Advanced search

UK forced adoptions of foreign nationals

(346 Posts)
Hummingbirds Sun 11-Nov-12 21:34:11

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

Hummingbirds Tue 13-Nov-12 19:42:38

It really is sad to see a number of posters trivialising this issue. I for one think that removing a newborn fifteen minutes after birth from a young woman because she suffered psychological problems after being raped is a very serious crime.

Perhaps I'm alone in that view.

Fran Lyon was forced to give up everything and move abroad to stop her child being snatched from her. That is Nazi Germany.

Narked Tue 13-Nov-12 20:01:21

I can't understand why we have secret court proceedings. It's ridiculous and unnecessary. You can protect the reporting of the identity of the children and adults concerned. It's done in other court matters. the current system makes it very difficult for parents to defend themselves.

And there are errors of judgement by social services - we see reports on the consequences of children left with abusive parents all the time. Why is it hard to believe that errors could be made the other way - removing DC that are safe?

ErikNorseman Tue 13-Nov-12 20:11:26

John Hemming Hummingbirds there is no such thing as a 'family protection' system - as you well know. It is Child protection, and quite rightly. You talk shit.

Narked Tue 13-Nov-12 20:28:12

Fran Lyon was told her baby would be removed from her at birth. As soon as the child was born a court order would have meant she couldn't talk about the case. She was determined to be a risk to her unborn child from people who had never met her and had no qualifications in psychiatry.

She got help, put her case in front of the media and left the country. And low and behold, SS changed their minds! Because it was all over the media, a leading London-based expert got involved and gave their opinion which contradicted the panel's.

What do you think would have happened to a less informed, less educated woman who found herself in Ms Lyon's place? In fact, lets face it, what has happened to less informed, less well educated women who've found themselves in her place, because there's no way that this is the first time this has happened.

I don't believe there's a grand conspiracy to raise adoption rates, I do believe SS do a lot of good and I think JH MP is disturbing. I also believe that sometimes, SS make mistakes. Medical professionals make mistakes. And they are loathe to admit them.

HanSolo Tue 13-Nov-12 20:32:31

I personally know 2 slov akian children who were removed from parents, and were to be repatriated to grandmothers care. However, GM was judged not to be adequate carer, and they were repatriated and went into foster care in home country.
You're talking about 1 case, where I'm guessing the children were born in UK in any case.

Narked Tue 13-Nov-12 20:37:40

A woman whose partner battered her child to death was convicted recently, because she left her child in the care of the man who had previously broken her jaw, attacked her whilst she was pregnant and was only allowed near her because she'd withdrawn her statement against him which led to the charges of assault against him being dropped, which meant the restraining order on him was no longer in effect. She left her child alone with the man for days. Where were SS then? To me that's a hell of a lot more urgent than planning to remove the first child of someone that isn't even born yet.

Devora Tue 13-Nov-12 20:41:30

For sure SS make mistakes. Absolutely the system needs significant improvement. Which is why it's such a shame we end up spending so much time battling the straw men put up by JH et al.

Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to sensible discussion of reforming the child protection system.

Narked Tue 13-Nov-12 21:03:50

The problem with JH etc is that their reaction to so many cases of children being removed and the conspiracy theory shit actually stops people reacting with horror to the cases where SS have been truly appalling and removed children with no cause. And those cases do exist.

TheEnthusiasticTroll Tue 13-Nov-12 21:34:37

Great idea Devora

Devora Tue 13-Nov-12 22:08:07

Let's do it! Where?

johnhemming Tue 13-Nov-12 23:42:37

I only post under my own name. There are lots of awful decisions not picked up by the system. I know more than I say.

Hummingbirds Wed 14-Nov-12 00:24:31

John Hemming, if you are still here, I applaud your outstanding work in advocating for the vulnerable and voiceless families who have been let down by a clearly flawed family 'justice' system.

You are clearly an MP of immense integrity. I also applaud your interest in seeking justice in the Jersey care homes cases.

johnhemming Wed 14-Nov-12 07:21:05

Thank you for that. Anyone interested in Jersey should read the full statement from the Chief of Police (who was suspended)

We are very complacent in England. We tolerate all sorts of corruption by people who wear suits.

Hummingbirds Wed 14-Nov-12 16:00:06

"We tolerate all sorts of corruption by people who wear suits."

Yes, surely that's the heart of the problem. Blind trust in the system.

Extrospektiv Thu 15-Nov-12 14:40:56

Is John Hemming really anti-safeguarding?
I'm not convinced. I think he is too conspiracy minded but he wants the best for the children involved.

Extrospektiv Thu 15-Nov-12 14:42:23

Some of the people on here presumably even consider Terri Dowty a "dangerous anti-child nutter".

Hummingbirds Thu 15-Nov-12 17:04:55

Call me radical if you like, but I think it should be up to the child who they live with.

I've all my life believed that children should be given a voice.

There was an article in the papers recently about a boy who was removed from his parents because he had a bruise on him. Shockingly, no one thought to ask the boy where the bruise came from! An appeals judge was horrified and overturned the decision.

Hummingbirds Thu 15-Nov-12 17:09:05

And this is article is deeply shocking:

"Devastating new light was recently shed on the “expert” evidence on which our courts so crucially rely by Professor Jane Ireland’s report analysing 126 psychological reports used in family cases. A fifth of their authors, the study found, had no proper qualifications; 90 per cent were not in practice but earned their living from producing reports for social workers, and two thirds of the results were “poor” or “very poor” in quality.

"The publication of this damning report, which had been delayed for six months, coincided with the reporting to the General Medical Council of another psychological “expert”, Dr George Hibbert, accused of writing hundreds of reports framed to suit the views of social workers. He had allegedly earned £6,000 a week for each family he was asked to “assess”."

Extrospektiv Thu 15-Nov-12 17:10:04

John Holt & Richard Farson= prochild radicals [the most anti-parent, pro-pedophilia people ever to reach the top level of academia too]

You're not a radical. The law says children SHOULD be given a voice, and if they are considered old enough (usually around 12) they can instruct a solicitor themselves, although the guardian ad litem handles most cases.

Children considered old enough to understand are admitted to CP conferences now as well, have been for some years. The system is far more open to the children whose futures are being decided than it was in the '80s

VirginiaDare Thu 15-Nov-12 17:20:05

Of course it shouldn't be up to a child who they live with. Children will usually want to stay with a parent even when that parent treats them appallingly.

What is the advantage to "the system" to spend precious resources and time to remove children from adequate parents? What is the motivation for them? It's illogical on a very basic level. Of course mistakes can happen, but the very vast majority of children removed from their parents are removed because those parents have failed them.
It is as simple as that.

VirginiaDare Thu 15-Nov-12 17:23:19

I notice in the case mentioned in the OP that the appeal is based on these children being sent to live with their grandmother? It appears that there is no argument that the parents were not unfit then?

Hummingbirds Thu 15-Nov-12 17:29:05

"Lord Justice Wall said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

"In a separate case, on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “ more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England”.

The criticism of social workers from two of the most senior family court judges came as the number of children placed in care has reached a record high after the Baby Peter tragedy."

Hummingbirds Thu 15-Nov-12 17:37:12

If I had the time I could just sit here all day finding the most atrocious miscarriages of justice that are tearing innocent families apart. Here's another one:

"A judge broke up a family in just 15 minutes, it was revealed yesterday.

"Judge James Orrell ordered that three children should be taken from their parents after doctors gave evidence in his court about bruising to the ear of one young child.

"The doctors said it was their opinion that the bruising could have been caused by pinching."

"Appeal Judge Lord Justice Thorpe said he was 'aghast' at the handling of the case."

"'This does not seem to me like acceptable process or natural justice.'"

So which of the social workers posting here is going to defend this decision to rip a family apart on the flimsiest "evidence"?

Extrospektiv Thu 15-Nov-12 18:15:13

It is courageous to speak about this reasonably because you can easily get labelled anti safe guarding or a conspiracy theorist.

I believe professionals in children's services are fallible and are too often defended just because they are professionals, and this somehow means they always act correctly and parents who complain are always abusers just looking to air a grievance they know SWs and others involved on their side cannot answer under confidentiality legislation.

I don't believe the conspiracies of Brian Gerrish and others, which hold in their least crazy form that social workers snatch innocent children from innocent families to get personal financial bonuses for meeting adopting targets. More nutty conspiracrats add in elements of freemasonry, rape rings, torture, satanic ritual abuse and the EU Commission being the leader of a paedophile ring. Gerrish once claimed that children are snatched for forcible drug-testing, use in masonic child sacrifice rituals to false gods like Moloch and personal sex toys of a series of people including EU Commissioner Barroso, several family court judges and minor members of the Royal Family.
The audience- somewhere in the south- believed him. Not quite sure why.

johnhemming Thu 15-Nov-12 20:28:04

>I notice in the case mentioned in the OP that the appeal is based on these
children being sent to live with their grandmother? It appears that there is no
argument that the parents were not unfit then?

I cannot comment in detail because I wrote the appeal paperwork and would prefer not to go to jail. However, your assumption is not one you can make on the information provided.

>The audience- somewhere in the south- believed him. Not quite sure why.
How can you tell whether or not an audience believes a speaker. Oddly enough the systems work better on the continent (although there are varying problems in different countries). Hence it is not an issue relating to EU.

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