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

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/content/news/preston-davey-macalister-sends-in-experts-to-scrutinise-agencies-involved-in-boys-case

As you can see, Josh MacAlister has asked experts to look at the role of the council, NHS trust and adoption agency.

There are even single men.

There are NO agencies dedicated to increasing the numbers of LGBTQ+ adopters. Adoption agencies have to be equal opportunities.

Laura Perrins is founder of the Conservative Woman website. Anyone who wants to read articles behind a paywall can use for free the archive ph / archive today resource; simply cut and paste your link to read your article.

Doesn't the adoption agency deal with those people too?

Those are not the only sectors of society wanting to adopt. There are childless heterosexual couples who want to adopt too. There are even single women as well.

There have already been thousands of gay and lesbian adoptive parents who haven’t abused their children.

gay and lesbian couples tend to be more open to non-traditional ideas of family because they’ve already made peace with the fact that their family life is not going to be the societal norm. They tend to be more open to adopting older children with medical or psychological issues.

It isn't that straightforward. As Prof Selwyn points out, the Gov "anyone can adopt" message, which was designed to reach communities like LGBT+, is profoundly wrong because no, not everyone can/should adopt.

The Gov is currently looking at the adoption agency and its practices. Some might say they took a vulnerable group and launched an unrealistically jolly marketing campaign at it.

Surely it's common sense to reach applicants from the sectors of society who are likely to want to adopt?

That is interesting about it being an adoption agency dedicated to increasing the numbers of adoptions for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer + couples.

I think this summarises the Telegraph article which someone posted earlier but behind a paywall. A lof of intersting infobon the adoption agency. https://x.com/LPerrins/status/2069009712893276572?s=20i

From that article:

"Legal systems and processes which are evidence based, and robust, operate in the adoption sector and courts to ensure as far as possible that children are being placed for adoption with people who are not only well prepared and thoroughly assessed, but also safe."

Um, how was there any evidence whatsoever that JV and JMF were "well prepared?" It's obvious from what JV was saying within days that they really weren't prepared at all. Sandra Cooper commented on it, and she had been through about forty other adoptions with other children and sets of parents.

And that's before you get to the "safe" part.

The thing is, individual local authorities don't have that many children requiring adoption pa, so there is little point in them all having a team of social workers experienced enough to find adopters for their children. And as the point is to find the best match for a child, the chances of them having the right sort of adopter available for that child is pretty low - they might be looking for someone of a particular ethnicity for example, or with experience of a particular disability. The child might not be able to be placed within the LA, especially in small local authorities like the London boroughs. And in the past when local authorities did it themselves, they just recruited the sorts of adopters they thought they had children for, so people would be turned down because the LA didn't think they would have children for them. They would also hold on to prospective adopters they had approved in the hope they would find children for them, not letting them look further afield.

These agencies have always existed - i adopted 25 years ago and was approved by one (i live in a tiny LA). It can't just be a postcode lottery. But of course cynics will say they have a vested interests in approving adopters and getting them matched.

I mean, how many posh private boarding school teachers have been convicted of pedophilia?

Jimmy Saville hanging out with the royals and thatcher?

fuckin he’ll

safeguarding is fucked.

Maybe it’s the training and the experiences I’ve personally had but no one is above suspicion

Wtaf - that’s appalling. That’s ripe for corruption ffs

Tbf they are voluntary sector or some other not for profit, but they exist to manage much of the work of the adoption process and local authorities pay them a fee.

Anyway, this is interesting - investigators are being sent into the adoption agency, local authority and hospital https://www.communitycare.co.uk/content/news/preston-davey-macalister-sends-in-experts-to-scrutinise-agencies-involved-in-boys-case

There was another thread on this as I remember typing that I was sickened to the core reading the report.

There was a catalogue of errors made and chances to save Preston missed.

I believe someone had raised concerns about the adopters and they were ignored.

Another child failed by 'the system'.

Rest in peace Preston x

There are plenty of non-profit social organisations which could expand their remit, if they wanted.

That doesn't really make sense.

Adopters would not be taking a prospective child anywhere until they have been matched, and the match approved by a panel, and transitions have started between foster carer and adoptive parents.

If they took the child to a creche for an hour during that transitional period, then that would be a major red flag. That period is intended to be to allow a child to become progressively more comfortable with you as their primary caregiver. Totally inappropriate for that time to be given up to a creche.

If you mean that after the child was placed with them, and after transitions had concluded, but presumably before the adoption order was made - then I don't believe for a second that SWs ended an adoption placement for the sole reason of taking a child to a creche for an hour. Willing to bet my house on there being a lot more to that story than someone was willing to say.

The trouble is, the Agencies have the expertise and the Gov insists on the approval process being as short as possible - in the past it could drift and drift with no one making a decision. Most local authorities don't need a full time adoption team tbf.

I honestly think it should be outlawed for anyone to profit from the social care system.

They were approved after 8 face to face meetings. If you are clueless and say things like “most kids just need a good smack” or “it won’t change us, we will still host swinging club once a month and go to furry events” then you won’t get approved but I don’t think it’s that hard for a manipulative person to come across as an excited dad-to-be in meetings which probably totalled less than 20 hours. It’s an extended version of pulling yourself together for a job interview where you will say how much you thrive in fast paced environments and look forward to new challenges instead of saying that you hate your current boss, want more money and can walk to the office from your house. On paper they were fine. Preston’s injuries including his broken elbow, his “sadness”, the concerns of the experienced foster carer were ignored.

Part of the problem is that prospective adopters are often approved by independent agencies, who get paid when a match to a child happens and the child is placed for adoption. The children are with the local authorities. Local authority family finders and the child's social workers identify suitable prospective adopters BUT they don't get to query the assessment.

You only hear the parent's version of why they were turned down, not social services - so it's always things like 'we have too many books' or 'we earn too much' and never that they are a risk to the child.
I imagine the social worker's version would be very different.