Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on adoption.
ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
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)?
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.
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.