AWAY WITH RIPPING MORE FAMILIES APART FOR NO GOOD REASON APART FROM TO GET THERE ARGET FIGURES AND BONUSES ??????????
fightforjustice, your facts are wrong.
And this will get you nowhere.
Search the site; you will see that here in the adoption corner we are used to people coming on shouting at us about forced adoption. All of us have engaged in far too many threads like this and I think most of us are tired of it. Whatever your reasons for wanting to spread your message, this is truly not the right way to do so.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.