Mumsnet Talk

I think the answer to this question is clearly yes.

Social workers got rid of the child's bio-parents, but they did not, and were not entitled to, get rid of all of the child's bio-relatives.

Is it not the duty of the child's adoptive parents to discover the circumstances of the child's removal from his or her bio-family and, unless there are very compelling reasons why the child should not be allowed direct contact with them, arrange contact meetings?

Due to the privacy of the family courts, any social workers will be unable to tell adoptive parents the details of how the bio-parents were alleged to have failed as parents.

Although there have to be reasons why a child was forcibly adopted, it isn't essential that the child was harmed before adoption. A fear that the child may be harmed in the future is sufficient.

I think adoptive parents will find that in at least 50% of cases the alleged and "proven" actual or predicted parenting failures will not appear very alarming and thereby not make contact meetings between the child and his or her bio-parents and or other bio-relatives inappropriate.

No

If an adopted child asks to see his bio relatives and his parents think it is the right thing for him then yes he does have a right to.

Do bio relatives have the right to have contact with a child previously a member of their family - who is now having a great life with his forever family? NO!

bored again are you?

If it were anyone else asking this question, I'd probably answer it.

Stop being a jerk.

Go away - haven't you got the message yet? you are sooooooooooo boring

<yawns>

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.

So you have given up on forcing the children to see their birth parents, and are now suggesting they see wider birth family, is that right .

Or are you just causing trouble again?

Do fuck off wherever the fuck you came from.

What concerns me is the persistent need to post loaded question in the adoption section part of Mum's net.

Surely if there is a genuine interest in the subject you would want as wide an audience as possible.

By posting solely in Adoptions, where potential and existing adoptive parents go it feels to me as if the poster's goal is to 'agitate' adoptive parents. The end game is annoying those who adopt whilst pretending to be about genuine concern for adopted children.

I am concerned because that says to me the poster has significant emotional issues that need addressing for them to have a happy life. They clearly have more angst than is helpful and seem to be only able of posting in self destruct mode.

Have I read this post a few times in the last hour, or just a few times in the last hour?

See, if melvin/john/guy spent just 20 minutes reading a leaflet about adoption, he would know the answers to these 'questions'. So, given the enormous amount of time he invests on this hobby, I guess he is either just a pathological outputter, who doesn't care to actually receive any information, or he knows the answers perfectly well but won't let that get in the way of his fun in winding up, harassing and undermining adoptive parents. Adoptive parents, those pesky scum-merchants who clearly deserve all the bullying he can dish out.

He is quite clearly a lonely man with low self-esteem, and lord knows there's plenty of them out there causing trouble and the world has to learn to live with them somehow, but I do wonder: if it is true that these guys are all an elected MP, should we reconsider what to do? NanaNina, I know you tried contacting Nick Clegg, and didn't even get the courtesy of a reply, but it bugs me enormously that our taxes are supporting this guy.

Incidentally, to anyone who's reading this who genuinely would like to know more about direct contact between adopted children and their biological families, I'm sorry you're going to be starved of an interesting and constructive discussion. Like all the other adopters here, I could draw on my child's own experience to reveal just how much nonsense OP is talking, but he has made sure it is not safe for me to do that.

Well looks like we've got rid of thatstupidguy - thing is hester I can't prove that he is John Hemming. He just sounds like he's coming out with the same bullshit. On the other hand JH has always posted under his own name, and I think for an elected MP to post such nonsense and even to confirm that he "supports" parents whom social services are investigating re child protection concerns, and helps then to flee to another country is outrageous. However I put all this to Nick Clegg and nothing, so not sure where to go from there. It may of course be that JH is wary with an election coming up and is in fact thatguy, but looks like he has crawled back under his stone for the time being...........long may it last.

It is probably wishful thinking that they are all one man, but there is no reason why there should not be several - just look at some of the pondlife that used to congregate around Fathers4Justice, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some overlap.

I'm sure JH counts as a maverick within his own party, and maybe Clegg's tactic is just to give him as little attention as possible in the hope he'll wither into silence. JH may even relish a telling off; part of this could be goading his own party into giving him some attention.

I don't think he's gone - he will be back, not this weekend but next. He seems to appear about every second weekend - just gives us enough time to think he's gone, then up he pops.

I've contact mumnset towers about him (again), and been told they are, despite appearances, dealing with him. So we just report and ignore (if you can bear to) next time, maybe?

I don't think he is JH himself. I think he is this guy. He writes like him, anyway.

Oh dear .... that awful man. He started posting on another forum that I regularly use - was booted off fairly sharpish.

Maryz ~ i wish you had not linked to that website. It is not good for my blood pressure!

Sorry Adoptiveaunty - you can report my post if you like and they will delete it .

If only getting rid of silly ideas out of peoples heads were that simple .........

Maryz - I've looked on the link and he looks unhinged before you start to read the nonsensical stuff he writes. I had to stop to be honest as I just couldn't bear it. What IS it with these blokes. I don't believe that there is nothing personal behind it - why would any sane, rational bloke start such a campaign. Anyway I know I have posted long replies to him, because I get so frustrated at all the rubbish that he posts, but I really do think we have to steel ourselves to ignore him, totally ignore him as I think that is the best policy.

The thing is he is posting in Adoption and JH usually posts in the "In the news" forum after something that he has read in the press (Daily Mail rubbish I suspect) and it is really worrying how much support he gets and it turns into a "social worker bashing" thread. I and other social workers and lawyers try our best to dispute all his nonsensical claims about babies being snatched from decent parents, but he continues with his random comments, never responding to queries raised. But it is worrying to see so many MNs supporting him. At least on the adoption thread you all know the truth about the child's pre placement experiences.

It is not me. I only post with my own name.

What do you think of him, JH?

I don't say anything on these threads because it's all a bit crazy and everyone else says what I want too say so much better than I could.

I second hester though. I would be interested to hear what JH thinks of this person.

Well, today I've been to the AGM of New Family Social (lesbian and gay adoption network). Everyone brought their children along, and they were a lovely bunch of kids: different ages, races, some SN some NT, but all really happy to hang out with other children from adoptive families with same sex parents. The parents were great: sussed, thoughtful, caring. It was such a far cry from the ugliness spouted by the melvins of this world, and I came away feeling really heartened.

And then I met up with one of my favourite MNetters for coffee and cake, and a stroll along the South Bank. So a good day all round

Good question hester but you won't get a sensible answer from JH - just some random comment, of a couple of lines or so. However he will almost certainly agree as thatguy is spilling out the same sort of rubbish as JH. Also we don't really want to encourage JH on the thread do we - he's gone quiet for a while unless I have been ultra lucky and missed his posts.

Glad you had a lovely day, sounds a great idea.

What I know is that this country's care system has an obsession with adoption. Some children get adopted more than once. I don't know of any children adopted more often than that, but I believe that it does happen.

The children are often, but not always, traumatised by the process of being taken into care and then given a temporary "forever family".

Given that some children adopted because of a risk of possible future emotional abuse I believe that the system is evil. It may do some children some good, but a lot of children, natural parents and adoptive parents are harmed by the process.

Remember that the majority of children that leave the care system aged under 5 are adopted.

Whereas the children left in abusive families do just dandy.

Anyway, where were we? Budgies? Perms?

johnhemming, is there any possibility that they are traumatised before they are taken into care, not traumatised by being taken into care .

It seems to me that melvin/wasthatthatguy is the chap who has set up the website I linked to recently. Since he seems to know you, I wonder would you go over and have a look at his website and ask him to change some of his "golden rules", which are quite obviously dangerous.

Anyone who is genuinely doing their best to parent their children will be harmed by following his advice not to inform anyone if a stranger sexually assaults your children, for example . And as for his advice about not asking for help for depression or mental health issues, or asking for help with difficult children, or how to get in touch with children in care - these pieces of advice are shocking and if followed, will lead to stress and harm coming to a lot of children.

This man refers a lot to you, if you don't agree with this advice, you should really read his site carefully. And if you do agree, you are also a danger to children and their parents, both birth and adoptive.

Oh gawd we've got JH back now, spouting his usual nonsense. Children getting adopted twice - oh god what next is he going to come out with. He just doesn't get this issue about "likely to be suffering from significant harm" - IF JH you would like to read the 4th para and following paras of my post of 1st May where I set out an example of why it is necessary to remove children because of "likely harm" you might understand a little more. Oh god why am I even bothering.

Maryz - you are absolutely right to ask the pertinent question as to whether children are abused before coming into care, rather than because they are taken into care. Don't expect a logical answer though.

I think ignore, ignore, ignore is best, even though I have broken my pledge to ignore, but will from now on............so budgies, yes I think they can be v ery useful for older people living alone to keep them company and give them something for which they feel responsible. Some of the older women may also have perms!!

Do you really deny that a large proportion of adoptions from care fail (aka are disrupted). The figure is around 25%. Those that fail result in the children returning to care and a number are then re-adopted.

I think the Panorama Programme on children in care highlighted one case of a child whose adoption had failed.

>johnhemming, is there any possibility that they are traumatised before they
>are taken into care, not traumatised by being taken into care
Obviously some are, but newborn babies tend not to be. At times they spend no time with their mothers once born.

I am not arguing that there shouldn't be a care system.

Look at a current case where an unborn child is considered to be at a risk of harm.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

But newborn babies ARE traumatised by the time they are born. Have you read the recent research which states that stressful pregnancies can and do affect the unborn child? Stressful pregnancies are indicators that a child will eventually present with ADHD and/or behavioural problems. Drugs in pregnancy are abusive, alcohol taken during pregnancy is abusive, a pregnant woman living with an abusive partner is an extremely traumatic even for an unborn child. Assuming that the unborn child is able to hear voices and music whilst in the womb then presumably he or she is going to hear screaming, shouting and arguing?

Being taken into care is not what traumatises a child. Being neglected, abused and not being given even adequate parental care prior to be removed is what traumatises a child.

Can I suggest a little reading for you : Margot Sunderland What Every Parent Should Know would be a good start for you to educate yourself about how the neural pathways in a baby's brain start to develop and how stress, anxiety and high cortisol levels can affect that development.

Adoptions can and do fail - when they fail it's invariably because Social Services themselves haven't recognised exactly how traumatised a child has been made by his experiences whilst with birth parents and fail to provide the funding for ongoing therapeutic support to enable adopters to do their very best for their very much loved but equally very traumatised children.

>Being taken into care is not what traumatises a child.
Different children are affected differently. There is evidence that each change of placement causes some psychological damage. On the basis of Michael Rutter's research I would presume that this applies moreso to children older than 6 months.

The step of taking a child into care does cause psychological harm. That harm may be the least worst option, but should not be ignored.

There is also then the question of how children are treated in care which is variable.

There are some very good foster carers. Then there are also dreadful ones.

Reactive Attachment Disorders are common causes of disrupted adoptions. Many of those children, however, have been taken from their mother at a very early age and before the point at which RAD can develop.

Johnhemming, I am a foster carer and look after newborns. I can give you examples of trauma in newborns if it helps you have a better understanding. Baby 1 went into a residential mother and baby unit for 2 weeks. By the age of 2 weeks when bought to me he was flinching when a bottle was put to his mouth, had learned not to cry and was unable to make eye contact. He was subjected to daily contact with a mother who screamed at him and had to be removed by security in a few occasions. He was in the car as she regularly kicked and pounded at it and became phobic about the carseat.

Baby 2 was subjected to heroin throughout pregnancy and was born with hepatitis 9 weeks early. She wasn't visited in special care after 2 weeks as her parents were imprisoned for a fight in the unit, which she witnessed. So for 7 weeks the only visitors were social workers. She came to me constantly screaming and only soothed by permanent carrying. At 2 months she resumed contact with her drug using mother where mum was often totally zoned out. Because mother had threatened to torch my house, she had to be taken to contact by social workers and had to deL with many different faces.

These babies are so traumatised, and it is not easily fixed. It is not care but their parents who cause this.

Incidentally John, I have cared for a toddler whose mother was supported by you, and who subsequently stayed together. This child has huge issues from his inconsistent parenting and I wept and sending him back to her Fter one of her many prison sentences. You really did a great job there. So child centred.

I feel it depends on your moral standpoint. For me the right of every child to be raised in a loving, safe family out-weighs the rights of adults to be a 'parent'.
To accept and agree with JH you would have to start from the view point that because you produce a child it is yours to do with as you wish, regardless of the view of society and the law.
Quite how an elected representative gets away with advocating, promoting and supporting illegal activities that involves the welfare of vulnerable children I do not know, it seems quite a rum to-do to me.

My DH and I give respite care to a now 17 year old girl. She was with her mother until she was 8 months old. Her mother was not in good mental health (long term mental health issues, can be somewhat controlled by medication but she often goes off her meds). When X went home from hospital with baby, was visited by Publin Health Nurse who was alarmed. X had a phobia about germs and wouldn't allow anyone to look at, hold, touch, talk to the baby. She was given opportunities to get it together but refused to go back on meds. Baby was left with her for 8 months while they gave her time and help, which she consistantly resisted, to get her shit together. For those 8 months, baby was left lying in her cot ALONE. She was only held to be fed or changed. Other than that she was left completely alone and unstimulated. That breaks my heart. At 8 months she was put in care. So much damage was done already though and she has had a very tough time growing up. She has RAD, ADHD, specific language disorder.....Despite the fact that there was no chance of her ever being returned to her mother, she wasn't allowed to be adopted because her mother wouldn't give up her parental rights. (I'm in Ireland). There's more to this story than I've said here, but believe me when I say there was no court in the land that would ever have allowed her to parent. She's 17 now and doing well, thanks to a whole team of people who have supported her.

Her mother got pregnant again 3 years later and mother's brother informed social services as soon as he found out. Her second child was removed from her care in the maternity hospital. She tried to smuggle him out of the hospital in a bag, the poor woman. While I felt desperately sorry for her because she loved those children, I absolutely believe that the right thing was done because she was not capable of parenting. Were the social workers wrong to remove baby from her at birth because of "likely danger"? Damn right. He's been with the same foster carers as his sister and has had such a different life. No labels, no learning difficulties.

The child has to be the one at the centre of the decision, not the parents. If you screw up as a parent once and do nothing to change, why o why would anyone think it's ok to give someone a chance to do the same thing again? Some mistakes just can't be fixed.

Meant to say, social workers were absolutely RIGHT to remove second child from her.

<<Reminds self to talk about perms and budgies in future but OOOHHHH my blood is boiling>>>

An ex friend had a baby. Ex friend enjoyed a life of partying and bringing different men back to her flat. Baby was uncared for and neglected. He was taken into care when he was 20 months old (Despite many phone calls to SS from myself and my other friends. We were all upset and appalled by how this little guy was being treated).

Mother was given opportunity to change time and again. When LO was eventually removed he was still as a newborn. He could not walk or crawl. He had no language development. In fact he never even cried. He simply lay there staring at the ceiling. His muslces were not developed enough for him to pull himself up. He was not thriving. In fact he looked emaciated.

He is with his foster carers and two years on he is doing well. His development is still very delayed but he is coming on.

Ex friend has had another baby placed in care since. She is now expecting another baby. She is still partying (and taking drugs). Should this baby be taken into care John Hemmings? After all it has not been abused (apart from drug and feotal alcohol syndrome of course!) Or should SS allow the child to be abused and neglected before they intervene?

"Reactive Attachment Disorders are common causes of disrupted adoptions"

Would be interested to read your research and statistics on this? There are relatively few cases of RAD diagnosed - my son has an attachment disorder due to his experiences whilst in the womb and due to his extremely poor parenting whilst still with bm. It's not RAD and his adoption won't be disrupted but when a child has extremely challenging behaviour (as does mine) then adopters need support, they need for these behaviours to be recognised, diagnosed (where possible) and WE NEED HELP in order to help our children.

It's not RAD which causes adoptions to disrupt - it's the lack of support available to adopters which causes adoptions to disrupt.

Get your facts straight.
"Many of those children, however, have been taken from their mother at a very early age and before the point at which RAD can develop."

Completely irrelevant. Developmental Trauma - as it's now more commonly known as - happens pre birth, as I've aready said. Your information is clearly out of date and frankly you need to do a whole lot more research and reading before you come here and preach to people who know an awful lot more than you will ever know.

We live it every day. You don't and you have no right to preach to me.

Go back to your day job.

Great post x

Well said Walesblackbird!

People who care for children with RAD are the people who understand RAD.

John Hemming you have shown clearly that you have no understanding of this "condition". What on earth makes you think you can preach to people who are suffering the consequences of RAD every day?

If you know of "dreadful" foster carers then it is your duty to report them and get them deregistered. As a foster carer myself I agree - There are foster carers out there who are in it for the money and show little regard to the children in their care. I have reported their bad practice.

I would also like your point of view on the scenario that Lettingo and Kidzrfreaky have posted.

I have recently returned a child to her birth mother. I will save that story for another time - when she comes back into care, which should not be long now!

Mr Hemmings

Not great at links so you may need to cut and paste but I suggest you take a look at the following article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1384486/Stress-pregnancy-makes-child-unruly-Mothers-anxiety-raise-babys-risk-ADHD.html

It also appears in the Times.

This piece of research makes it very clear that a stressful pregnancy can affect the unborn child and can, and does, result in many children suffering behavioural problems and ADHD.

ADHD is not down to parenting - it is genetic and, for many of us adoptive parents, our children come from a long line of birth parents with undiagnosed mental health problems.

My son's bm had an extremely stressful pregnancy - domestic violence, drugs and alcohol were all involved. My son to this day lives with the consequences of his birth mother's irresponsible behaviour.

And before you say she needed help .... SS had been involved with the family for year and years but still she refused to put anyone's needs before her own.

My son is adorable but he is a hugely troubled little boy and for that I lay the blame fair and square at the door of his birth mother.

Well done all of you MNs trying to point out the reality to JH and the reasons why his posts are totally inaccurate and misleading, BUT I fear you are wasting your time and energy. Believe me I (and other social workers and lawyers) have tried to point out to him how wrong and misinformed he is, but he is impervious to this, and contines banging on abut RAD - he completely and utterly misunderstood Michael Rutter's research. I have tried again and again to explain to him why so many adoptions of older children break down - i.e. because (as you all know) the damage that is done to them in the early weeks and months (and in utero as some of you have pointed out) of life, will cause the problems to a greater or lesser extent through the lifespan.

I once asked him if he'd ever seen an abused child - he came back with some crap about "seeing lots of people bla bla bla" I doubt whether he has ever seen a child to be honest!

He IS best ignored but I know how he makes your blood boil to say nothing of raised blood pressure - not good.
JH - yes - stick to the day job, go away or crawl under a stone or anything that keeps you away from insulting all these adoptors by your ridiculous and misinformed posts.

>insulting all these adoptors
What is insulting the adopters?

What I have said is that a material number of the toddlers that are adopted from care are already so traumatised that it is very difficult to look after them. This may not be a problem so much with a 3 year old, but when a 10 year old tries to attack the adoptive parent with a knife then there is a problem.

This doesn't happen every time, but attachment disorders are often seen in adopted children. It is often misdiagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum.

None of this is the fault of the adoptive parents.

This is some good work
apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/305

The only massive error in Alan Rushton's report is that he believes that only 6% of children are adopted from care when it is a majority of the under 5s leaving care that leave care via adoption.

I am curious as to where you got 'majority' from? I have just had a look at the national statistics which seem to be telling me that just over 40% of under 5's leaving care were adopted (2009). That's not a majority. That means a majority are being reunited with their parents

These are the figures
(numbers of u5s leaving care percentage and number adopted)

2001 3,100 48% 1,500
2002 3,400 50% 1,700
2003 3,600 56% 2,000
2004 4,000 48% 1,900
2005 4,200 50% 2,100
2006 4,400 48% 2,100
2007 4,300 44% 1,900
2008 4,500 44% 2,000
2009 4,800 44% 2,100
2010 4,700 43% 2,000

There are now also children who get "permanence" through residency orders and Special Guardianships.

Alan Rushton was referring to 2005 which was indeed 50%.

What is also true is that the proportion that are recorded as returning to their parents is reducing.

2001 3,100 33%
2002 3,400 36%
2003 3,600 31%
2004 4,000 39%
2005 4,200 34%
2006 4,400 29%
2007 4,300 28%
2008 4,500 27%
2009 4,800 26%
2010 4,700 25%

Figures from SSDA903 return and only relating to children under 5 and subject to compulsion (not S20)

I would have thought that leaving care due to adoption is a good option for a child - if the alternative is to remain in care or be returned to birth parents who (for many reasons) are unable to parent.

What are the figures for children returned to their parents who then come back into the care system? I bet it is much, much higher than the percentage who are returned by adoptive parents .

So if it not the adoptive parents' fault that many adopted chidren have major issues, whose fault is it? Is it not the case that the harm is done by taking children from abusive or neglectful parents too late, not too early .

Under 5's who have been removed PERMANENTLY from birth parents have a much higher chance of being placed with loving, adoptive, forever families than children over 5. Is that not a good thing for the under 5's then? What would be a better alternative?

Oh thank you sooo much JH for telling us that "attachment disorder is often seen in adopted children" - we'd never have known otherwise. Now all these adoptors who love and care for these children who have been damaged by the birth parents have a new piece of information! Yes yes I know about sarcasm being the lowest form of wit but who cares when it's you I am responding to.

But maybe just maybe there is hope - I have never ever heard you say that these children adopted from care are so traumatised that they are difficult to look after. Ah but wait, your usual stance on this issue that it is being removed from the parents and placed in care prior to adoption is the cause of the trauma. Silly me why did I think the light was dawning.

As for your comment that attachment disorder is often mistaken for autism - can you evidence this ????

See MNs I couldn't ignore him try as I might!

Nananina as a SW manager for many years how did that get past you? I guess you learn something new everyday

As an adoptive parent of two and foster carer of many - Most with attachment disorder/attachment difficulty I guess that's all my fault eh? Absolutely nothing to do with the way they were neglected and abused raised by their bio parent/s eh?

You have misrepresented my argument again. I have already made it quite clear.

Each child is an individual child. Their experiences vary. Some suffer from the birth parents. Some suffer from the care system. Some suffer from both.

I am simply trying to reduce the suffering by improving the decisionmaking.

The difficulty that many of us have (I think, though obviously I don't speak for everyone), is that you seem to think that in every case where children are taken from their birth parents and "forcibly adopted" without their parents permission, that it is the taking from the birth parents that causes their difficulties.

Many of us would argue that it isn't the taking into care that harms the children, and that in some cases the children would be better taken earlier. So a child taken at birth, placed as soon as possible with adoptive parents usually has minimal longterm issues, whereas a child who is in and out of care, returned to allow the parents to try again to "prove" they can parent, and eventually released for adoption over the age of 5, will more than like have serious issues as he/she grows up.

Our problem with melvin/whatever his name is, is that he thinks that children should not be adopted because "there is a liklihood of harm". If you don't agree with him, you should really say so. A parent who has neglected a couple of earlier children, is likely to harm another child. Do you think such a child should be taken at birth, or left as an experiment?

In addition, what has upset many on here is the assumption that having been adopted, contact with birth family would be good for a child who has been adopted. In fact the same poster has a huge section on his website instructing birth parents how to find out where their children are, and telling them to contact the child, to wait outside school, to encourage the children to run from care. Do you think this is good advice?

Many of us have children who really, really don't want contact, any contact. My own daughter is very careful of her facebook settings, and of having photographs taken, because she doesn't want contact.

If you don't agree with the op of this thread, you should really ask that he take references to your name off his website .

Are we supposed to make an informed opinion based on that link you posted?

Some pregnant horsey woman has fled the country to dodge the "babysnatchers". With further research (Good old Google) I learnt that her other child has been removed from her care - is the child with her father?

You will have to provide more compelling evidence for anyone to reach an informed decision I'm afraid.

I have two (unrelated) children in my care at the minute. Both are suffering attachment problems. They were before they were placed with me. When I adopt them will the blame for their problems be laid at my feet?

Here is a lovely blog about Vicky Haigh, the woman John Hemming linked about above. It is appallingly written, and sounds like melvin, to be honest .

It seems that her older daughter has been placed with her father who is a "deviant" among other insults . She is accusing the father of sexual abuse in some of her blogs as well. Even thought these articles and blogs are written from her "side" only, the story sounds bizarre and she sounds most peculiar.

I assume we only get one side of these stories because social services are not allowed to comment on individual cases.

Try to analyse the arguments.

We need a care system. I would personally prefer one more like the Danish system which has better results for the children.

I think the one we have although it does get things right also gets things badly wrong many many times. It is so damaged that the people working within it often cannot tell.

I do have social workers who tell me what is going on and who are entirely supportive of my criticisms.

I know nothing of the Danish System. Could you enlighten me please?

Ah, now I'm sure we can all agree that the system could be improved.

Do tell us about what happens in Denmark.

State run childrens homes
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/time_to_bring_back_childrens_h.html

He doesn't know anything about the Danish system Corsa/hester - it's something he trots out all the time. Even if he did know, the social policies of the Scandinavian countries are I believe much more child centred for parents and children than the UK. OK here's your chance JH you are being requested to give details about the Danish system (in detail) and evidence for your assertion that there are better outcomes for children.

And don't patronise us by telling us to "try to analyse the argument" - that's good coming from you, with your random comments and refusal to provide evidence other than a list of figures you get from SSD. I am still waiting for a response to my request that you provide evidence for your assertion that children with attachment disorder are often mistaken for autistic children. ???? Can I expect this anytime soon - no thought not, because you don't have the evidence, you just spout things that are nonsensical.

When you talk of "better decision making" a lot of these adoptors won't know what you mean, but I do because I've heard it all before from you. You have actually posted that you believe there is a conspiracy between all professionals involved in care proceedings, social workers, managers, children's guardians (who are independent of the LA) psychologists, GPs, consultant psychiatrists, the lawyers for the LA and the lawyers acting for the parents (in your own words) they "roll over" and agree with the LA because they need to pay their mortgage. This so angered a family law barrister that she too wrote to Nick Clegg about you. You also believe that the judge is in on the conspiracy, and rubber stamps the applications for a care order. NOW can you deny that you have not posted what I have outlined above? Any minute now you will be talking of there not being any "checks and balances" which is another of your favourite comments.

I think these adoptors should know that you were severely criticised by a high court judge Wall LJ and his criticism of you was contained in his judgement. Also a Birmingham judge ordered you out of his court. You tried to sue Birmingham City Council for £30,000 for some perceived wrong doing in relation to a personal matter related to a social work investigation, and said that the social workers should pay from their own pockets!! Again can you deny that any of this is true???

The truth of the matter is that you have an axe to grind based on something personal (although you will deny this) and I don't think I could give details on MN although I found the details on line (can't remember how) but I think it was actually when I googled your name.

SO MNs/adoptors - he actually does believe that babies are snatched from decent parents to get them adopted to meet adoption targets. Again can you deny that you have made this allegation over and over again. So trying to soft peddle now you are being faced with the people who love and care for these attachment disordered children just won't wash.

I don't believe that any social worker agrees with you about your conspiracy theory. Absolute rubbish. I know you often makes some random comment that a social worker has agreed with you about this or that.

Just go away .......................

I have an adopted daughter. I would dearly love to have some contact with her birth mother. I would love my daughter to have the same. Her birth mother cannot manage this. My adopted daughter has twice-yearly direct contact with her birth father. We are in the process of taking the arrangements for this out of the hands of social services and organising it ourselves as we think we can make the experience more pleasant for all parties.

Being an adoptive parent is challenging enough without also being accused of trying to prevent our adopted child(ren) from knowing where they came from or of wilfully trying to stop them from having positive contact with birth parents where that is possible.

HI fishtank - no I don't know either how it never registered with me and my colleagues and our foster and adoptive parents, about attachment disorder. And all those course I ran for fostercarers and adoptors must have been about flower arranging and not insecure attachments, and I'm sure you will now be scurrying off to find info on the subject. Maybe JH can enlighten us all as to what it is, how it is caused and the ways in which it manifests itself.

SO here's another challenge for you JH

You once complained I raised too many issues in my posts, which you clearly found confusing. So just to re-cap - I am awaiting.

1. Where is your evidence for your statement that attachment disordered children are often mistaken for those with autism?

2. Can you confirm or deny the issues that I posted on 9th May about what you mean by "better decisionmaking"

3. Can you tell us: what is attachment disorder
what is the cause
how does it manifest itself.

SO come on JH don't hold back -I've numbered the points to make it easier for you to follow.

Janni - yes it is insulting isn't it for someone to make proclomations about adopted children and contact with the birth parents, when they know absolutely nothing about the individual circumstances of the adoption triangle. Take no heed, JH talks nonsense. I've seen it all before. I think it's worse because he is an MP -LibDem for Yardley in Birmingham.

I want to know whether you support the lunatic poster known as wasthatthatguy/melvinscomment. You must know who he is. And also whether you agree with the advice he gives on his "forced adoption" site.

And if you do know him, could you ask him to go away. Because he is driving posters away from this topic, which should be supportive and helpful to adoptive parents who may be struggling with their children's problems, whether as a result of their early years or of their being taken into care. Frankly, to many of us, the cause of the difficulties is no longer the issue, gaining help is. And losing support because of melvin's actions is not fair .

I think I can answer the question you put to JH Maryz because he does in fact think the same way as thatguy/melvinscomment. JH never gives proper responses to anything put to him, as I think he doesn't know the answers, he just posts some random comment. As you can see I have challenged him on several issues but I won't get a proper response. If you've read what I've poste on 9th May about his beliefs about the conspiracy theory, it is very worrying isn't it and insulting to professionals and foster carers and adoptie parents, struggling to cope with children who were probably not moved earlier enough. Martin Narey (chief exec of Barnardoes) has made this point very forcibly in the fairly recent past and in my experience that is the cause of many of the problems - leaving children too long in families where they are not safe - with social workers always hoping "things will change" - as with Peter Connelly.

I too am concerned that this thread is getting disrupted and I am guilty of furthering that disruption by responding to JH's claims, even though I have suggested that we all ignore him. I have tried and failed but wil try again because as yoy say, you adoptors need all the support you can get.

Hi NN. Did you mean I will by scurrying off......... or JH?

Sorry if you took my post the wrong way. I was being sarcastic. Of course if anyone should know about Attachment disorder it will be you. I have been on enough Attachment courses to last me a lifetime.

I, too, am eagerly awaiting info on the Danish system.

I could not agree more that there should be changes to Children's Services in the UK. I would love to see more rights for children. It appears that Social Services have no option than to bow to the (often unrealistic) wants of bio parents, with little, or no, regard to the needs and wishes of children.

fishtank - I don't think NN did take your post the wrong way! Please don't scurry anywhere.

Fishttank - no of course I didn't take your post the wrong way - I was just carrying on with the sarcasm in the light of JH's post about adopted children and attachment disorder. Yes I absolutely agree there should be more emphasis on the child's rights. That is not to say birth parents shouldn't have any rights but the pendulum has swung much too far in their direction.

Anyway we've given JH something to think about but yes I would like to see him scurry off for good and all.

Phew! (mops brow) .

Maybe JH/Melvin/ThatDaftGuy will be on later to enlighten us all. There again maybe not.

JH - two more question to add to the 3 I posed in my post of 9th May -

Please explain to us about the Danish system for children in care. You approve of it so much you must have all the details, so please explain the system

Also Maryz wants to know if you support the post thatguy

So that's 5 questions JH.

Please number your responses in the interests of clarity.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328895/Love-cheat-MP-John-Hemmings-200k-loan-paid-YOU.html



Should we trust this guy to act in children's best interests? Really!

Nick Clegg's got a bit more to worry about than a few cheesed-off MNetters, hasn't he?

Nice cat, though

Thanks for that Fish. Can I also direct you to this -

http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/03/23/john-hemming-mp-abuse-of-power-and-privilege/

tut tut tut

Oops
www.headoflegal.com/2011/03/23/john-hemming-mp-abuse-of-power-and-privilege/

Have name changed for this.

Whilst we are on the subject of proffessionals who act in the interest of lining their own pockets and don't give a stuff about the needs of children I would like to bring your attention to this untruthful, conniving bastard

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/09/uknews

Despite being struck off as a social worker he set up his own business as an Independent Social Worker who "Helped children to be reunited with their birth families".

I spent 4 years watching my then foster child become more and more distressed as he said blatent lies to childrens services in his attempt to reunite child with (absolutely unsuitable) bio parents.

Thankfully the Judge saw through him and threw him out of Court. Social Services on the other hand had to pay him thousands of pounds for services rendered.

Mumsnetters keep his name in the back of your mind in case he turns up on your doorstep via social services (On the pretence of supporting a child in your care) in an attempt to line his pockets. He is a disgusting, vile individual. Be on your guard and take nothing he says as valid.

That is terrible horse .

By the way, with all the references to JH, I suspect this thread will disappear very shortly.

In fact, maybe that is a suggestion - if we flooded every peculiar thread with "facts" about Mr. Hemming he might get the whole thread removed instead of the usual deletion of individual posts .

Everone here should read that link from corsa100. Very interesting reading.

"my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence" So said the judge in that case.

And speaking for MYself, I agree with this judge and think the man should be ignored. That's what I intend to do from here on in.

Horse, I missed your post because I was reading corsa's link. That's absolutely dreadful. It's awful to think there are such people in the world who act with no conscience.

Blimey corsa. The judge also said, of Mr Hemmings: "Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP [the child]"

Says it all, really.

I know Hester. How can we take him seriously?

Lettingo. You are right. I shall not be posting on this thread anymore, Or any other threads that these twonks sabotage.

Thank you for the link Corsa - I haven't had a lot of time this morning but for anyone who is interested in the judgement which is very comprehensive (as always) for a high court judge (Lord Justice Wall) I think if you scroll down Nos. 81 -88 are relevant to what the Judge thought of JH. Thanks also to you Fishtank for more revealing information about this horrendous man. I'd say "rat" never mind "love rat" - I could tell you more about the reasons why JH fights this campaign of children being "snatched" from decent parent but am afraid it would be seen by MN to be a personal attack onJH.

Namchanged - of course there will be social workers who are dishonest, totally irresponsible and deceitful, and it is a great pity that you and the child suffered because of this man's behaviour. However I think this is not peculiar to social workers. I have followed the case of Ian Tomlinson who was "unlawfully killed" and it is very clear that the police have lied and lied again and again and had there not been video evidence I am sure they would have continued to lie. This is not the only case where the polie have lied, and we know of nurses who have murdered their patients by overdosing or stealing their drugs for themselves. There will always be "bad apples" unfortunately.

Anyway now we all know some of the truth about JH shall be just ignore him or just post "bullshit" to his posts and move on with our own discussion. He is very thick skinned (and a little unhinged in my view) and if he is crazy enough to take on a High Court Judge, I don't think the revelations on this thread will stop him coming back..............let's just hope not.

I meant of course let's hope that he doesn't come back

The answer to this question is simply No ! A child is not an adult and is not capable of knowing what is in its best interests, allowing a child to make this decision could be terrible. This kind of judgement will be made in a family court only.

I think this thread is finished now. It was started by some unhinged bloke who ckearly has an axe to grind and by his queries, he demonstrates that he knowd nothing about child development or attachment or anything else related to adopted children. Then JH stuck his oar in and that is always a problem. However he and thatguy have been well and truly told by all the adoptors on here that contact with parents is so often not in the child's best interests. These men care nothing for the abused and neglected children, only about "decent people" having babies snatched foradoption.

We have even got rid of JH (which is a positive step) He may have been put off by my questions which I knew when I posed them he hadn't a hope in hell of answering them. But I think the main thing is that some of the posters on here found links that showed him up for what he was, and how he has been criticised by a High Court Judge, etc etc so maybe we should see these men's departure from the thread as success and consider it closed?

Amen

I've only known John Hemming to stand up for the few rare cases (out of hundreds and thousands?) where parents wrongly have their children taken. I haven't seen anyone else have the balls to do that.
To think that to stand up for innocent families will make it so you're accused of being a lover of abusive parents. That's inane logic.
I would hope if anyone's critized it would be in response to a direct to something they've said or done.
That's like someone standing up for the likes of Leonard Peltier, who's facing life in prison in the USA for something he hasn't done. For a humanitarian activists to be dubbed as a 'lover of all prisoners and criminals', and being told they have no care for victims. What utter drivel.

yukoncher, no-one on MN has ever (to my knowledge) criticised JH for championing certain individuals. We don't know those individuals and we don't know those cases.

He will continue to be criticised on here for HIS sweeping statements about things he knows nothing about, for the crass and hurtful assertions he makes that have no basis in evidence or in the lived experience of the adoptive families on these threads.

To extend your own analogy, it's like someone who has championed prisoners who have been subjected to miscarriages of justice, then repeatedly visiting a forum for victims' families and telling them that they are part of a conspiracy to lock up innocent youngsters in order to meet Government targets. And then refusing to listen to their experience. And then refusing to discuss the assertions he has made.

Perhaps you would like to read a few of these threads before you, too, come on here to accuse us of utter drivel. Many of the families here have been through a lot, and I am getting pretty fed up of us not being able to have our own conversations without people who have never walked in our shoes bouncing in here to insult us.

Sorry I didn't realise John Hemming had been on here accusing adoptive parents of being part of the conspiracy to snatch babies from innocent families.
Could you give a source where he says that? Then I'll be able to understand the attitude towards him. Thanks

You need to search for posts by melvinscomment, yukoncher. He is (I believe) the op of this thread and JH seems to pop up on them occasionally. Much of the nasty comment in adoptions from JH was from a couple of years ago, many of the threads have been deleted.

I accept John Hemming is not Melvin or Wasthatthatguy, but he is referred to a lot by him, and he refuses to disassociate himself from him.

It isn't so much what he is posting, as where. As adoptive parents we are not responsible or complicit in taking any children from any parents, and to imply that we shouldn't have them and should give them back is odd, to say the least. This used to be a supportive board, giving advice and help to people who were bringing up children who have often had a pretty rotten start in life.

Unfortunately, because of the insistance of melvin et al in disrupting posts, and in linking threads to questionable websites, many posters no longer feel safe posting .

I completely support more being done to prevent forced adoptions, so have liked john hemmings speeches I've seen, and there seems to be, if anything, too many people who trust SS.
But I would never blame adoptive parents of being 'in on it'.
I've missed where he might've suggested that. True I haven't read everything though.

Oh god I think if I hear the term "forced adoption" much more, my blood pressure will be raised. Of course parents who neglect and abuse their children are not going to agree to them, being adopted, and will challenge in court (which is their right) so if that's what people like you mean by forced adoption so be it.

Maybe you would like to look back through the posts and find the links on JH who you "Like" - putting himself up as "Love rat of the year" with his mistress. There is a link that provides evidence of a High Court Judge severely criticising JH in a written judgement. He was ordered out of court by a Birmingham court. He has tried to sue Birmingham City Council in the sum of £30,000 for some perceived injustice connected to his mistress, and said the social workers should pay out of their own pocket.

He has not stated that adoptors are part of the conspiracy but isn't it enough that he thinks social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, children's guardians (who are independent from the LA) lawyers for the LA and any other professional involved in care proceedings (including the Judge) are all in on this conspiracy to snatch children for forced adoption.

What do you know about it anyway. You've probably read the tabloids and the Daily Mail. If you care to scroll back you will see that I have posed a number of questions to JH (which I knew he hadn't a hope in hell of answering) because he talks complete nonsense. He has an axe to grind because of a personal issue.

As you have been told by Hester this thread was started by another unhinged bloke, telling adoptors that children should have contact with their bio children and from his queries it is clear that he knows absolutely nothing about abused children. These adoptors know what happened to their children by their birthparents and cope daily with the trauma of some of these children whose treatment by birth parents will to a greater or lesser extent will affect them adversely through their lifespan.

SO have a look back at the posts and if you are just going to trot out rubbish about forced adoptions then go away. I have 30 years experience as a soc wrk and manager in adoption and fostering and child protection for a LA (now retired) and have been involved in hundreds of cases of children being removed from their parents for very good reasons and given the stability and permanence they deserve by adoption in a loving home.

yukoncher, I don't want to be unhelpful but I'm afraid I'm not going to trawl back through the adoption threads to highlight evidence of how offensive and discourteous John Hemmings has been to the adoptive parents on MN. By all means take a look yourself, but I have already expended too much wasted effort on the guy.

I think there is an honourable tradition of people standing up for those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice. That doesn't mean that all those who take on this role are honourable, of course. I have no idea if JH's help to those families was honourable or not. He may be a complete hero, for all I know. But that doesn't excuse him and the other men from coming on here and stirring up trouble.

You need to understand that this was our safe place, where adoptive parents could talk about what our lives are like and what our children go through. It feels extremely insulting to have somebody use this space - and our lives - as a peg for bombastic, bullying sloganeering and wild assertions. Hemmings, melvin and wttg do not ask genuine questions of the posters on here; they do not engage in debate. They use our posts to pull all the attention to themselves; they link our posts to hostile anti-adoption websites; they denigrate our experience and knowledge; they ignore our requests to be left alone. It's just a small group of men, but they are really bullying and disrespectful to the women on here.

I would be delighted to have an informed and constructive discussion about ways of improving the child protection and adoption systems. Hemmings always shys away from that discussion. He doesn't want it. It's not his agenda in any way to be constructive. That might not be immediately obvious if you look at just one thread, but believe me if you read through several you will begin to get it.

Congratulations Hester on such a measured post. Afraid I was not able to do likewise. Just so fed up of these posters talking about things that they clearly know nothing about. Have been trying to post and having trouble. Wanted to explain how JH can't actually help any parents for what he perceives as a miscarriage of justice. Will explain why in next post.

Reason JH can't help anyone is because he has no right to be in court with the BPs or effect any decisions made on a child's future. Just because he is an MP he has no more rights than you or I to be in court or indeed anyone else not connected to the case. The only right he has is to be a "McKenzie Friend" (don't know the origin or why the name is so called) but what it means is that the BPs can take someone along with them to court for moral support. He has no right of a "voice" in court and can only speak if the judge asks him a direct question. He can pas notes to the BP and may speak to them in a whisper. Mind they are not always guaranteed a seat next to the BPs.

The people I think JH is really exploiting is the BPs because they will think that because he is an important person i.e. an MP he will be able to overturn any decisions made and they get their children back, and of course he cannot do anything at all about the evidence given in court and the decisions made.

He likes to make people think he has an important role in care proceedings. If you ask him about the outcome of some case he has mentioned he either doesn't respond or if you press him he says "it's in the court of appeal" or "it's in the court of human rights" - I once asked him how many times his intervention had been successful and he replied "we don't keep those figures" - yeah right!

I just hope yuchonker goes away and if he/she comes back I can ignore the post.

John hemmings personal life is none of my business, I'm entirely sure that I could dub anyone as unlikable if I delved deep enough into their privacy.
If he has been in here causing trouble, then forgive me I hadn't seen that.

Hester, I appreciate all the stories of social services wrongly taking children could be disturbing for adoptive parents and make them feel very uncomfortable, and of course some people who've quite possibly been driven to insanity by the loss of their child due to SS could come in here and act in a hostile way toward anyone who doubts them or their cause.

I would really like to discuss what changes could be made, because there are some massive changes that need to be made.
They say removing a child is really a last resort, but I'm not so convinced of that, not because of what the papers have said, but because of what I've seen around me.
In contrast, people on the outside will be only concerned about making sure no children are left to be neglected.
But there are other ways that neglect can be prevented, and families still kept together.
And even if the thread on adopted children seeing bio families wasn't started by a person with good intentions, that's actually a topic I'd like to explore.
My child was adopted. This section of mumsnet is called 'adoptions', so I don't think it should be exclusively for adoptive parents, but anyone who's been involved, like birth parents, what about us??

It is very unusual for a birthmother to come on MN and I certainly welcome you, knowing that you are a BM. I have always always treated BMs with respect even when some of them have done terrible things to their child. I have never ever met an "evil" BM/F - only those who have had such damaging childhoods themselves that it has left them unable to cope with the demands of caring for a child. Many are emotionally immature and with no support, financial problems, housing problems, mental health problems and all sorts of other difficulties. You say you aren't convinced that removal of a child is the last resort because of what you have seen around you. You may not be prepared to say, but do you feel that the removal of yur child was not a last resort.

I woud be interested to know what changes you would like to see in the child protection system.

I took an adoptor to task recently on MN for calling the birth mother of her adopted child "pond life" which I thought was insulting and totally unnecessary. She responded by saying "if you knew what she'd done" etc - and of course I do know. I have seen the sad stories over and over again but I will never codemn birth parents.

I really would be interested in your thoughts/ideas for improvement.

Well it would take a great deal of forgiveness to act respectful towards some people, knowing what they'd done, so I commend you for that.
You might not get many birthmums here because, out of 3 I know who've had their children taken, one is now a heroin addict, one is chronically depressed, and threatening suicide quite regurarily (I grew up near this girl). The other seems to ignore the existance of her first 5 kids and completely dotes on her 6th she got to keep. Birth mums probably suffer massively even talking about it usually. It's been a long time for me, but I've healed alot.

Okay, here's for something important; changes!
It seems their funds to support parents are extremely limited, but their funds to put children into care are a bottomless pit. Maybe this is something the government need to change?
Why can't teen mums be put into fostercare wih their babies, if they're not deemed entirely capable of doing it alone. This would be perfect for many people.
The mother and baby units could be used more often.
I may be bias because of my experience, but I had the manager of the mother and baby unit come into court, I had the court appointed child gaurdian come into court saying that the mother and baby unit would be perfect for me and my child, I then had social services oppose that and just push for adoption, and my lawyer say that it was most likely a funding issue for social services, so my son was just adopted. I don't know if things like that are a regular occurance, maybe I was just a very unlucky person, but I don't believe that should ever happen. I should have been in foster care with my child until the age of 18, or put in a mother and baby unit, those didn't seem like options at the time, I was left alone with my baby at 16 yrs old and it was a 'can she look after the baby completely alone or should the baby be adopted' question for the judge.
There wasn't support when there should have been. I'm a good mother now, and I could have been then I believe (with support).

I think they should be more open about what they're writing when they observe contact. They were so nice to my face, but I later was shown reports where theyd said 'She is unabled to follow simple instructions and advice' on how to carry my son. They wrote I'd been carrying him in a baby fashion when it was age inappropriate as he was a toddler, surely I can hold him how I like as long as it's safe, but when you don't know what theyre writing there's no opportunity to defend yourself. All they wrote seemed to be geared toward one direction, having him adopted, that agenda, because they made me out to be uncooperative, I think they did that to justify them not trying a mother and baby unit for us.

They LIED that I couldn't have him back, when he was actually in voluntary care. I only found out that it was 'voluntry' when they got the intrim care order. They got the intrim care order on the grounds that I'd left him in care.
I wasn't invited to court to defend myself.
Surely that's illegal.

They shouldn't misguide parents and withhold support that could help them keep their children.

That's a very interesting post, yukoncher, and I agree with pretty much everything you say. I think it is unarguable more and earlier support could mean many more families being able to stay together, and I think the moral, economic and social argument for that support is overwhelming.

I'm not a social worker, and I don't have NanaNina's wealth of experience. But I know a fair few adoptive parents, and I read the casenotes (CPR is it, NN?) of about 20 children before finally adopting my daughter. Of all the cases I have heard detail about, I would say that in a small handful of cases the birth mother was, frankly, evil, or damn near it. In a couple of cases, I did find myself questioning whether better support could have meant that adoption wasn't necessary. In most cases, the family was enmeshed in generations of dysfunction, neglect, drugs and often mental health problems. The birth mother wasn't an awful person, but they would have a real struggle to achieve good enough parenting because they had never experienced any themselves. Intervention and support may have made a difference, but it would have taken an awful lot and for a very long time.

I think most of us would agree, though, that society should do more to stop families getting into that position, and that we have got the balance wrong between prevention and taking children into care. The difficult question is about where that balance should be, and how much resource we are prepared to put into it. How much tax are people willing to pay to fund intensive support for broken families? Are people prepared to tolerate early intrusion/supervision in order to catch problems before they become too entrenched? And should we raise the bar for individual cases, so that parents are given longer to get their act together in respect of an individual child?

Personally, I would be prepared to pay more tax to support struggling families. I think we should all be prepared to intervene (personally, or via social services) if we see a child at risk. I think families that have become dysfunctional over generations should get long-term, intensive support - sod the expense, the cost of not doing so is astronomical. But I don't think we should raise the bar on how much risk a child should face before they are taken into care. I think the bar is pretty high right now, frankly. So in the case of my own daughter, I feel very sad that she's not able to be with her birth family. My conscience is clear that adoption was the right thing to do - I would defy anyone to read the details of her case and argue otherwise. But I do feel angry that her mother's problems were evidence for years - decades - before the state intervened in any way, and then in a very punitive way.

And then, of course, the other question is how the system operates and whether it does so fairly. Obviously individual cases are very hard to judge from the outside, but I would be amazed if there weren't miscarriages of justice. It seems to me a system under great strain, overburdened with targets and bureaucracy (and often unhelpful ideology), and struggling to recruit and retain enough high calibre, intelligent, mature and insightful social workers. All of us who are in any way part of this system get damaged by that, but undoubtedly the people who get most damaged are children who are not taken into care when they should be, and birth parents whose children are taken away when they shouldn't be.

So I don't see us on opposite sides in this debate. I think all of us need the system to change, and improve. You say you appreciate that stories of miscarriages of justice must make adoptive parents feel uncomfortable, and of course they do make me feel uncomfortable, but no more so than if I wasn't an adopter, I don't think. To be honest, I don't know what to make of them, since we usually only get one side of the story and never the full picture. But I don't feel I have a vested interest in denying that sometimes children do get taken into care unjustly. I would be absolutely horrified if I discovered that was the case with my daughter, but frankly you just have to look at the bare facts of the case - or at photos of the children who stayed within the family - to be certain that she needed to be taken.

As an adopter I take very seriously my responsibility to help my daughter to understand and come to terms with her history. I will need to discuss her birth family with her in a way that is as truthful as it can be, neither demonising or romanticising them, being honest about how bad the situation was but helping her appreciate why people sometimes end up in situations like that. After all, she may one day be reunited with them, they may become part of her life again. I won't be able to do this if I just hear what I want to hear about them; I have to hear the truth - from them as well as from the social workers - and pass it on as best I can.

I'm sorry about the ridiculously long post, but I hope it has helped you understand that the adopters on this topic are not smug judgy types who have got their kids so they don't want to hear any more about those pesky birth parents, thank you very much. I think we're really a bit more thoughtful than that! We're up for a good discussion with anyone with integrity.

Yuchonker - yes I agree there are insufficient resources to do preventative work with families, which may just be enough support to get them on the right track. Having said that soc wrks have a tendency to keep on supporting, when it is evident that changes are not going to happen and the child is suffering. Time is of the essence in a child's life as abuse/neglect in their early life will follow them through the lifespan - they just don't have the time to wait for their parents to give up drink, drugs or whatever. Funding is a big problem but there is no bottomless pit I can assure you, but I can see why you think that given your circumstances.

You mention teen moms being placed in foster care with their babies. I think you may be going back many years, because now most LAs have such placements, especially with a very young mother.

I agree with you that it was wholly wrong not to give you the opportunity of being placed in a residential setting for you and the baby. Sometimes these units refuse placements if they feel that it is highly unlikely that it will be successful, but you say they were in court saying this was the right course of action. To be honest the judge could have ordered the social workers to take this course of action and it is a great pity that he/she did not do this.

It sounds like you didn't stand a chance as a young girl of 16 with a baby and no-one gave you the support that was necessary and may well have prevented your son being adopted. It is small wonder that you feel as you do, although you sound very measured in giving the details of you and your baby son.

You are also absolutely right that soc wrks should have been straight with you and pointed out any concerns that they had at the time. The business of how you were holding your child sounds ridiculous to be honest.

As for social workers not giving you accurate information about your son's legal status - this is appalling. Did you consent to him going into care, as this is the only way that a child can be removed from a parent without a court order. Maybe you were too young and felt bamboozled by the soc wrkrs.

AS for not being "invited" to court to defend yourself. You needed to get a solicitor to fight your case for you in court. It is the duty of social services to ensure that birth parents know that they must do this. I am wondering how long ago all this happened. I can't imagine a judge conducting a case when the birth mother is not present and legally represented. It just sounds like they all rode roughshod over you - horrendous.

So sorry that you were treated so badly.

Sorry to be back, but I should have said how very sorry I am about all you have been through. It sounds horrendous. We got very close to being matched with a child born in a situation similar to yours. The teenage birth mother and baby were in a foster care placement together. They were continually assessed and it was decided that, although she really loved the baby and was not abusive, she wouldn't ever be able to provide responsible, mature parenting.

This was one of the cases where I did wonder. The bare facts of the case weren't conclusive; it all came down to the quality of that assessment. And I felt desperately sorry for this young girl, who was herself a product of the care system and had been horribly let down by it, throughout her life, and was now losing the only good thing that had ever happened to her.

I don't know that the decision was wrong. Maybe the birth mother was just too damaged, and you can't keep babies waiting for years while mothers become 'good enough'. But the details of the case were tragic, and haunt me still.

Thank you so much for taking me seriously, I think I'm getting better at expressing myself the situation that happened.
Your posts have been a great read.
I asked for respite from social services, called them,m said I'm not coping, I need a break, when my baby was 5 months old, as I'd blacked out at college I think due to stress, I was exhausted and it felt like my son was crying continiously, I was in such a bad place, I was so over tired one night I picked up baby oil thinking it was his bottle and nearly fed it to him, I called them and said I needed a break please take him for a few days.
I had trouble tracking him down, I went to them I'd just turned 16, I said is there any chance I can be placed in fostercare with him, so I have help. I was so isolated at home alone.
They said I'm 16 they have no responsibility for me, and I can visit my son everyday while they observe, well they kept cutting down the hours I could see him, saying there's not enough staff. I said I want him back plenty of times, I even asked what would they do if I just got up and took him home, because obviously I wanted to do that. They said they'd call the police and get a care order. They wouldn't give me my child back and were critising everything I did. I started self harming, regretfully, just minor scratches, but I didn't hide it and then they held a meeting a said they're getting the intrim care order and he's going to be adopted.
This was 10 years ago. 2011
I got the lawyer, we went to a mother and baby unit, the manager said she'd be hapopy to have us there, I thought we were fionally getting somewhere close to me being reuinited with DS, manager said she'd come to court. The child gaurdian came out to visit me and asked me if I wanted my child and I said of course, I'm trying to get him back, and she said okay she'll support me in court and told the judge I needed to be given a chance.
She got shot down in court, and I remember her arguing 'of course I don't mean for the child to just go straight back, but with support', they said no.
Most tragic moment of my life.
I was terrible in court I got up on that stand and didn't say a word for myself really. I just didn't know what to do or say. If it happened now I would be kicked some ass in there standing up for myself, but back then, I just didn't know what the hell to do. And that makes me think that if I couldn't even stand up and fight properly for my son back then, then maybe I wasn't good enough to care for him and protect him.

Thanks for listening

yukoncher, I'm sorry, that must have been unbelievably traumatic. You sound like a very strong and sussed young woman now: you have a child now, is that right? Did your family support you through all this? Have you maintained any kind of contact with your son?

I'm sorry you have had a rough time yukoncher . I think the money and time constraints on social services are a disgrace, both at the stage of supporting mums and babies, and later when it comes to supporting families with troubled children. There simply isn't enough money going into helping people at all stages of the process of bringing up children.

I really hope that there is more help given at the very early stages. I think there is a huge difference between children taken into care because of abuse/neglect, and those taken in because their mothers for one reason or another couldn't manage very well at the time.

I would support absolutely the support of very young parents, with their first child. Having a first baby is very tough, even if you are happily married, have your own house and family support and have been very much looking forward to having a baby. To have a child when you are young, with little family support and no money must be damn near impossible, and those mothers really deserve a lot more help than they get.

Both my children were voluntarily relinquished, so although one of mine is very much affected by his adoption, I have nothing but gratitude and respect for their birth mothers. Mine are teenagers now, and I know that both will (at least I hope they will) ask for contact with their birth families when they reach 18. I would expect that all children will have that opportunity, and I would also hope that if the adoption was not due to serious abuse, the children will be told that, and the door will always be open to contact at a later date.

I do, however, think that contact during the teen years could be difficult all around - the thought of my children being able to say after an argument about curfews, for example, "well I'm off to live with my real mum" would cause all sorts of difficulty .

Personally, I think there are tragedies on every side of the "adoption triangle". I think you have had it tough; I hope you are happier now, and I hope that your son has a family who love him - the one thing that has improved is assessment of adoptive parents, so the chances of that are higher than they would have been a few years ago. I would also expect you to see him again - adoption is rarely a complete end of the road these days.

To get back to the op of this thread - I have a problem with someone who only sees one side of this. There are obviously cases where children have been adopted whose parents, with support, could keep them and be good parents. There are also many children who are not taken soon enough, and are badly damaged by being left with parents who will never cope. The difficulty I have with JH is his inability to accept the other side of the story, to recognise that there are times when children are damaged by not being taken into care.

It is very difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is unable or unwilling to see both sides of the debate.

You have only seen the recent threads by wasthatthatguy - there were earlier ones where we all tried to be reasonable and tried to discuss this sensibly, but recently the repetitive nature of the threads and his refusal to actually communicate (he just keeps repeating the same stuff), and the madness of some of the advice he was giving on other threads (there were a couple in mental health, for example, where he said anyone with children shouldn't ever go to the gp with post-natal depression or their children would be taken and forcibly adopted), has made us all just want to scream whenever we see him.

Sorry this is a huge essay. I really do feel for you and I take my hat off to you for being able to discuss it all rationally at all.

Thanks, I can see the other side to it, because I've seen it around me. I know of one case that comes to mind where the child I think would have suffered a lot less if just adopted after the first saga of neglect.

With me, I have a 4yr old, I was married when I had him, but went through the seperation and everything. I spent 2 and a half years with it being just me and my son, he's absolutely my world, everything revolved around him. Met my partner, and we had another son, who's now 1. So now I have two boys. My older one seems to having Autism and is more of a handful than usual.
The supportive relationships I have now, such as just visiting and staying in touch, is from my younger siblings, whom I'm very much involved with. Back when I had my first son, my siblings were children.
My partner is a massive help, he's a really good dad to our kids.

~The adoption of my first child went through in 2002, they said if I had a baby within 3 yrs they can come and take it from the hospital at birth.
I got married in 2006, 4 years later, and was finally in a 'safe' time frame (post 3 yrs) to have a baby. A baby I absolutely wanted to dedicate my life to and prove them all wrong.
We even moved to the USA to avoid Social services because I was terrified.
I decided England is better, we came back, before seperating.
I've never gone back to my home town, now I'm a mum, because I couldn't trust SS there at all.
We have them involved here, for DS's special needs, but that's all (they don't ask to see my younger child on theyre visits, so that assures me theyre being truthful about why theyre involved.

Maryz, what does relinquished mean? is it given up for adoption?
what trouble does your child have with the adoption?

It's a shame some people think even telling a doctor about depression risks you losing your child. I don't think that's necessarily true that that would happen

Yes relinquished means given up voluntarily. I'm in Ireland, where children can't be adopted without express and voluntary permission from both birth parents.

ds is very angry about being adopted, he thinks it is wrong to have a child if you can't look after him/her. But then, he has Asperger's Syndrome, so has very black and white views of the world. At the moment he is rebelling against our "middle class values" and wishes he lived in another, any other family. But interestingly he hasn't tried to find his family - he has a low opinion of them for giving him away .

He is very troubled, poor kid . However, he might be even had he not been adopted. He doesn't believe we love him, he has issues with drugs, was excluded from school very young, and is struggling with life. It has, and still is, a hard road with him. But I love him to bits, and I can't regret that he is my son, I just hope that some day he will come out the other side and believe that.

You sound very grounded now, though it has obviously been tough for you. I take my hat off to you. I hope when my children find their birth parents, that they find someone sensible like you, who can see both sides to every situation .

Yukoncher, you sound very grounded

I would actually like to have a discussion about cases where things aren't so clear etc, and it's such a shame that if you try it gets spoiled by people who don't hear what other people have to say.

Incidently, an interesting fact..in some areas of the USA, they already have jury trials to terminate parental rights, if the parents so request. It's up to the parents whether to have a jury trial, or whether to have a court like we do here, with just a judge (as long as they request within a time limit). However, from speaking to foster carers on the other board I'm a member of, parents aren't doing this. Nearly all of them choose to have a judge and no jury. Maybe that's because they don't want their lives aired in open court, or maybe because they do have a ridiculous rule about open adoptions and trials, that says if you win a jury trial you get the kids back, if you lose it you not only lose the kids, you are also forbidden from having any contact with the children. You can only have an open adoption if you went for the judge alone. Which I think is stupid, but there you go. The only parents opting for a jury are those who think the judge is against them, and impartial. But in those cases, the jury terminated rights anyway. So there don't actually seem to be a lot of borderline cases. There are some, where the jury find in the parents favour, but not a lot at all. Which sort of puts a bit paid to this ridiculous massive conspiracy theory which is applied to the US as well as the UK, that half of children shouldn't be adopted

... sorry, gatecrashing the Adoption board. Came here from In The News out of sheer nosiness.

Um, I know that the OP is well known to MNHQ, and seems to namechange with alacrity, but has anyone here ever informed his Party? Perhaps Alastair Carmichael (Lib Dem MP, Deputy Chief Whip to HoC, this probably comes under his disciplinary remit)? That a serving MP can come onto this sort of forum, where parents are seekng support and disinterested information, and troll, seems to beggar belief. I'm sure the relevant officers in his party would be interested.

(disclaimer: I am not trying to smear the OP for political reasons, in fact I've been known to vote for his party in the past. )

Re-shape - do you know the identity of the OP (whowasthatguy) or something similar. There is another Lib Dem MP John Hemmings who regularly posts about forced adoption and the conspiracy between all concerned with care proceedings (even the judge) and social workers and lawyers and a family law barrister have been incensed by his ridiculous posts and I have complained to Nick Clegg about him (giving exact quote) and I didn't even have the courtesy of a reply. I wondered if this was JH? He claims it isn't and in fairness he does usually post in his own name, but the OP sounds suspicously like him, peddling the same sort of rubbish.

I presumed it was JH tbh. SHouldn't I have done?

Well who knows?? I find it hard to believe there are 2 unhinged blokes out there. JH was on another adoption thread but after a lot of posters had discovered the judgement from a high court judge Wall LJ severely criticising JH, and the fact that he (JH not the judge!) had put himself forward as "Love rat of the year" and his failure to answer any of the questions I put to him, as I knew he wouldn't have a hope in hell of answering.

As I said JH has angered many of us involved in care proceedings and he has an axe to grind related to a personal experience, which he always denies of course.