Advanced search

Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on adoption.

'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?

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

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


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


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

Happyasapiginshite Sat 01-Dec-12 17:05:36

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.

Happyasapiginshite Mon 03-Dec-12 13:37:16

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