ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
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
What is your objection to what is described in the Telegraph article?
PEOPLE SHOULD WATCH THIS SOME WILL RECOGNISE THE LADY IN IT.
Just skimmed the Telegraph article and what is your beef shouty secret?
The family asked for the boy to be taken to the Congo. the LA appear to be bending over backwards to accommodate the families wishes, no doubt as they wished to respect their cultural identities or some such relativist bollocks.
But when it came to the crunch, they came to their senses and did not endorse an exorcism for the poor boy.
I agree this does not show the LA in a particularly good light, but not because they tried to squash the wishes of the family, far from it.
So what point are you making here?
WILL GET THEM FOR YOU TOMORROW AS GOING TO BED NOW AS GOT MY GRANDSON COMING TOMORROW.
ooo so masterful with your shouty caps.
I suspect this might be asking a lot, but do you have any links to newspapers that are NOT either the Mail or the Telegraph?
COPY AND PASTE THEM ...............
sorry secret, the links don't work. And I am really ready to learn. Can you make them clickable?
ooo good point, Families, but it might just be a bit subtle.
I sometimes wonder why the Mail doesn't spontaneously combust - the child protection system is either staffed by utterly inadequate incompetent fools who need to intervene a lot harder a lot quicker (Baby P etc) OR a secret cabal of Stalinist abusers who sweep into to snatch the children of blameless loving families in order to deliver them into the grasping hands of would be adopters.
It is amazing how these two utterly contradictory options can be so firmly believed in AT THE SAME TIME. By the same people.
I am almost in awe at the type of mindset that makes this possible.
Brillliant! it is the Mail. My bingo card is all a quiver.
These SW being sacked for misconduct would be the same as those untouchable SW who are free to pedal lies about parents, then?
Let's see some evidence for that assertion. Link? Would be good if it isn't the Mail on line but I will take what I can get.
no alot get sacked for misconduct
I think there is almost zero risk of having social workers stay in post too long .
The sad thing is, that when children first go into care, and are often younger, they start thinking of a sw as a sort of parent. Which indeed they sort of are. As they make very personal decisions for the child, such as signing school notes for trips, and medical care etc.
But after a while, the foster child gets bewildered, and I have to say further emotionally hurt, as like Spero says, it is easy to have had 3 different sws in the space of a year.
And a certain resentment, and couldnt care less attitude can set in for the young person.
I think there's a balance to be struck between consistency and the sort of change that benefits everyone eg to ensure that all professional standards are being met; fresh pair of eyes to consider an issue etc.
Looked after children, almost by definition, have had a tough time and would benefit from consistency of SW oversight, with back up provision for leave / holiday / maternity leave etc. I'm not sure about one SW until they are 16 - though it might help ensure that SW are all very focused on ensuring the best possible outcome for a child, and being able to defend their decisions etc, as at present I don't think it would be really possible to conduct longitudinal studies relating to individual SW.
Spero, I share your fears about the impact of the cuts
I don't like the idea of people being compelled to stay on jobs they don't like or can't manage well just out of fear there is no other work.
In almost every case I do, I will see at least three different social workers over a year. Sometimes this is due t a change of team - for eg from hospital social worker, but more often it is due to social worker going on long term sick leave - I assume from stress.
The job itself is difficult, the case loads are unrealistically high. And then they have to read all this Daily Mailesque tripe about how they work to a government agenda and make appalling decisions all the time. Most of these criticisms seem to come from those with only a superficial understanding of the system, or a wilfully misguided one.
I have serious worries about how the next ten years will pan out.
Constant change is never good - although a bit of change/supervision is wise (some workers are forced to take 2 weeks off each year all at once in some sectors as people hiding things are found out in such periods - those handling money etc).
No one would dispute that having one social worker (or one midwife during pregnancy - I paid to achieve that) is much better.
Perhaps one advantage of the recession will be that there are so few jobs to be had that people stay in jobs longer.
I would like both Flatbread and JH to comment on the Ofsted report which Familiessharegerms linked.
Do you think that is useful research? If not why not?
One thing that struck me was children in care did not like the constant change around of social workers. I think in Demnark they allocate a key worker for a child who stays with that child throughout. That would be an amazing thing to achieve here.
But the constant denigration of child protection services by those who should know better makes mw wonder if we will ever be able to attract the best people to this kind of work.
Flatbread, that is a very interesting study. Does it distinguish between those who benefitted from long term, stable FC and those who experienced a number of placements? Because I suspect that makes a big difference in outcomes
But your personal decisions are not.
And the children and then adults have very indivual situations. Which is personal. And cannot be wholly dictated by studies. fwiw, on of my DSs works in research. And he will say that it only takes one or two wrong inputs, to put a whole study out.
Since then, I have been a whole lot more wary of studies.
No, Million, if you read the study, it controls for selection bias as these children have a roughly equal probability of having gone into care or staying at home
I don't know what being married has to do with anything, it is a personal decision. But yes, my professional decisions are data-driven and based on robust evidence, as far as possible.
Can we not conclude that probably the children who were taken into care were more emotionally damaged already, before they left their parents homes? And that is why they were taken into care in the first place. So it is not comparing like with like.
Using data puts all of your eggs in one basket.
Do all of it, speaking to people, volunteering yourself if you are able, and research.
I keep thinking,when you make personal decisions in your life do you base it mainly on research?
Yes you may choose to if buying a kettle or tv, but for personal stuff like choosing a partner or husband, does not personal experience come into it as well as asking others about him? Are you married or with a partner Flatbread?
Join the discussion
Please login first.