UK forced adoptions of foreign nationals(346 Posts)
This is sick! How come in Slovakia the media has reported on this extensively and they've had demonstrations outside the British embassy yet here in the UK there's been almost total silence? With a few honourable exceptions including journalist Christopher Booker and MP John Hemming.
"... The case that goes to the Appeal Court this week concerns two young boys, Slovakian subjects, whose parents have lived and worked in Britain since their country joined the EU in 2004. Two years ago, when the parents took one of their sons to hospital to enquire about a minor infection, social workers were alerted that it might be the result of a 'non-accidental injury'. The boys were put into the temporary care of the family's American pastor, who describes how social workers then arrived with three police cars to remove the children, screaming as they were torn from their horrified mother and grandmother, to an official foster home.
"Thus began a protracted legal battle, involving many court hearings, four different social workers, seven 'expert' doctors and psychologists, 16 interpreters, 13 different 'contact supervisors' and dozens of lawyers. Initially the local authority seemed happy to contemplate that the children might be returned to live with their grandmother in Slovakia, but the social workers of a council that advertises its enthusiasm for adoption on its website then suggested to the foster carers that they might like to adopt the boys.
"By now the Slovak authorities were involved and could see no reason why the children should not come back to live with their grandmother. But earlier this year a judge found in favour of the council, ruling, to the astonishment of the Slovak authorities, that the boys should be adopted."
"The case has attracted widespread media interest in Slovakia, and the Slovak justice ministry has posted on its website a 'Declaration on adoption of Slovak children in the UK', stating that it has such 'serious concern' over the workings of Britain's 'family protection' system, and the readiness of the British authorities to remove children from their 'biological parents' for 'no sound reason', that its representative on the ECHR plans to challenge the legality of Britain's policy in Strasbourg."
"... the Slovak media claim to know of some 30 other Slovak children taken from their parents."
Read the full Telegraph article
And here is a heartbreaking story of a forced adoption in Cornwall.
'I was stolen from my mother': The deeply disturbing truth about forced adoption
The truth is every one of these forced adoption stories is heartbreaking. At least this story in the Daily Mail has a happy ending.
I'm sorry I have to take these stories with a pinch of salt. Children over the age of two or three are virtually unadoptable. (Ok, these boys may have been lucky, but most people want cute babies) There must have been pretty strong evidence of abuse. It cost and absolute fortune to take children into care. Its not done lightly.
My guess is that the British social workers were not confident that the Slovak granmother would be a better parent and had no way of monitoring her.
If East Europeans want equal rights to apply for our jobs then they need to accept British law. (Ie. not abuse their kids) I suppose the logical thing would have been to send the children back to Slovakia, but maybe UK social workers were (understandably) worried about the standard of their care system.
As in all these cases UK social workers cannot give their side of the story.
If the family have been in the UK fulltime for the past 8 years, then perhaps sending the children to a country where they have never lived would not be an ideal solution either?
ReallyTired and AMumInScotland -- it would be lovely if the system worked like that, but a vast number of stories of terrible abuses and miscarriages of justice suggest it doesn't.
Why not watch the film deko linked to?
Have either of you looked into the way the "family protection" system works?
"Among the dozens of cases I have reported where children are removed from their parents, often for what appear the most absurd reasons, I have been astonished to hear how judges accept extraordinary claims by social workers and lawyers without allowing the parents to challenge them. Hearsay evidence is accepted in a way that would never be allowed in a normal court, and parents are condemned on evidence they are not allowed to see."
This system is a disgrace.
Well of course OP, MP John Hummingbirds.
If the children have been here for 8 years why should they be returned. Sadly when parents have had their children removed due to neglect and abuse they will not always see that is what there behaviour has resulted in, otherwise they would see this and provide nurturing care free from abuse and neglect, when they don't and their children are removed, there side of the story will be of the aggrieved parent.
Stop with the social worker bashing. Why is this bloke even an MP still he is extremely dangerous
There are very good reasons cases should not be heard in an open court, and far ally you and your cronies who publish and encourage the exploitation of these parents and their families is quite horrific.
"Have either of you looked into the way the "family protection" system works? "
I don't know much about the family protection system. In real life I have met children whose lives have been ruined by appauling parenting. In fact special schools up and down the country (typically Emotional Behavioural Difficulties or MLD with a handful of severe special needs children)
In general social services are too reluctant to take children into care. I am not sure what to do about potential miscarriages of justice and the secrecy of the courts. However the rights of the children to be safe are more important than someone's right to be a parent. Its not a murder trial and evidence doesn't need to be same standard.
Ofcourse its unfair. Its like the fact that an unfair caution can prevent someone from becoming a teacher. In child protection parents have to prove they are fit rather than a prosecuter have to prove innocence.
Oh dear. I just mentioned John Hemming on another thread, and clearly the klaxon went off in his batcave...
OP, if you are nothing to do with Mr Hemmings, forgive me. But frankly, anything reported by Christopher Booker or John Hemming is going to be well dodgy. And are you really suggesting that children living in the UK should not benefit from the protection of British law because of the origin of their parents?
John H is an MP because people vote for him. Do you think social services should have the power to seize MPs as well as children?
There are undoubtedly very many sad cases where children do need to be removed from abusive families. That does not mean every decision made by anyone involved in child protection is always right. Miscarriages of justice happen in every part of the courts system - the family courts are not exempt. Only bad decisions made by the family courts that lead to adoption can never be put right.
Look at shaken baby syndrome - the doctors concerned were utterly convinced they were 'right' that they had 'definitive' evidence that a certain kind of injury could 'only' be cause by shaking. Only now it is becoming clear that they were over-confident in the perfection and accuracy of their diagnosis.
Zealots are dangerous. They were dangerous in the satanic abuse hysteria. They were dangerous in the anal dilation hysteria. They were dangerous in the Munchausen's hysteria. And the thing is they are always utterly convinced that they are right, that there could be no possible doubt about what they are saying. Even when there is plenty of room for doubt. Remember Roy Meadows and his 'to lose one child to cot death is a tragedy, two is suspicious, three is murder'? Didn't occur to Mr Clever-Clogs that a. he wasn't a statistician so had no business speculating, let alone dressing up that speculation as a fact or b. that he actually hadn't bothered to ask whether cot death might run in families, or ask whether anyone else had investigated this area.
I'm talking about doctors because my job means I know a little about the NHS. At least there is some attempt at quality control in the NHS. What quality control exists in social services? How many social workers have been struck off their professional register? Last time I checked, I'm sure the answer was 'none'. So you have one field where bad practitioners can be disciplined, but some still exist and get away with ruining lives. And a related field where bad practitioners have just as much power to destroy people, but no accountability at all.
I agree with a lot what you say, however you clearly have to looked too deal many many social workers are struck off their professional registration and those are published by that professional registration. There is accountability and regulation andnitbis idiotic to suggest their is not.
Sorry autocorrect..you clearly have not looked deeply enough to see how any have been struck off.
It really is extraordinary. We've had investigations uncovering the fact that children in Welsh and Islington "care" homes were being sold to rich businessmen for paedophile sex, yet some of you are calling loudly for us to keep our heads down and trust the system.
The system -- indeed, any system -- clearly needs safeguards. And as Edam has pointed out, when it comes to "family protection" there are no safeguards against incompetent or malign social workers.
cross post, Troll -- the fact that there are secret courts with secret "evidence" is in itself a clear travesty of justice.
But you can't just put vulnerable children and parents up their to be plastered and exploited all over the press.
I sincerely hope that hummingbirds is not actually John Hemming in disguise. On another thread on the Newsnight/Tory paedophile business Hummingbirds said that David Icke speaks 90% truth. Yes, that's the David Icke who thinks that the world is run by a conspiracy of lizards. If an actual elected member of the British parliament believed that sort of stuff it would be deeply worrying.
But then we have at least one MP who appears to believe that eating bugs on a reality TV show is an effective way to communicate her political views, so perhaps it is not so far-fetched after all...
I suggest posters on this thread watch this daytime tv interview with Fran Lyon before commenting further.
Now who will come forward to defend the case against Fran Lyon? How obscene to snatch a newborn from a normal healthy mother!
I would have thought sending the children to their grandmother in Slovakia would have been the cheapest and easiest option for social services, so the fact that they didn't suggests that they couldn't. Keeping the children in care, and then losing experienced foster carers to adopt them and having to recruit and train replacement foster carers would surely be the most difficult outcome for social services? Again that suggests they had compelling reasons to remove these children, unless they have some ideological reason to take slovakian children and give them to british couples
Yes this violent incident that they can not go into. Violence in the home has devastating consequences on the brain, cognitive and emotional development of children. Those are my last word.
Oh and a psychological report.
Munchausen is not a made up mental health problem
What "violence", Troll? You do realise, I hope, that many of these children are being snatched because of the perceived threat of future "emotional abuse", whatever that is. If the threshold were actual violence, it would be a very different story.
The children in deko's documentary film were removed because one of them had an infection on his genitals. Zero evidence of bad parenting.
Troll -- a psychological report by a specialist who never met Fran Lyon.
The authorities in her case -- and, crucially, following the media interest -- did a U-turn later. But what about all the parents who are gagged and cannot go to the media?
There is no way a child would be taken into care without there being a serious problem. Social services don't have the time or the money to waste. This is just a typical Telegraph 'nanny state alert' article.
I have not watched this morning for some years and surprised to see Denise hook line and sinker drawn into this so much so her body language towards John hummingbirds is alarming in its self.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.