'I almost lost my son'

(64 Posts)
Itcouldhappentoanymum Sat 28-Apr-12 10:56:10

Is this really the best way to protect our children?

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/magazine/article3393674.ece

LostInWales Sat 28-Apr-12 10:59:17

You might have to c&p because of the times paywall.

Itcouldhappentoanymum Sat 28-Apr-12 11:13:43

Good point!!

Kristina2 Sat 28-Apr-12 13:01:59

This is appalling. It goes against many of the principles of a fair and just system -the " accused" has no right to know the allegations against her and no right of reply. Evidence was taken from anonymous experts and the accused was not given the oppertunity to appoint her own

Sadly this is not a one off. The system desperately needs to be reformed

MissFenella Sat 28-Apr-12 17:25:33

Why is it posted in adoptions though? (sorry cannot read Times but presume this is about SS removing a child rather than being about adoption).

Kewcumber Sat 28-Apr-12 18:05:20

sorry also cannot read the TImes online.

Itcouldhappentoanymum Thu 03-May-12 16:15:43

Try this link its the same story about ordinary parents seeking help and the precautions you need to take in the post Baby P world.

www.itv.com/thismorning/life/branded-an-unfit-mother/#.T4uohNREXzM.facebook

MissFenella Sat 05-May-12 23:10:22

and the connection to the adoption board is?

Kristina2 Sun 06-May-12 11:56:39

Well obviously i dont know what was in the Ops mind. But i asume the connection is that adopters and adoptees have a patticular concern for good,fair, ethical,child centred and evidence based practice in social services. Or if they dont they should have.

Surely adopters only want to afopt a child who could not possibly under any circumstances stay with his/her parenst or extended family? Who would want to have to tell their child that he was in fact placed for adoption because of social services malpratice and his bio parenst were perfctly innocent?

MissFenella Sun 06-May-12 18:38:44

That's a society issue not one solely for adopters though. It's not adopters role to police SS and family courts.
Putting it here seems to be saying, 'look adopters your children could have been wrongly taken' and that feels a pretty low thing to do. Adopters don't 'steal' children away from misunderstood parents!

OnlyWantsOneTwoAndThree Sun 06-May-12 18:41:14

Well it is about an adoption is it not?

Or are we only aloud to post 'nice' things?

MissFenella Sun 06-May-12 18:42:58

Its about the operation of SS isn't it? Surely that affects everyone, not just adopters?

Kristina2 Sun 06-May-12 21:41:08

Really fenella? I didnt read that into it at all

When soemone posts about say, the treatment of rape vistims on the feminist section of mumsnet, i dont think they are saying that feminists should Be reponsible for the police and the courts. I assume they are postijg because they think that mumsnetters in general and those in the feminnist board in particular will be concerned about violence against women and girls

MissFenella Sun 06-May-12 22:14:14

What a barking comparison confused

The child in this story wasn't adopted - so again I ask - what is the connection to the adoption board?

Or is this just about vilifying adopters?

Kristina2 Sun 06-May-12 22:39:58

Im not sure how a story thats not about adoption can be an attempt to villify adopters. But i can see we have different opinions on this.

Have a nice evening

MissFenella Sun 06-May-12 23:03:30

I'm glad you agree its not about adoption, which is the point I have been making - why post it here!

Kristina2 Sun 06-May-12 23:42:34

I didnt post it confused

MissFenella Sun 06-May-12 23:44:49

I know that, I can tell by the gift of reading grin

summerintherosegarden Tue 08-May-12 13:35:41

Sadly if her posts on the Relationships board are anything to go by the OP might have had her children removed by SS.

I agree with you both in that this isn't solely an issue for adopters and I feel a bit uncomfortable with the implications of it being posted specifically on this board but at the same time of course no adoptive parent would want to think that their child had been removed from the birth family unnecessarily.

Itcouldhappentoanymum Tue 08-May-12 22:10:38

Blimey where else do the children come from.........an underclass of feckless parents who don't want their children?!

Itcouldhappentoanymum Tue 08-May-12 22:17:56

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Kewcumber Tue 08-May-12 23:43:36

The overwhelming majority of children in care are not placed for adoption so I don't think the issue of removing children unnecessarily from their families is best placed at the "adoption" door. I also think the attempt to shoehorn children being removed unfairly into being an "adoption" issue is pointless and distracts from the point you are trying to make which (I think) is that there is too much secrecy in the social services/family courts which I doubt many adopters who would disagree with you.

This kind of comment "Blimey where else do the children come from.........an underclass of feckless parents who don't want their children?!" is going to put many adopters backs up though as indeed many many children are removed from "feckless" parents.

I would 100% support an improvement in Uk child protection procedures - that includes the rights of families to stay together where that is possible and in the bets interests of the child, to increase openness and scrutiny and accountability in family courts and to support the right of every child to grow up in safety.

MissFenella Wed 09-May-12 12:18:45

Great post Kewcumber

snail1973 Wed 09-May-12 14:32:21

At the hub of this discussion is the question of who should decide when a child should be removed and on what grounds. I suspect that the bar has moved down a bit since Baby Peter and not many would disagree with that.

But for those people who have adopted children we can only trust that Social Services have acted fairly when a child is removed. We are not involved in that decision.

I would never wish a child to be unfairly removed from his or her birth parents. And in all my dealings with SS everyone has been at great pains to explain how they do everything they can do keep families together and that adoption is a last resort.

Of everyone on Mumsnet, those of us in the adoption section probably have the most insight into this area already. If OP wants to raise awareness then perhaps choose a different area of the forums??

The OP has already started 3 other threads on this subject, including one in Mental Health implying that it is not safe to seek help if you are a depressed mother. hmm

brokenheartedmum Tue 26-Jun-12 10:07:38

Surely, SS getting involved leads to adoption????????

brokenheartedmum Tue 26-Jun-12 10:08:52

hmmmmmmmm? figues and targets need to be met. Are you really wearing blinkers?

brokenheartedmum Tue 26-Jun-12 10:10:20

please see my prev thread. John Hemming springs to mind

Greythorne Tue 26-Jun-12 10:16:42

Brokenheartedmum

Are you the OP with a namechange?

SkinnyMalinkiLongLegs Tue 26-Jun-12 12:55:08

brokenheartedmum are you the op?.

You have posted several quite inflammatory comments on both the fostering and adoption boards this morning. You are clearly hurting a lot but directing your anger at carers and adoptors wont help.
I am really sorry for what has happened to you. Are you getting support in RL?.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:37:20

most children taken from their parents by ss are adopted through lies and false reports from so called experts chosen by the ss

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 15:45:08

" brokenheartedmum

Surely, SS getting involved leads to adoption???"

Go away, learn the basics about what social workers do and then come back. You are truly ignorant"

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 15:59:26

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 16:06:47

FivesAndNorks ss getting involved does mean adoption most of the time. my previous comment is wrong as i read your comment wrong

you are the one who needs to learn what really happens.

the truth about the ss and their adoption targets will come out at some point just like its come out that certain experts used by ss for there reports are unquailfied and have been found to be writing reports that are false and corrispond with whatever the sw has said.

lots have been found to be false and at least one expert is being taken to court forthe said false court reports in favour of ss

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 16:10:14

Ok. I've worked alongside sws, in a performance management capacity. As far as I could tell their priorities, which were set right from the top were - do what's best for the child and - where possible, keep families together.

Just going on what I've seen, but if you have evidence of a huge conspiracy please do link to it.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 16:11:39

Ss getting involved does mean adoption most of the time does it?

Care to look at stats on children in need, children subject to cpps and looked after children and then come back and give me an actual percentage, which will no doubt be higher than 50?

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 16:15:09

Bear in mind social workers almost never get right of reply, as they have to protect confidentiality. And do what's best for the child.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 16:21:22

Ok ill do it

395,300 children became in need in 2011/12

52,100 children in that year became subject to cpps

28,200 started to be looked after in the year.

Less than 10%. So back up your "most" please with some cold hard facts.5

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 16:22:48

Oh no, have I killed the thread with stats rather than hysteria. Never mind.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 17:00:42

no the stats you found were the published ones.

do you really think they would be brave enough to put the true facts on the internet...............

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i dont think so.

like i said i know some parents who are fighting the system to get their children back but are fighting lies that have been put into court by so called expert witnesses

WHO I MAY ADD ARE NOW BEING TAKEN TO COURT FOR THERE ROLE IN THE WAY THEIR REPORTS WERE PUT INTO THE FAMILY COURTS

GOGGLE DR HIBBERT.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 17:27:43

I was also responsible, in my area, for the submission of these stats.
You'd think someone would have mentioned we were meant to fiddle them confused
You are completely, and utterly wrong

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 17:32:25

honestly honestly, find out more. Talk to a children's social worker. You will be amazed. I was.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 17:34:23

I'm guessing you don't let the facts get in the way of a damn good conspiracy theory though.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 17:59:36

the sw who dealt with my daughters case was if i may use this term a complete bitch. she was caught on video saying things to my daughter that she should not have done (which has been reported but nothing has been done yet)

at the contact centre we was at there was a girl there who was 18 her son was 12 months and he was put for adoption on her final visit the contact superviser told her it would be ok she could have another child in the future at the end of the contact the sw took the child from her while she was in tears when the foster carer took the child out she too was in tears and the girl ran out of the centre and lay down in the road at the gates to the centre and said if you take my child from me you may as well run over me and kill me.

the said girl is not pregant again and the sw has told her the child with be removed from her within hours of birth and will be adopted.

do you think that this is right ?

Maryz Fri 30-Nov-12 20:46:13

This is the fourth thread I have clicked on in the last three days about social workers removing children allegedly to place for adoption. All of them have been started by new or almost new posters (or namechangers).

In my opinion, the op's of those posts know very little about the whole business and are scaremongering. Or (and this is possible) they are deliberately setting out to upset people..

My main worry is that there are many women struggling to cope with their children, who may have PND or disabilities of some type, whose children may have extra needs, who may be suffering domestic abuse and who are sadly so fearful of having their children removed that they are avoiding going for help which they badly need, thus leaving their children very vulnerable sad.

Maryz Fri 30-Nov-12 20:46:22

mysecretworld only posts on threads like this. Her story may well be true, I don't know, but many of the posts are like reading chunks of Ian Joseph's innane site.

Maryz Fri 30-Nov-12 20:47:12

Oh, and I agree absolutely with Kewcumber's post above.

This is not a story about adoption, as only a small number of children removed from their parents are ultimately adopted.

mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:52:27

OMG

LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD MORE THAN HALF ARE ADOPTED WITHIN A YEAR THE OTHERS TAKE LONGER.

STAND OUTSIDE A COURT WHICH DEALS WITH CARE CASES WITH A POLL AND ASK PEOPLE TO TICK BOXES ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN

IE ARE THEY IN FOSTER CARE

HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN IN FOSTER CARE

HAS YOUR CHILD BEEN ADOPTED
IF SO AT WHAT AGE

TELL YOU WHAT I WILL DO IT AND COPY AND PASTE IT ONTO HERE.

Maryz Fri 30-Nov-12 20:56:39

You really think that more than half of children taken into care are adopted within a year.

Really?

You do know you have your facts completely wrong.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 30-Nov-12 21:24:08

If there is a chance that children are taken from their parents under false accusations, it seems fair to have a system where parents have to agree to their children being adopted.
Those clearly unable to keep their children would agree and those not willing should be given time to build a case and seek representation.
I don't think ss should be given this role of judge and jury themselves.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 21:57:36

"Add message | Report | Message poster mysecretworld Fri 30-Nov-12 20:52:27
OMG

LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD MORE THAN HALF ARE ADOPTED WITHIN A YEAR THE OTHERS TAKE LONGER."

More than half of what? I'e given you the stats which show under 10% of children are removed from their parents. So where are you getting this more than half figure from? I ahve asked before and you have not responded. Please, please respond.

Lilka Fri 30-Nov-12 22:08:27

^If there is a chance that children are taken from their parents under false accusations, it seems fair to have a system where parents have to agree to their children being adopted.
Those clearly unable to keep their children would agree and those not willing should be given time to build a case and seek representation.
I don't think ss should be given this role of judge and jury themselves^

But parents who are clearly unable don't agree to adoption. Parents can be horrifically abusive to their children and still want them. That's why it's a bad idea to make parental agreement a requirement. Eg. It's not fair if Bob the Paedophile abuses his children and Bobbette his wife aids him and then they refuses to consent to adoption because they 'love' their children and want them at home with them to abuse more. This is about what's best for the children, not the parent. Every parent who does not agree has had time to work towards getting their child back, time to comply with requirements, attend contact visits, meet their representation and build a case if they have one. By the time we are talking final court hearings, they have sadly run out of chances, and now we need to work for the child, with or without their agreement

Lilka Fri 30-Nov-12 22:11:04

And SS are not the judge and jury. There is an impartial judge in a court who decides on adoption. That is how our system works, all in courts. I don't have an issue with a judge taking on the role of 'jury' and making the decision

funnychic Fri 30-Nov-12 22:42:50

I love a good debate and opposing views, all normally healthy debate but I find some of the post's on this thread inflammatory and possibly made with the sole intention of stirring things up???

morethanpotatoprints Fri 30-Nov-12 23:08:57

Lilka

When the people you refer to know there is no chance of them having their children back of course they would agree to adoption.
My sister wasn't adopted for 6 months because her natural mother was not of sound mind to sign the papers as this used to be a requirement. As it turned out when sound of mind she signed and I gained a sister I chose from hundreds of others. However, if consent wasn't required her mother could have wanted to keep her but not given the chance. My sisters mother had psychosis after childbirth.
Some people have no chance of being a suitable parent for various reasons but mistakes can not be made on a childs future.

Lilka Fri 30-Nov-12 23:22:19

When the people you refer to know there is no chance of them having their children back of course they would agree to adoption

No they wouldn't. With all respect, that isn't how people's minds work, least of all very dysunctional people, sometimes with mental health problems

I have three adopted children, I've heard scores more stories from adoptive parents i know, I've read dozens of information reports on waiting children, I've other child protection experience and I know approximate statistics for relinquished children versus adopted without consent children

Next to no parents ever agree to adoption, no matter how abusive they are or how incapable. They don't do it. Why would they consent to losing their children?

In ROI, where consent is usually manadatory, there are nearly 0 adoptions of abused children. It's a near enough flat 0, except a couple (single digits) granted by high courts. There are more than nearly 0 children every year who are raped, beaten, starved, neglected and harmed irreperably by abusive families

Lilka Fri 30-Nov-12 23:32:24

Also, many parents just don't understand how poor their parenting is. They could have their child in a freezing filthy house with nearly no food and no safety for weeks on end resulting in permanent damage and serious delays and they would have no clue they's done anything wrong. They would see themselves as a good parent, because they love their child and want them. Maybe they've been treated like that and see it as normal. They probably have drug, alcohol and mental health problems. No one can change unless they want to change. If someone will not accept responsiblity and is not willing or able to change their behaviour (and it's more than behavour, it's embedded thought patterns and emotional patterns) then eventually and far too laate, social services are out of options except adoption. But they are extremely unlikely to get consent

Devora Fri 30-Nov-12 23:51:20

Absolutely right, Lilka. It's a fantasy to think that people who can't cope with parenting, who neglect and abuse their children, are rational, consequential thinkers who will make the right choice for the child.

I expect everyone who's had involvement with the system will have come across birth mothers who have had several children, all of them taken away, the last ones at birth, but who keep producing more children for the care system in the deluded hope that one day they'll get lucky and be allowed to keep one sad

When the people you refer to know there is no chance of them having their children back of course they would agree to adoption.

I'm in Ireland and provided respite foster care for 10 years for a child who was/is in care. Her birth mother vehemently opposed her being fostered, let alone adopted. In her mind, if she kept fighting, she would eventually get her dd and her ds back. This was NEVER going to happen. I'm not going to post why in case anyone IRL knows me and will therefore know FosterDD. She was in care from 8 months of age with no chance of her being returned to her BM. She grew up for most of her life in a foster family where when she misbehaved (and she did regularly) she was told 'I'm ringing the social worker and you're going back.' NO child should grow up like that, with constant uncertainty. If she was in the UK, she would have had a chance of being adopted which she so needed.

We had a Children's Referendum here in November which, when enacted into legislation, will mean that children like her will have a better chance in life. We had all the same scare stories doing the rounds here - the social workers were going to be going into people's houses and taking their children and putting them up for adoption etc. The reality is that there will be the same numbers of children in care but hopefully children like our (sort of) foster DD won't be in long-term care but will be adopted.

FellatioNelson Sat 01-Dec-12 17:15:04

I think possibly these new threads are coming from people who have come here from NM. There are a group of people on there who have had their children removed from them by SS and they genuinely seem to believe that there is a conspiracy against poor working class women by the government to snatch their babies to fulfill adoption quotas for middle class couples.

They are wrong, obviously.

MaryChristmaZEverybody Sat 01-Dec-12 17:19:44

I have reported mysecretworld by the way, not just for starting this and other threads, and for bumping old threads, but for giving factually incorrect information that might frighten mothers with PND for example from going for help.

I'm also in Ireland, where sadly children can spend their whole lives in foster care as there is no adoption of older children here - only very rare adoption of relinquished babies, about a dozen a year or fewer.

The really awful think about foster care is that the children have no rights; often they can't go abroad on family holidays, their foster parents often can't sign for schools/exams/healthcare, if one of the foster carers loses their job/income/home or if they split up the children go back into care and have to start again.

Not being adopted is awful for children who are in care.

Lilka Sat 01-Dec-12 20:33:26

Happy - What will the change in law mean for children in care? Can children be adopted without parental consent when it goes through?

Devora Sat 01-Dec-12 23:26:54

Ah, that makes sense FN. I was wondering what was going on.

Lilka - As the law stands, the family is protected in our Constitution under Article 42. This is the family of birth, so as the law stands, the state has an obligation to put the birth family first before what is actually best for the child. After the changes, the rights of the child will have status and recognition so the birth parent wishes can be overridden (is that a word??) So in practice, children who will never be allowed back to birth parents for whatever reason (like our sort of foster dd) will be allowed to be adopted. It will - hopefully- bring about positive change for a lot of children who are in long term care.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now