YES go away thatguy (think you are John Hemming MP)
Social workers did not get rid of the birth parents. Children are removed from parents where they are being significantly harmed or where there is likelihood of significant harm. Are you aware that social workers have no power to remove a child, unless a magistrate is prepared to grant an Emergency Protection Order and are most reluctant to do this ex parte - which means that the parents need to be present when the Order is or isn't made. The police have powers under the Police Protection Act to remove a child for a period of 72 hours and then an EPO must be sought. If an EPO is granted, the matter has to be before the family court within 7 days for an Interim Care Order and if this is granted, it has to be renewed continuously up until the final hearing. So please get it into your thick head that social workers do NOT have the power to remove children or "get rid of parents". The person who makes the final decision is the Judge. Got it now, no thought not.
You are talking utter nonsense to say it is not the duty of the adoptive parents to find out why the child was removed from birth parents. It is the duty of the social workers with case responsibility to give as much information as they possibly can, both to the foster carers following the removal of the child and to the adoptive parents. How on earth do you think a foster or adoptive family is going to understand the child's distress and behaviour problems if they are not aware of the way in which he was abused/neglected. I realise that the way your mind works, you will be thinking that the child's disgtress and behavioural problems are because he was removed from his loving birth parents.........no, not the case. Children who have been seriously abused, be it physically or sexually willl by definition be emotionally abused also, and are very damaged as a result and this manifests itself in all kinds of ways, usually fear (as they have learned that adults are not to be trusted because of the way their birth parents have abused them) and all sorts of behavioural problems.
Your claims get more and more ludicrous "because of the privacy of the family court the social workers will not be able to tell the adoptive parents of how the birth family have allegedly failed as parents." Adoptive families are given comprehensive information about the child's pre-placement experiences with his birth family, and the exact nature of the abuse/neglect. They will be given appropriate paper work
to read and as I have tried to explain above, how on earth can adoptive parents have a chance of helping a child recover from the trauma of abuse/neglect experienced in his birth family if they don't know what happened...........you really are unbelievably misinformed.
OK let's deal with this issue of significant harm. As you have no understanding of this, let me give you an example.
Mrs Smith has a severe mental illness (a psychotic illness possibly schizophrenia) and her boyfriend has a drink and drug problem. Her first child is born and there is concern from the word go, Mrs Smith is too ill (incidentally psychotic illness means that a person is out of touch with reality) through no fault of her own to care for the baby. Boyfriend can't either because he is on drugs and is frequently drunk. The baby is "failing to thrive" and Mrs. Smith's illness worsens and she hears voices that are teling her the baby is evil. This is a very dangerous situation and the baby has to be removed for his own safety. Boyfriend leaves and Mrs. Smith's illness worsens again and she is admitted to a pshyciatric ward, where she has been admitted several times in the past. After 3 months she is discharged and every effort is made to ensure she takes her medication. Very soon she is pregnant again and doesn't know who the father is, as she has been involved with 2 men, both of whom have disappeared.
The psychiatrist overseeing Mrs. Smith's mental illness is invited to a case conference to consider the issue of another baby being born. She is asked whether there is any possibility of Mrs. Smith's illness improving in the future. The psychiatrist's view is that there is no likelihood of this because Mrs. Smith fails to take her medication, and self-medicates with drink and cannabis. Mrs.Smith is 24 and has a history of severe mental illness since the age of 15 with numerous admissions to the psychiatric ward. SO what are social services to do, allow Mrs. Smith the opportunity of caring for the new baby, knowing that she is still very ill and not capable of caring for herself let alone a baby. SO a decision is made by a multi disciplinary case conference to remove the 2nd baby at birth.What is the alternative, leave Mrs Smith to try to cope with a new baby and making her own illness worse, and the baby unsafe. With the 1st baby Mrs. Smith told the GP that the voices were telling her the baby was evil. What if she hears the same voices but does not tell anyone. People with psychotic illness believe these voices, that is one of the major problems of these type of mental illnesses. SO baby No 2 is removed at birth on the basis that he/she is likely to suffer significant harm.
Please tell me thatguy what you think should have happened in these circumstances - no on second thoughts don't - I can't bear to read any more of your nonsense.
Re contact in adoption (let's dispose of your made up figure of 50% of children should have contact) There is in fact such a thing as open adoption and if it is considered by the social workers and alll other professionals involved in care proceedings that it would be in the child's interests to have contact with a birth parent or member of the extended family, (this is very rarely the case) but if the child is old enough (say 4/5 years) to have had a good relationship with granny, and she is not going to undermine the placement, then a recommendation can be made to the court that the child has contact with granny say 4 times per year and it is up to the Judge (having read the enormous bundle of papers related to the case) to agree this or not. If the judge agrees, then when if and when the child is matched with adoptors, they will be told about the open aspect of the adoption (ie seeing grany 4 times per year) this is just an example by the way, and they will have to decide whether that is something with which they could cope, and if they are in agreement and the match is right then the adoption goes ahead. If they are not in agreement, there would be concern about the adoptors because it has already been decided that this would be in the best interests of the child.
It is not the case that adoptors can make contact with members of the child's birth family. Adoption gives the adoptors total parental responsibility for the child. Also what is secret is the name and address of the adoptors, so there is no possibility of birth parents being able to kn ock on their door, wanting to see the child that they have abused.
Your statement about matters not "being too alarming" is patent nonsense. Do you honestly think that a judge is going to make an Order after hearing maybe 10 professionals give evidence and be cross-examined by the lawyer for the parents for anything up to 3/4 hours, when there is nothing "too alarming" - if you do you are seriously seriously totally unenlighted and seriously misinformed.
OK I've spent too much time on your nonsense - now will you go away.
If it were anyone else asking this question, I'd probably answer it.