Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt - CPS

it's here:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/twisted-instagram-ready-life-one-34126090

It isn't at all, and your constant bad faith posting on this is getting incredibly tiresome.

Yes, we know your main aim here is to attempt to prove that I and others who have very good reason to care about safeguarding and basic child protection are wrong, "lunatic fringe" and all the other childish insults you have chosen to throw at us, and believe the wishes of adopting adults take precedence over child safety needs, which you seem to have assumed we know nothing about either, including silly claims about things we are supposed to have said on other threads.

You vastly underestimate both my and others' experience and knowledge, btw. I and other adults know you're wrong, people who work in child protection and child abuse research know you're wrong, I'd be pretty certain further inquiries into Preston's murder would show you're wrong, most foster carers I know (and there are several, including my own family) know you're wrong. I'm not going to continue arguing with you. There really is little point in engaging with your posts. They are not remotely constructive.

As I said, safeguarding is everyone's responsibility. You don't want it to be yours and want to continue to castigate people who prioitise it in favour of adult wishes? It's really up to you. But I find it unnecessary and unhelpful.

It would seem sensible to let potential adopters first 'train' themselves by becoming foster parents: They would need to be very closely supported and supervised by other, more experienced, possibly retired foster parents, and some 'proxy grannies'. They would also need to be subject to frequent proper checks.

Technology could make this cheaper and easier. As well as visits to the home, and as well as an obligation to take the baby/child to medical check-ups, people could be asked to switch on a home camera, to record both the good and the bad interactions with the child. This would not be to find fault. It would show where they are doing well, and where there are difficulties, so they can be helped and advised by others who have experienced exactly the same problems: Foster parents and adopters have the necessary expertise: Social workers do not.

Home visits should not, or not only, be carried out by the peculiarly inept 'social workers', but always with cynical experienced knowledgeable experts, i.e. other existing or retired foster parents, (but not the ones already known to the novice foster parents, so with no personal bias or investment in 'approving' everything the potential parents do, because they are strangers, and not easily conned by manipulative or plausible 'friends').

Preston's foster mother, and his grandmother, were correctly alarmed, and incorrectly ignored. NHS professionals, and the unspeakably complacent, ideologically 'captured' social workers, were easily fobbed off.

Remember Baby P, whose mother smeared chocolate spread over his face to conceal injuries? Seven previous babies had been taken from her, but nothing made the social worker suspicious.

Nothing at present obliges a parent or prospective parent to attend a medical centre for the child to be stripped and checked and weighed, as well as vaccinated, at appropriate intervals. (And of course signs of venereal disease or penetration in anus or mouth or vagina should be routinely looked for, by an all female medical staff, as well as checking for 'female circumcision' i.e. female 'castration'.)

Knowing this will happen, at intervals, including to children of birth parents, would prevent a lot of abuse in the first place. Sarah Sharma and other children 'punished' by beating, and including 'home-schooled' children, would have been protected to some extent by knowing the law bans harming children, and knowing that parents are not, in Britain, slave-owners of their children, free to do as they like, to their own human 'property' regardless of injury.

Varley's paedophilia can't have been caused by that. Cases of physical abuse only, maybe partly... but if you are really struggling, you ask for help, you don't beat the child. Such men must be evil already, surely?

In both cases of adopted babies being murdered by their gay male parents, the main perpetrator has been a stay at home dad.

In adoption they require one person to be at home full-time for the first year.

They also don't encourage you to introduce them to wider family, friends etc for a while.

So many mums only get through maternity leave through seeing family, friends, and making new mum connections, through antenatal classes and baby groups.

It seems like an incredibly isolating thing to ask people to do when usually people use this time to build a new parenting network.

I wonder if men, as a result of male socialisation (they're not exactly primed to be self-sacrificing and have higher levels of aggression) sometimes cope with this scenario quite badly.

I have googled and cannot find any info on the family finding process or what they put on link maker. Do you have a link?

they actually didn't upload a picture of Preston to the site, just his story. His foster mum was aware that he was a very cute baby and wanted people to be drawn to his story rather than his looks.

In both cases of adopted babies being murdered by their gay male parents, the main perpetrator has been a stay at home dad.

In adoption they require one person to be at home full-time for the first year.

They also don't encourage you to introduce them to wider family, friends etc for a while.

So many mums only get through maternity leave through seeing family, friends, and making new mum connections, through antenatal classes and baby groups.

It seems like an incredibly isolating thing to ask people to do when usually people use this time to build a new parenting network.

I wonder if men, as a result of male socialisation (they're not exactly primed to be self-sacrificing and have higher levels of aggression) sometimes cope with this scenario quite badly.

I just posted on another thread (photo under review) a screenshot of the agency’s website which placed Preston -Adoption Now - where they mention working with an LGBTQ+ organisation; this needs some investigation in case bad actors are using this route to access children under the guise of inclusivity and acceptance.

they actually didn't upload a picture of Preston to the site, just his story. His foster mum was aware that he was a very cute baby and wanted people to be drawn to his story rather than his looks.

People differing in their view isn’t posting in bad faith.

You're reading of the law is wrong.

Regulation 25A governs the arrangements for early permanence/foster to adopt routes. 25A allows LAs to identify a prospective adopter for a child who will probably need to be adopted, but for whom a placement order has not yet been granted. This is most often newborn babies. The prospective adoptive parents are foster parent before the child is placed for adoption and are adoptive parents after the placement order is made. The idea is that a child gets continuity of care.

The more usual and traditional route of adoption takes place under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, section 25 of which says:

"25Parental responsibility
(1)This section applies while—
(a)a child is placed for adoption under section 19 or an adoption agency is authorised to place a child for adoption under that section, or
(b)a placement order is in force in respect of a child.
(2)Parental responsibility for the child is given to the agency concerned.
(3)While the child is placed with prospective adopters, parental responsibility is given to them.
(4)The agency may determine that the parental responsibility of any parent or guardian, or of prospective adopters, is to be restricted to the extent specified in the determination."

In other words - from the moment a child is placed with adoptive parents, those adoptive parents hold parental responsibility, shared with the local authority before the adoption order is made. Adoptive parents are not foster carers or subject to the same rules as foster carers in that scenario.

Having had cancer is so common, it cannot rule anyone out of caring for a child. Being over 60 is so common, it cannot rule anyone out of caring for a child.

Do you suggest that every grandmother must have their grandchild snatched away by the State? Everyone who has ever had cancer, too?

At sixty, she could potentially live another forty years. If a mother has died or for whatever reason cannot care for a baby, the mother's mother is the most natural one to love and care for him.

Preston's grandmother already cares, very well, for his sister. Preston's highly experienced foster mother had established a good relationship with his grandmother, and was extremely satisfied that within two months, he would be able to make a seamless transition from one home to another. They were nearby, and contact would continue. The surgeons wanted just a two month delay, before grandmother began lifting a one year old baby.

In what possible way could a pair of gay men, hostile to contact with grandmother or foster mother, and not living nearby, were 'superior' to his grandmother?

If you truly believe that being sixty, or having had cancer, make a woman an incapable and unfit person to take care of her own beloved grandchildren, do you therefore believe she should have her little grand-daughter taken away from her, too, and adopted by strangers, ideally the 'superior caste' of gay men who have never lived with a child?

They do not have responsibility for checking on children in their placement. My friend is a social worker - i just spoke to her. Turns out her husband is an independent reviewing officer and it's an office job. He doesn't visit children.

Actually in the Preston case the photo was put on a site for gay men to choose.
'Put on a site for gay men to choose' is wrong though, isn't it. The site in question is a site called Linkmaker. It is not a site specifically for gay men. Most prospective adopters are given access to Linkmaker to view the actual profiles of children that are family finding.

Having had cancer is so common, it cannot rule anyone out of caring for a child. Being over 60 is so common, it cannot rule anyone out of caring for a child.

Do you suggest that every grandmother must have their grandchild snatched away by the State? Everyone who has ever had cancer, too?

At sixty, she could potentially live another forty years. If a mother has died or for whatever reason cannot care for a baby, the mother's mother is the most natural one to love and care for him.

Preston's grandmother already cares, very well, for his sister. Preston's highly experienced foster mother had established a good relationship with his grandmother, and was extremely satisfied that within two months, he would be able to make a seamless transition from one home to another. They were nearby, and contact would continue. The surgeons wanted just a two month delay, before grandmother began lifting a one year old baby.

In what possible way could a pair of gay men, hostile to contact with grandmother or foster mother, and not living nearby, were 'superior' to his grandmother?

If you truly believe that being sixty, or having had cancer, make a woman an incapable and unfit person to take care of her own beloved grandchildren, do you therefore believe she should have her little grand-daughter taken away from her, too, and adopted by strangers, ideally the 'superior caste' of gay men who have never lived with a child?

"Restricted" is important here. There are rules around what you can and can't do after placement. You can't decide to home school for example. You probably can't go abroad.

It very clearly says that from that brief snapshot that a key part of the IRO job is to act as a first point of contact for children and advocate for their interests. IROs are most commonly very senior and experienced social workers. Just because it doesn’t specifically say in this very limited description that they don’t visit the homes of children, does not mean it doesn’t happen. There are statutory guidelines on how often children who are looked after, as Preston was, should be visited.