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

Most adults who understand child protection especially when a child has been placed newly with adult males would know that this would be viewed as extremely inappropriate. I can't believe I even have to spell this out to another supposed adult.

A naked adult man in a bath with an unrelated child who has literally just been placed with him. No. Absolutely not.

Good grief. WAY more education is needed on absolute fundamentals, this is fucking ridiculous.

Their role as an agency is solely about recruitment and assessment of potential adopters for approval generally as adopters.

If it's the case that they followed the "correct" procedures, then maybe there's something massively wrong with those procedures, when couples who are apparently planning on sexually abusing a child can get approval?

And if there's really nothing that can be fixed in the procedures, then I think someone needs to start looking a lot more closely at all the children who have already been placed for adoption for signs of sexual abuse. And maybe we might find if we did that, that certain adoption agencies are better at placing children safely than others.

New Family Social are currently promoting info sessions on such topics as 'consenting non monogamy' and swinging - to agency staff across the UK. They don't advertise these sessions to the general public. Their podcast features one episode where a gay adoptive dad talks about his open relationship and bringing men home when his child is at school.

I cannot understand why any agency, taking safeguarding seriously, would have anything to do with them.

It would also be extremely helpful if people attempting to make this all about adopters' feelings instead of Preston Davey, rather than the useful info on processes that ARE relevant to this horrendous case and that have been appreciated, could themselves be better informed about longstanding research and child protection, basic safeguarding, male violence and child sexual assault, but here we are.

.

Sorry you think parents being in a bath with their very young children is inappropriate or some sort of red flag?

Social workers are going to have millions of parents to investigate in that case!

I ignored it because I don't see the relevance to this case where there is exactly NO evidence that nobody else wanted him - and indeed we know that his grandmother did want him but - apparently - just needed a few more months before she would be well enough to carry a toddler, and that the foster mother was happy to keep him for those extra weeks or months.

Even if there was nobody else who wanted Preston - which I don't actually believe - there is still a massive problem with having placed him with that particular couple. Nobody could possibly argue that a bad adoption placement is better for the child than a good foster home, which is where he was. The foster home would have been fine for him, except that they probably wanted to free it up so as to put more children with the foster mum.

I don't think saying all that is engaging in a witch hunt against adoptive parents. I have agreed elsewhere that adopters are given very little help, and I agree that's unacceptable. But this is about sexual abuse that began within DAYS of his arrival. It wasn't about depressed adoptive parents not coping. That was always their intention - and the only link with your point about lack of help being available for adoptive parents who can't cope is only connected in that it's about a system where those operating it see their work as box-ticking, and children who are placed are counted as "files successfully closed".

Adoption Now would have had no role in determining whether Preston was placed for adoption or not. Nor in deciding the right placement for him.

Their role as an agency is solely about recruitment and assessment of potential adopters for approval generally as adopters.

And whatever the failings after the placement I’ve seen no evidence that they missed any checks or missed any red flags during that process.

Thank you.

There are NO adoption agencies specifically for gay men. Or gay women. Or Reform supporters. Or Cat Lovers. There are just adoption agencies. That are open to all, regardless of sex, household income, relationship status, home ownership, job status, ethnicity, age (with a preferred upper limit), health issues. They all pretty much do the same job.

It would be helpful if those making claims about adoption were even slightly informed about the process though, don’t you think?

Yes, I didn't get that impression. I thought it was for everyone. Lots of agencies might've historically had Stonewall training though. I still don't think it's a given that normal checks were bypassed because they were gay. I suspect it's more about perceived class and status, and the "adoption must be the ideal answer" thing.

Adoption Now is not specifically for LGBT people.

https://adoptionnow.org.uk/why-us

Is the agency, Adoption Now, only for gay men/gay couples? I looked at their website and that doesn't seem to be the case.

If they support Stonewall that is very worrying though.

Nobody said you weren't? We don't tend to do tone policing over here, sorry.

As I said, though, we are "jumping up and down about it" because we are coming from a perspective that is primarily about male violence and sexual assault, women, children and safeguarding. Far too many people want to close their ears to that, imo. It needs jumping up and down about.

Again, this is not a thread about the personal plight of adopters or whatever gripes you have with how you're treated in your situation v biological parents. A child is dead. He has been raped to death by a man in a situation that the STATE put a very young baby into.

We are allowed to talk about this and without euphemism. People are allowed to be angry about it and talk about the system that allowed this to happen.

The very mechanism of that placement and the decisions made is really important here. I assumed it was a state adoption agency and not one specifically for LGBT, because it covered multiple areas. Do we know that for sure?

This is literally how adoption works. The state ie local authorities remove children. The local authorities become the corporate parents. The various agencies recruit adopters. These can be the LAs themselves or private agencies. Again, one of the massive issues in child protection is the proliferation of agencies for profit. But that’s a discussion for another day. The LAs seek the best possible matches for their children who are legally freed for adoption. The LAs, who are now all combined into geographic groups as regional adoption agencies, will usually seek to place children who are freed for adoption within the RAAs, unless there are valid reasons for placing children in another area.

One not dedicated to organising adoptions for gay men in particular.

Yes, I know this. Because I am a woman. And an intelligent one. I am allowed to have my own opinions. Posters here are jumping up and down about safeguarding and child protection. There is zero chance of eradicating risk in child protection because social work is not an exact science as it is predicated on the unpredictability of human beings. I will just point out that women kill babies and children too.

How could they be stopped from running an agency though?

I agree that agencies shouldn't be officially affiliated with Stonewall who have been proved to not know the first thing about child safety!

the person being denied contraception

• women like this aren't being 'denied' contraception. They could have it if they asked for it.

I know what you mean - they won't. I still feel really uncomfortable about forced contraceptive implants though.

Literally none of this is an "attack on adopters" ffs. It is about child safeguarding and child protection in the face of male child sexual assault.

You are posting on a feminism board, where the women here often discuss issues like male violence, sexual violence against women and children, child protection and safeguarding. Without sugarcoating, and yes, often bluntly. MANY women here have been on the wrong end of that and have extensive experience. Many women are parents, many will also be adopters. But this is a thread about Preston Davey. It is not a "plight of adopters" thread or board nor an adopters v biological parents board.

Child protection is about centering the needs and safety of the child and not the wishes of adults. I'm sorry if that upsets you but that is how child protection is supposed to work.

What most posters are assuming is that everything is centred on local authority social workers controlling the adoption and choice of new parents. It seems troubling that an agency with a gay-men / Stonewall, agenda are in control.

Why don't prisons use implants to protect females who are out on bail?

• 'protect'- I see what you mean but how would this work? If a woman is an alcoholic or drug addict should they have contraception implanted whether they want it or not?

If he did have a predilection for choking then that would sadly be very relevant.

What do you describe as a regular agency?

That’s unfair, I was trying to explain the realities of adoption. There has been a witch hunt on here towards adopters. On other threads, posters have been insistent that all adopters should be subject to spot checks and should be prepared to hand our devices over to the state for regular perusal. It’s easy to become overwhelmed by adoption in a very short period of time. As I say, I am making no excuses at all. What has happened is horrific. But I would ask that if society thinks that adopters should be held to higher account than other parents, then please support us.