Advanced search

To wonder about all the press on Social Services taking children away?

(459 Posts)
goldbracelet Thu 17-May-12 22:24:10

From good families and parents for no good reason. It is media hype or is there truth in it?

Talking with friends recently, some say they are careful about what they say to the GP for fear of what goes down on record. For example, they would think twice before saying something along the lines of, "I'm finding it hard to cope with my young children while sick with flu (or whatever illness)".

Amy social workers out there who could comment? Is it true that 95% of children are never returned to their parents once removed?

Scary. I can't believe this could happen.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:41:36



mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:42:28

ErikNorseman .............what do you mean bull shit.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:42:48

i know for a fact due to seeing it first hand

You have seen first hand that 90% of children removed from their parents' care are placed for adoption? How, exactly?

DeWe Thu 29-Nov-12 18:43:45

States last year there were more than 65,000 children in the care system last year
6,800 children were identified for adoption, but not adopted.
Just over 3,000 were adopted.

That's roughly 15% identified for adoption 4.6% were actually adopted. The number being adopted is falling each year too.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:47:04

the contact centre that my daughter and myself had to go to while fighting to get my grandson back had 6 rooms all rooms were full from 9am till 5pm with people seeing their children and myself and my daughter are the olny ones that got our children back 905 of the parents that we met their children were going for adoption despite the parents fighting to get them back through the closed family courts.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:47:06

In fact, I would like the number of children permanently removed who are adopted to be higher. Adoption offers more permanence for children than long term foster care. I said bullshit to your entirely made up statistic.

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 18:48:14

I think more children should be taken into care, I have know of 2 families where in my opinion the child was at great risk due to the parent's mental health and drug taking but the children were allowed to stay with the parent. If you are pregnant and taking drugs and you don't stop whilst you are pregnant why on earth should you get the chance to raise that child? If you are not going to stop taking drugs when you know thye are damaging your unborn baby you will never stop so why give them a second chance?

There was an interesting documentary series about the work social services do earlier this year, it showed how very hard the social workers worked to keep families together.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:48:42

Not all parents whose children are removed have contact in a contact centre hmm

bradywasmyfavouriteking Thu 29-Nov-12 18:48:58

I second the lovely erik

honeytea Thu 29-Nov-12 18:50:35

My secret world you can't take personal experience and say that it is fact. You can say 90% of the people I met had their children put up for adoption, but not 90% of children in care are put up for adoption.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:51:15


littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 18:52:43

I am a social work working in Child Protection. I work hard to keep children in their families and provide support or place them with relatives who can care for them. However if needed i will not hesitate to apply to have a child removed. This is a legal process and the social worker does not have the final say. In fact the application is sometimes turned down and the child is not removed. There are far more children who are either returned to their parents or remain within the family than are placed for adoption.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:53:34

you lot are off your tree i supose you agree with the local authority that the foster parents that are members of UKIP should not be allowed to foster any other children who are not white british and i bet you support the local authority for taking the mixed race children that the said couple had been fostering with no problems whatsoever ??????????????????????

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 18:53:59

Mysecretworld, I don't believe that you know the details of all the families using that contact centre on the days you did, but even supposing you are right about those 905 families, it still doesn't make your statistic correct. And taking it further, as you seem to believe what you are saying, did it occur to you that those parents didn't deserve to have their children back? That their children were better off with other people?

Bull shit indeed.

ErikNorseman Thu 29-Nov-12 18:54:58

Yes I do
But I'm not going to bother explaining why because I think it would be lost on you.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:55:42

ok hows this one ......................Woman dubbed ‘not bright’ enough to marry, now faces baby being removed when she gives birth
November 3, 2009
From Daily Mirror18/10/2009

EXCLUSIVE by Alison Smith-Squire

A pregnant young woman,whose wedding was halted by social workers in an extraordinary row over whether she is bright enough to marry, is to have her baby boy forcefully removed from her at birth.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, was this week told during a meeting with social workers they believe she is also not ëintelligent enoughí to look after her baby, due in January.

She will be allowed just a few hours with her baby, whom she has already named Ben. But she and fiance Mark McDougall, 25, will not be allowed to leave the hospital with Ben and he will then be placed with foster parents.

She said yesterday: “I couldn’t believe it when they told me I wouldnít be allowed to bring my baby home. I feel sick all the time.

”I am so upset I donít know what to do with myself. I know I am having a little boy and so I have already started buying baby clothes and am getting a nursery ready for him. But now I can’t take it in. I don’t want to think about January and I canít stop crying.”

Last month Kerry, who is 26 weeks pregnant, was told her wedding was being halted just 48 hours before she was due to walk up the aisle because, according to social services, she ‘did not understand the implications of getting married’.
Her fiance Mark, an artist, added: “Seeing Kerry so upset is absolutely heartbreaking and I am very worried that all this stress she is under will affect our unborn baby’s health.

“We’re just devastated by this and at the moment we just don’t know how we are going to cope in January. We have both already bonded with Ben and I can’t even begin to think what it will be like coming home without him.

“It seems unbelievably cruel but social workers told us that after an hour or two with Ben, he will be placed into the care system. They added neither Kerry nor myself will be allowed to remove him from the hospital.

“Social services are ruining our lives. They say they don’t believe Kerry has the mental capacity to look after a baby but this is nonsense. Kerry isn’t even being given a chance to prove herself as a parent. Yet, she is enjoying her pregnancy and would be a great mum.”

Mark said he would be happy to take on full responsibility for his son.
He added: “However, social workers just told me at the meeting to be quiet. As we are not married - because social workers would not let us marry - it seems I have no rights as a dad at all.

“Kerry’s grandmother is trying to apply for custody of Ben but social services have already told us it is unlikely she will be successful.

“It seems social services have their hearts set on taking him away from all of us for good. It looks like Ben will eventually be put up for adoption. We feel totally helpless as there seems to be no way of stopping them.”
Advertisement – article continues below »

Kerry, from Dunfermline, Fife, has been in the care of her grandmother since she was nine months old after her parents were unable to look after her, with welfare overseen by social services at Fife Council.

In January, she met Mark, from Arbroath and when she became pregnant, they planned to marry.

But their plans were dramatically halted when in September, two days before their church wedding, two social workers arrived at the flat they had shared for four months and told them because of Kerry’s learning difficulties, their forthcoming marriage was illegal.

Under Scottish law, a registrar may refuse to marry a couple if he believes one or both the parties lack the mental capacity to understand what the institution of marriage is about.

In a highly unusual step, the registrar at Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife Council wrote a letter of objection.

Mark said: “Everything was organised, from the church to Kerry’s wedding dress.
“Yet, despite arguing with the social workers that we loved one another and didn’t want our baby to be born to unmarried parents, they wouldn’t budge and we were forced to cancel our 40 guests.”

However, Kerry, who is still waiting to undergo an official psychological assessment, says her learning difficulties are not as severe as Fife Council make out.

“Last year I volunteered to help disabled children at my local primary school,” she says, “I have friends, a family who supports me and a fiance who loves me. I do everything for myself.”

Meanwhile, Mark points out that whilst his fiance ‘is not terribly academic’, she can read and write.

“She is a loving caring person, who is enjoying being pregnant and would be a good mum,” he says, “I didn’t even know she had learning difficulties until we’d been dating for two months and anyone who meets Kerry can see for themselves she is just a normal girl.

“For the first time in her life Kerry was truly happy. We were both looking forward to having out baby. But now our lives have been totally turned upside down and we are living a nightmare.”

Stephen Moore, Executive Director, Social Work Service said: “Much of the work we do is governed by legislation. Complex decisions are made that balance risk and welfare while supporting people at times of personal or family need.

“We cannot discuss details of individual cases for reasons of confidentiality but give assurance that we will always work with people for the best outcome for all involved.”

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 18:55:55

Mysecretworld - this is maybe a bit personal and you don't want to answer but why was your grandchild removed from his mother in the first place?

nokidshere Thu 29-Nov-12 18:57:14

If ss took children away for having a grubby home, eating crap or being full of cuts and bruises there would be an awful lot more children in the system.

In almost all cases there would be other causes of concern regarding safeguarding of the child.

My youngest spent a fair few hours in emergency rooms when he was a toddler with one thing and another, at 5 he almost lost his life in a "preventable" accident, and at 8 he got knocked down whilst walking to school alone. I have never been questioned about the injuries, or made to feel that they were concerned about our home in any way. If what you say is true then he would have been flagged up and removed from me a long time ago!

The simple fact of the matter is that in most of these cases the people are simply not telling the whole truth about what is actually happening. I don't doubt that mistakes are made but I guess thats inevitable given the nature of the work.

Parents who are involved with SS usually feel the need to make out they are hard done too because the alternative is for them to accept that they are in any way at fault for what is happening to them.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 18:57:22


littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 18:59:31

Mysecretworld - you have pasted an article giving one (probably very skewed) side of a story. Of course the parents will have reported this in that way. I am quite certain there would have been more to this case than was reported.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 18:59:57

Maybe you missed Erik's answer to your question?

freddiefrog Thu 29-Nov-12 19:00:43

I also think more children should be taken into care, a lot faster as well.

DH and I are foster carers, all of the children placed with us have been subjected to years of neglect and abuse while parents are given chance after chance by social services. All of these kids were 'snatched for no reason'. We have to be totally neutral and non-judgemental but honestly, sometimes I could just cry.

90% of the children in 1 contact centre doesn't equate to 90% of all children in care - some parents don't have contact in a centre, some don't have contact at all, kids over a certain age generally don't get put up for adoption anyway - they're linked long term with their foster carer (which is not adoption).

Of the 3 FCs we've had, 2 have returned home, so if we're using dodgy statistics, 66.6% have been returned to their parents

littlewhitebag Thu 29-Nov-12 19:01:55

Why are you shouting. I have not responded to the post about UKIP as you seem to be getting very het up and i have not read the full details so will not comment on something i know little about.

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:06:26

Erik did not answer the question about the UKIP foster family.

my grandson was taken by the ss because of his father being violent but my daughter had left him and taken the baby with her when she was reported to ss. it took quite a few court hearings to get him back but the things that were put in the file by the ss were all proven to be false or made up. hence us getting my grandson back. " the words RISK OF FUTURE EMOTIONAL ABUSE were used to support the ss asking for an adoption order on him

mysecretworld Thu 29-Nov-12 19:08:34

do you not watch the news the UKIP foster family has been all over the news for days now.

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