Kids in care

It isn't crap or rubbish.

im Sorry that happened to you, in my situation it wasn’t relevant though I was mature for my age and my father wasn’t a fully fledged alcoholic he just drank too much and my parents divorced when I was about 5. I also moved out when I was 16 so my parents were irrelevant to the situation. I kept my baby btw but I’m aware it only takes one particularly nasty professional to take a disliking to you and make your life hell.

My friend grew up in care and says the same thing happened to her as the op.

Also I admit I haven’t read all the ops posts on here and she may genuinely be a terrible parent for all I know I’m just saying it’s true ex care parents have harder scrutiny from social services. For the posters who deny that’s a thing

I think that there has been alot is misreporting / misrepresentation about the concept of quotas and alleged financial incentives around adoption, and the picture isn't clear.

This article and the link therein may be of some interest:

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/11/28/my-child-was-nearly-adopted-and-here-is-why-adoption-targets-scary/

The fact that nothing has been done to address children’s trauma is a huge part of the problem - and often the system itself actively traumatises people. The children who were removed often become adults who have their own children removed and so the cycle continues. I know you will probably say this is due to personal factors, but when it’s such an ingrained, repeated societal wide pattern the answer is usually linked to system factors.

Please provide any evidence whatsoever that children are removed for money, or to meet a quota.

Removing children costs the state money, in social workers time writing reports and doing visits, in court time for the making of orders, in legal fees to solicitors and barristers for the court case, in paying foster carers to car efor the children while all that goes on. It costs a fortune.

I have 2 adopted children, the cost to the state of the exceptional amount of court time it took for their adoption to be finalised (with the state paying for solicitors and barristers for both the children and the birth parents separately, plus paying for CAFCASS and guardian ad litem) was easily over £1 million. Let alone the cost of social workers time, police time, paying for the foster placement they were in while proceedings went on, the cost of separate contact sessions at a contact centre for each birth parent, of psych reports on birth parents, cost of failed kinship assessments on family members etc etc etc.

Taking children into care costs a lot of money, it doesn't make money, how would it?

But it is relevant. My mom was 15 when she had me and I was removed. Her father was an alcoholic. She had no parenting skills.

At 19 & 21 she had my siblings who were removed later on.

If you grow up in care you are at a disadvantage when it comes to effective parenting. Trauma literally changes the brain.

It’s not about kids in care not being able to be parents, it’s about them breaking the cycle of abuse and neglect.

Having a child when you are still a child is a huge red flag.

My sisters oldest was removed for the first year as well, and she got herself together and got her daughter back.

This is about protecting children.

some people just won’t get it I have a friend who grew up in care with a similar story to op, social services are a lot harder on ex care children as it’s assumed they’re too traumatised to parent properly. I wasn’t even in care but when social services wrote up a report on me and my eldest baby (because I was under 16 at the beginning of my pregnancy) they felt fit to mention my father drank too much when I was a young g child (this had absolutely no relevancy and must of came from their records!)
Imagine how much worse it is for someone who was actually in care!

I had a child at 16 and one in my twenties so can personally attest you’re treated a lot differently if you’re young too

What quota is that?

Where on earth is the money coming from to remove children?

They do a lot do they? What are you basing that opinion on?

Idiot comment it's very easy for social services to use anything only people like you think they don't lie and twist things and family courts Always side with the bullshit you also should educate yourself and look at the quota for removing children for money

And I think ss do an awful lot to support people in these situations but you can't support somebody infinitely to be a decent parent and if they don't have the emotional readiness for this then no amount of support will help. It's sad and it's rubbish for both the parent and child but it's ultimately irrelevent. There's still a defenseless child in the middle of this and they are the priority.

That she was a child herself when she was pregnant in the care system and has no relationship with her biological family for whatever reason. What is there to spin those are the facts. I don't think many children could cope on their own in that situation. I am surprised she didn't turn to drink or drugs with what she's been through.

I've seen it happen, you misleading piece of work.

I dont know where you get off on such lies but both the actions of the social worker involved and your misrepresentation are despicable.

I will add yes babies are sometimes removed at birth but for good reason. In your heart of hearts do you want a baby who's mum has abused drugs/alcohol for her entire pregnancy to even step foot out of that hospital with that child? How about a mum who's in a relationship with a violent partner? Or a partner who's a know sexual risk to children? A mum who will have been warned multiple times that not leaving this partner will result in their child being removed... The problem is that what commonly is associated with parents who can't adequately parent their child is a complete lack of insight so of course they're going to swear blind that they're parent of the year and that social services are picking on them. It's an easier narrative to spin than the truth.

It doesn't matter how long ago a psychiatric history was or if there's been no further contact, that can in itself alone be a reason for removing a child

That part isn't true. No court would make orders for a child based on the parent having a long ago psychiatric history or having been a victim of abuse, if that parent is stable and able to parent in a good enough way now. Those previous issues may be considered as part of the picture where the parent is not able to parent because of other things, or may lead to the parent coming under more scrutiny than someone else might, but they are not the sole reason a child would be removed.

there doesn't have to be any allegations of cruelty or neglect.

Yes there does, even if that is a fear of future neglect or harm based on previous actions for the parent eg with older children. I know of a woman who had her child removed at birth because she wouldn't leave the paedophile father who had already sexually abused all of her older children. Should we just wait for that baby to be abused first?

Sometimes babies are taken shortly after delivery and the mother has been told it will happen and has to give birth knowing her child will be taken from her.

Yes, for instance where the mother has had multiple previous children removed because of neglect or abuse and hasn't made any changes that would lead anyone to believe anything different would be the fate of this baby, as above.

Please don't scare people who may be reading this thread and need help and support, into fearing that their child will be removed for no reason if they come to the attention of the authorities. That could leave vulnerable children who could be protected and families who are struggling, in greater danger.

Is the system perfect? No. But there is a high bar for a parent to lose their child and it's not done lightly.

This is a huge issue throughout, although younger children are less able to assert themselves for obvious reasons…They're technically required to follow voice of the child policy, but that doesn’t always translate into practise. There’s far too many cases where children are being completely failed. It’s not good enough.

I am a sociologist as well, and I understand systemic discrimination.

As an adoptive parent I have seen how DD's voice was ignored due to her age.

Certainly every case is different, and all sorts of assumptions can come into.play.

It isn’t utter crap though...

I am a sociologist who is also a former child in care - I not only have lived experience here but I have an have an extensive research background on systems of power, including the care system. What we are describing here absolutely DOES happen…What is more damaging to care experienced individuals is to have their lives reality warped and undermined by individuals who don’t understand how systemic discrimination operates. Reading comments which denies its existence serves to further reinforce the belief that their experience arose from personal failings…Power operates in an insidious way, and is not visible to those outside of its reach.

It is also important to remember that the system deals in people, and not everyone has the same experiences or outcomes and social care most certainly do not always get it right.

Whilst your experience as an adoptive parent gives you perspective on a particular aspect of social care, it is NOT equivalent to a cohesive overview of the system, and nor does it invalidate professional and lived insights from those of us who have navigated it firsthand.

Labelling these perspectives as ‘rubbish’ reflects a limited understanding of the system as a whole - and, unfortunately, is a tactic that reinforces harm rather than understanding.

And she is from a working class background, the first of her family to go to university etc

So not blinkered by privilege. And 100% empathic to parents who are doing their best, whatever their circumstances, very happy to challenge Social Services when there is a lack of support, or inadequate housing etc

I have a friend who is a lawyer representing parents where the LA are 'instituting proceedings' i.e. seeking a care order or similar, for 20+ years.

I asked her (after one of the occasional 'my children have been stolen by Social Services threads on here) whether she thinks the LAs overstep their role or action because a Social worker has taken a dislike to a parent.

Her view was that in all those years there have been a handful of cases where the LA has gone to court before a reasonable case formeeting the threshold for removal. The SWs have to have the agreement of the in house lawyer in order to go to court.

She hasn't been involved in any cases where LA involvement was unreasonable, or where a court judgement was unreasonable and based on assumptions rather than evidence.

That doesn't mean it never happens, if course. But in.over 20 years of genuinely trying to help and support parents, across 3 different Boroughs, she hasn't come across it. If anything the system prioritises parents, it is incredibly difficult to get patental rights removed even where a parent has been convicted of abusing their child.

As the parent of an adopted child I think you need to stop talking such rubbish. There are children in care who will read this shit every day on the internet and it's just going to make them even more messed up. No child is removed simply because their parent was in care themselves or sexually abused themselves. It may be noted in their assessment because it is relevant. Unfortunately abused children are statistically more likely to be abusive adults. However there still needs to be the same evidence of inadequate parenting before removing a child can be justified. Please stop talking such utter crap because there may be vulnerable and impressionable people reading your crap.

And if you doubt me, you need to look up Section 20.

One thing that people who go on about lengthy process to remove a child probably don't realise is that a parent can be pressurised to hand over a child voluntarily, to avoid being seen as obstructive at the beginning of an investigation. It can be framed as a sign of co-operation and while there is paperwork to sign, I know of a case where that didn't happen, with regards to kinship care.

I experienced this myself, but did sign paperwork, and because we were "co-operative", as it was a medically complex case, which we were sure would be resolved quickly, my child wasn't under any orders until he came home after 18 months.

So it doesn't always take months of painstaking evidence gathering and multiple "chances" before a child is "removed". While that may be true for a majority of cases, it's not a golden rule. Yes, it may take a long time for PR to be terminated and a child to be permanently placed somewhere, but in the first instance, placing a child in a "safe" environment can be achieved in a few ways. And sometimes it is warranted, sometimes it is not.

Believe me, I have read all those horror stories about children horribly abused and killed, where it was blatantly obvious that they should have been removed much earlier. We all know the roll call thanks to the media, and we all, myself included want to know how it could be allowed to happen. Those of us who have been on the rough end of proceedings are the most baffled, believe me.

This is scaremongering nonsense. None of these things are reasons for a child to be removed from a parent. They are all reasons why somebody may find it much harder to be a good enough parent, but they are not reasons by themselves. Sadly many many women have experienced these things and will never even come to the attention of social csre, let alone so much so that they end up at the end of the very lengthy process to have their child removed.

Unfortunately, it's not nonsense. As well as having been in care being used against a parent, so also can a psychiatric record and having been abused as a child.

It doesn't matter how long ago a psychiatric history was or if there's been no further contact, that can in itself alone be a reason for removing a child and there doesn't have to be any allegations of cruelty or neglect. Sometimes babies are taken shortly after delivery and the mother has been told it will happen and has to give birth knowing her child will be taken from her.

I have mentioned elsewhere how having suffered child sex abuse can be a reason for removing a child.