Pressure Speed Adoptions - The Guardian

[oasiswaterpool]

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/15/pressure-speed-adoptions-children-social-workers-shoddy-cases

Another pretty damning article against adoption generally. No wonder when I people ask how the matching process is going and I tell them there are few children we see to be matched with they can't believe it! Feel I am seriously giving up hope of ever finding a child. Sorry to be so negative just how I feel at the moment after looking at Adoption Link it is all so negative with people complaining more and more about SWs and LAs it just gets worse and worse...

[iwishkidslikedtomatoes]

The numbers of children being adopted have risen 58% since 2010 to 5,050 last year. This is up 26% on 2013 figures. But the government wants to go further, announcing a £30m support package to help speed up the process.

When the start of the article goes like this, but neglects to mention the last 12 months, which as far as all the potential adopters on here are being told, have been affected by the cases that are later mentioned in the article...what the hell?

Then highlighting that 30 million is being put forward to 'speed up the process'...errr. ..speed up the process of the best matches being found for those already waiting, by removing a stupid financial barrier, not to speed up the process of children being removed from their families. Honestly, someone wants to do an article on how "evidence is inadequate, inaccurate and unfair" in newspaper articles! There are 2 sides to every story, unless you're reading the story in a newspaper, then there is just one side, the one that shocks most.

What's written will be true in some cases but making everyone believe we're in some horrific era we're all going to look back on with national levels of regret, really?

Do I know everything was done in our children's case? No, I can only go on what I was told. What I do recognise is the repeated nightmares my children have, not from being adopted but from what they've experienced/witnessed prior to the CO and the attachment issues associated with the neglect they've experienced, so yes, I think based on that I'm going to believe that there is probably some truth in those SW reports! I also see that despite an amazing FC placement, the progress they've made since then, from having not only a safe place but one that is permenant, is truly massive and demonstrates adoption is right for them and I think the social workers should be praised for having such a good final outcome, after 3+ years of intervention, yes, SW's don't all meet parents, then make snap decisions while offering no help and putting children forward for adoption a month later with shoddy paperwork. Sorry, did I mention SW in the same sentence as the word 'praise'? Yes I did!!!! The judges have highlighted failings/sloppiness by some and the drop in adoption in the last year seems to suggest that is being addressed/ removed but I'm sick of so many people suggesting that social workers are wrong far more than they're right grrrr....

So thank you Guardian, having highlighted that case loads are too high and that's due to staffing levels, you produce articles like this which will drive potentially good staff away from the profession. Genius.

oasis don't let this get you down And be glad it was the guardian and not the daily mail, it could actually have been worse ;)

AND.....It WILL happen, have faith

[Tangerineandturquoise]

How long have you been waiting Oasis?

The article is taking old cases- misrepresenting them and then presenting them as the state of the adoption system. The current flurry of horror at the system comes from Re B-S and C-B. All that happened in those cases was that the law was applied as it should be and a just, but (especially with C-B) devastating outcome for the adopters. People forget the judges are the backstop to this-and where procedures were sloppy or misapplied the judge applied the law. Every child placed for adoption comes under scrutiny from a judge-sometimes the judge can be appealed, some of us have been through the appeal, normally the appeals are unsuccessful, but checks and balances have always been in place to try and ensure justice is achieved for the child and in some cases that has worked. This has not changed, but when SWs fall foul of the bar it is re-emphasized. It doesn't change anything but it does remind us all where the bar lies.

There is a balance to this Munby is B-S said that judges were becoming increasingly alarmed at the frequency with which children were being put forward for adoption when less “drastic” measures, such as being cared for by other relations, known as kinship care, had not been considered.
Then in December 2014 he clarified that social workers were not to “shy away” from putting children up for adoption following a collapse in numbers after he criticised rushed and “sloppy” decision-making amid pressure to meet new targets.
He went on to highlight children’s welfare was being put at risk by a new obsession with keeping them within their wider family circle “at all costs” if their parents could not care for them.

He is keen that the family courts remain balanced- adoption should absolutely be the last resort for the child, as it always has been and I have put a quote from him below. He was talking about how the bar has not changed.

“I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law,” ...
“Where adoption is in the child’s best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders.
“The fact is that there are occasions when nothing but adoption will do, and it is essential in such cases that a child’s welfare should not be compromised by keeping them within their family at all costs.”

That is what people should be reading- it is the last resort but when it has been done it is because it needed to be done. Not stigmatizing adoption to an extent that our family units start to become viewed with suspicion

[MoJangled]

And yet, children are not being put forward for adoption, despite the judicial clarifications and despite the unchanged level of need. It seems that the courts and SS are heading in different directions, and more interventions are needed to get them to join back up again. I also think that SS have been so repeatedly kicked, stifled with bureaucracy, underfunded and crippled by mistrust that it's really hard for them to claw back some leadership in this whole process.

Sigh.

[oasiswaterpool]

Iwishkidsliketomatoes I love what you said about being thankful the article was written by the Guardian and not the Daily Mail lol. The Guardian do seem to have a very negative view of adoption generally and all their articles seem way out of date with the reality. sigh..

TangerineandTurquoise thank you for very interesting quotes from Judge Munby I didn't know about the later ones.

We first passed approval panel in August 2013 were matched with a child in March 2014 had a very failed introduction at the end of May 2014. We made to wait 9 months (admin problems, changes of SW) to go back to panel in February 2015 and are now awaiting/looking for a match. It is all very frustrating and difficult my husband finds it hard to hear anything about adoption unless it is information about our personal search.

[oasiswaterpool]

Sorry I didn't mean 'very failed introduction' but it did fail as in the child never moved in to our house.