Reasons why children become available for adoption?

[melvinscomment]

Re children available for adoption at either Local Authority or private adoption agencies, is any detailed information provided as to why they were removed from their natural parent(s)?

I don't think I will have any trouble explaining to dd why she was removed at birth. She is sibling number 7. I think the people who adopted siblings 2, 3, 4, 5, are probably having trouble explaining why they were left to live in extreme neglect for several years which I believe has led to at least three them being unable to lead normal adult lives (children were born over a period of 23 years). Sibling 1 was of course first born and had no choice but to suffer until the neglect came to light.
Sibling 6 was also removed at birth.
What a mess but I know which children were the fortunate ones.

Not going to go into my experience of adoption here but how dare the OP make such sweeping generalisations about forced adoptions.

And as for you John Hemmings you should be ashamed of yourself. You think a child is taken because she is "stroppy".

If social services taken children on a whim and "for no reason" how the fuck did the Baby P case happen?

This thread has angered me (not any of your lovely adoptive parents) but people such as the OP who cannot be honest about who they are and what their agenda is.

I strongly suspect that melvin'sccomment and whowasthatguy are one and the same person and are best ignored. If they become as offensive and potentially dangerous as melvinscomment did on the mental health thread, we can ask MN to remove the thread, which they did on the MH one.

As for JH. He has always posted under his own name so don't think he is one of these other odd blokes. Mind I do think JH is a tad unhinged! I notice that he has not come back to deny any of the comments that I made about him in my last post, because he knows they are true! Think that says it all really. It just angers me that an elected MP can get away with posting such nonsense. I think he actually believes it too, which is even more worrying!

I have tried again and again to tell him exactly what happens in care proceedings (in numbered points) and how all professionals who write reports have to be able to evidence what they said in statements. Does he really believe that any professional is going to court to say to a judge "I removed the child because the mother was stroppy" or "I removed the child because the mother called me fat! What do you think!

I have explained that all professionals writing reports have to expect to be cross examined for 3/4 hours by the lawyers for the birth parents (I am not objecting to this as they should be represented) but to stand up to that amount of cross examination means that you have to be as certain as you possibly can be that you can evidence what you are saying. At the end of the final hearing (which can last between 5 and 10 days) the judge makes the decision on the child's future.

JH has another bee in his bonnet about the issue of the wording of the Children Act in relation to initiating care proceedings - the grounds for requestig persmission of a magistrate to remove a child on an emergency protection order (child cannot be removed without this as many of you have said) are that the "the child is suffering or is likely to suffer from significant harm"- he is incapable of understanding the issue of likely significant harm and talks nonsense about social workers looking into crystal balls. I have given him examples of when the likely isssue is used in care proceedings, to remove a child at birth.

An example of this I recall was when a birth mother and father had mild to moderate learning difficulties and mother was dragging the 2 year old child round the kitchen by her hair and screaming at her. We were already involved with the family and monitoring the situation, however can't be there 24 hours per day. A neighbour intervened and after a lot of thorough assessments the child was removed. Mother immediately became pregnant again and the case was handled by a new sw and team manager and they argued that the mother should be given a "second chance" - many of us thought this wa putting the new baby at significant risk of likely harm as the mother had proved she was incapable of caring for her first child because of her learning difficulties. The new baby was fathered by another man with a history of criminal offences and had served 2 custodial sentencesin the past.
However the new tm mgr got her way and care proceedings were not initiated when the second child was born. When he was around 10 weeks of age the mother left him in a pram outside at night in the middle of winter, totally inadequately clothed while she played the oije (can't spell it) weegie? board with her mates. Needless to say the new sw and tm mgr quickly realised that the child should be removed. The HV was very very concerned about the care the child was given in his first 10 weeks of life and he could have been spared this had be been removed on the issue of likely harm

Sorry to go on so long.

I think all you adoptors are doing a brilliant job and please don't let these stupid men who presumably have their own warped agenda to make you angry and frustrated. I do understand however how this can happen when you are doing your utmost to help some of the troubled children that may be difficult because of their pre placement experiences.

I bet abusive parents just love john hemming being safe if the knowledge they can abuse their child and jh will support them when any. One trys to intervene

Dear lord if these are our law makers no wonder children linger in abusive home for so long

Thing is Maypole JH has no authority to intervene except in cases where he assists (financially I believe) natural parents to flee the country to Southern Ireland (where the laws are different) or one of the mediteranian countries, to get away from social services in the UK. He has actually admitted to doing this and I just fail to understand why an elected MP can get away with doing this. Fortunately the families who flee are usually found by social services in whatever country they go to.

The only other way he can intervene is when he (or one of his many volunteers he claims to have) advise the nat parents to get rid of their lawyer and be represented by one of theses volunteers who is not a lawyer. Permission has to be granted from the courts for this and I know on one occasion it was granted. I would like to have been a fly on the wall to see this volunteer stanbd up to hours of cross examination by a barrister.

Natural parents can have someone to support them in court (known as a McKenzie friend) but they are not allowed to speak unless asked a direct question from the judge. They are there for moral support to the parents really.

In actual fact I think it is the natural parents who are being exploited by JH, as they are almost sure to believe that he can intervene and overturn all the professionals and lawyers and the judge which of course is not the case.

I you ask him about what happened in a particular case, it's always the same answer "it's going through the court of appeal" or is in the "Court of Human Rights."

I think he is just blows a lot of hot air without much susbstance. Though I do think action should be taken against him as an elected MP when he finances nat parents to flee the country to escape child protection procedures in the UK.

This might be the first thread I ever hide, and that's saying something. For the reocrd, and this is more for the benefit of any other MNers passing by and to all you kind people here than for JH/wwtg etc, because they don't seem to care one jot about the children -

No, we tell our whole children the truth, as and when they are ready for it, if they don't remember themselves. I practise in front of a mirror if a hard coversation is coming up, because its very hard to talk about "why did x do that to me?", "why didn't they go to prison then?" without crying. God knows what I'm going to say to DS when he's older, because he was removed due to the abuse of his elder sibling. How is he going to feel if and when he finds out what was done to the "sissy" he adores?? Do i have the right to tell him what happened to her, given she will be an adult by then, and its very sensitive?? How much do I water it down by, keeping it real whilst protecting her?? What if she doesn't want to tell him anything?? He has a right to know why he was taken away, but doesn't she have a right to hide her story from people?? This is the kind of thing we are talking about right now between DD2, me and the therapist, as she is thinking har about what others know about her atm

I would love Nick Clegg to actually do something about some of the tings JH does. But even better, half of the most uninformed things I ever read are in newspaper articles (ap's get paid 400 a week to adopt etc), and i think "shouldn't it be an offence to say something in the media when it can be proven it's false??"

children the whole truth, not whole children the truth. I do tell all of her the truth, not just her arm, honestly!

You are absolutely right RipVan - I once asked JH if he had ever seen an abused children (as I have many times through mylong social work career) and he came back with some random comment that meant nothing. He does not care about the children because he actually believes what the natural parents tell him. Of course they are going to say the children were removed because we were stroppy/because we said the sw was fat etc etc. And JH swallows it whole. Of course they are not going to say "the children were removed because we abused/neglected them" etc. I understand why parents need to make out the sws have snatched the children for not good reason, but for an MP to actually believe it is alarming.

One incident stands out in my mind. Three children were being kept outside in the daytime in a sort of pen made out of chicken wire and bread was being thrown to them. Thank god we were able to remove them and the mother told the foster carer that the children were removed because she hadn't taken them to the dentist!

Most of us take any increase in adoptions as a good thing, meaning more children are being protected but of course JH doesn't because he believes totally in his conspiracy theory and is impervious to any attempt to demonstrate how wrong he is. It's interesting because he doesn't usually post on adoption threads. He usually posts on "In the News" and it turns into a social worker bashing thread, with many people sticking up for him, so glad he is getting his come uppance on this thread. He's gone very quiet thank god.

As far as what is said in newspapers, especially the tabloids and the Daily Mail, I think a good 50% is fabricated but who has the money to take out libel actions against them. The couple whose child was abducted in Portugal did do this but they clearly had the money to do it.

You are clearly a very insightful adoptor and I'm sure whatever way you decide to tell your children and in what way, it will be incredibly well thought out with great sensitivity.

I have contacted Nick Clegg once re JH and did not get the courtesy of a reply. I

It seems there are a whole range of reasons why children become available for adoption without the consent of their parents, related eg to parents drinking or taking drugs excessively, parents having mental illnesses or disorders, parents in conflict with one another, parents who intentionally physically and or emotionally abuse their children.

The severity of the circumstances which lead to the removal of the children from their parents must vary a lot and I think it is entirely possible that in the less extreme cases the children will have perceived no problem with their bio-parents, even though social services did.

Children adopted at age circa three or more years will have come to know their bio-parents and bio-relatives quite well before adoption.

If the adoptive parents are not told, or do not discover, the severity of the circumstances which led to the adoption of the child, and or do not heed any wishes expressed by the child to remain in direct contact with his or her bio-parents and or other bio-relatives, I think the child will probably suffer psychological damage as a result and will probably also become resentful towards the adoptive parents.

I think adoptive parents should make all efforts to arrange direct contact between the child and the bio-parents and or other bio-relatives, unless there are compelling reasons why such contact should not happen, eg no contact with anyone the child is clearly afraid of.

wasthat - I have tried several times to draft a reply to your last comment (10:04am), but have completely failed due to my incredulity at the complete ignorance displayed in your post.

Thatguy. No-one cares what you think. Off you toddle.

Hi I just wanted to add a few ideas.....but I should point out that I havent been around on other threads so I am only going on what john / other people perhaps posing as him have said on this one.

I actually think the guy has some valid points.

The problem is he seems to be directing them at the wrong people.

Adoptive parents are doing something good and they dont make the decisions, they should not be getting any grief over the system.

I have a family made up of people who work in these areas. Some of the stories I have been told, not just of abusive parents but of complete incompetence by SS, are shocking. They dont help themselves with the "conspiracy theories" surrounding adoption, when for instance, they take two children off one young mother but leave the middle child, who has downs syndrome with her.
And the point that was made about poor, less articulate parents again is true. Some people dont have the capacity to fight SS like perhaps we all would, that does not mean they are bad parents.

I think the main point I wanted to make is that social workers are human, just like the rest of us. This means that, just like every other job around, there are bad apples, and ones that make things personal vendettas. The reason they get all the grief is because of the fear that people have about their children bieng taken away. If your nieghbour has a vendetta, oh well just move, if its your social worker, you might lose your child, that kind of thing.

Lastly (sorry for long post) I should point out that there are many children who are terribly abused and its a bloody good job there is someone around to save them. I think some peoples hated of SS is born out of the fact they dont like to accept how prevelant child abuse really is.

I agree that all sws (just like everyone else) are not all the same - some are excellent, some are good enough and some should be in another job. However I take issue with you that sws have "vendetta's" about people and just trot off to court and get the child adopted. This is simply not the case. There are many professionals involved in care proceedings, psychologists, sometimes pyschiatrists, GPs HVs a child's guardian (totally independent of the LA) besides the sw with case responsibility. Also the LA lawyer is involved of course as he/she has to present the case to court.

Everyone who makes a statement to the court has to give a recommendation on the best way forward for the child and whether they think a Care Order or Placement Order (allowing child to be adopted) are made. The birth parents are represented by a lawyer (quite rightly) and all professionals are examined and cross-examined for anything up to 4 hours. They have to evidence anything that they say about the family and the child and they know this, which is why removing a child is the last resort. Defence lawyers (those acting for the natural parents) fight vigorously for their clients (which is their job to do) and believe me they will cross exam any professional recommending a Care or Placement Order for 3/4 hours at atime. The Judge listens to all of this of course and the notion that a social worker with a "vendetta" could stand up to all this in court is ludicrous. Most sws are wary of care proceedings and know that they will have to evidence what they are saying. The LA lawyer also has to be certain that the threshold conditions have been met for an application for a Care or Placement Order.
At the end of all this it is the Judge that will make the final decision and I can tell you that judges are very astute and will pick up very quickly on anything that is not in order.

I get so cross that so many posters think the sw can have a "vendetta" and get a child adopted - hey presto - sorry but this is patent nonsense. Quite why people who have no experience of care/court proceedings spout this sort of stuff is beyond me. Maybe they take notice of the rubbish that is churned out in the tabloids and the Daily Mail.

wasthatthatguy, the article you linked to sounds very much like the story of my adopted children... told from their birth mother's perspective. In reality, there was a lot more to it. She blames SS for her children being taken away and is completely oblivious to her part in it. Do not believe everything you read in the papers.

We can assure you that professionals do get it horribly wrong and can ruin lives even if the children have not been adopted. We used to be like many of you and believe ?no smoke without fire?. Now in our own experience we can tell you this is totally untrue in our case.

The reason can be as precarious reasons as potential emotional abuse due to a possibility of fabricated illness syndrome with not one shred of evidence. We have yet to discover if the label given was the cause of the failure to diagnose our childs real medical condition or if the label was used to cover up the misdiagnosis.

We truly believe that if we were not very able, competent and organized and had many professional friends including lawyers, GP?s, paediatricians etc then our children would have been taken. We are certain not everyone would be so lucky. We still dont know if the risk has gone for the moment or how many investigations are still ongoing as it is all done in secret but presumably the risk will now always be there. Unless anyone has any advice for us on clearing our name.

Our children lived a happy life in a beautiful home with loving parents and had never suffered from any trauma, death, divorce etc and we had never had any involvement with any so called ?professionals?. We like many of you thought this type of thing could never happen to us. We trusted the professionals and welcomed them into our house.

We have been absolutely horrified at not just the twisting of facts but the downright lies. The only reason can be to make the label fit but it is just too scary to think that there could be a multi disciplinary conspiracy to cover up an NHS mistake so we hope it must be a case of trying to make the situation fit by misinterpreting facts to get a result and being poorly trained and overworked. If anyone had told us how these type of investigations were conducted we would never have believed this. In fact we are still struggling to believe it could happen to ?people like us?.

We are left with no trust in any professionals and to be honest feel totally destroyed despite not having lost our children. Please trust us there are horrendous miscarriages of justice and it is just heart breaking to read some of these posts suggesting otherwise. We have no axes to grind, have always worked in very different industries, have never read the tabloids and have no idea who any of the posters are.

It could happen to anyone. All advice welcome.

Dear misdiagnosis, it sounds like you have had a horrendous time and I'm very sorry for that. I don't believe that any of the adoptive parents on here would say 'no smoke without fire', and I think many of us have said that (a) the system needs reform, and (b) there are doubtless miscarriages of justice and they are horrendous for both parents and child. I for one would love to have a thoughtful, informed discussion on how things could be improved, and were it not for the constant taunting, bullying and misinformation provided by these strange guys that might be possible.

I don't have any advice but I hope you are getting some good advice from somewhere?

After my poor Sisters treatment by social services, I have nightmares about ss turning up on my doorstep. She was failed badly, both by ss and my parents, it was all a bit of a nightmare.

I literally have had weeks of nightmares after reading threads on here about malicious reporting. I would love to live in a world where Social workers were fully trained and supported. Where "bad apples" were weeded out, transparency was the name of the game, also enough social workers around, that they could actually do their job, instead of fire fighting.

I shouldn't be scared of social services, I should be confident that my children are happy and fed and clothed and looked after to my own standards. But if they turned up on my doorstep I would shit myself.

Why is that? Because of all the stories of innocent people losing their children.

I realise that these cases are rare, but they do exist, and they put the fear of God into parents everywhere.

My Ds2 managed to break his leg on his first birthday, he fell down the side of the sofa, accident, could have been prevented by pushing sofa to the wall, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

We were made to feel like criminals at A&E, we were asked for our "versions" of the story about 10 times, ds2 was stripped and examined, he had a bit of oreo juice on his nappy(only food available was vending machines), which the paediatrician noticed, she said ds2 had a dirty nappy(poo), I did correct her.

She explained to us that because he had a fracture before 18 months she had to go through child protection protocol, which I was fine with, our other children were with us, I'm surprised she didn't ask to strip search them too.

She had to get the go ahead to "release" us from a consultant and thankfully thought we posed no harm to our children. Even the frigging receptionist kept staring at us for the 6 hours we were there.

I do "get" it after baby P, but lets face it, there was quite a bit more to the baby p case than one random A&E attendance.

I was actually half expecting a ss visit after ds2's injury.

This thread is about adoptons though, not social services?

I'm a birth mother and do wonder what my son's adoptive parents were told. They were brought onto the scene by social services while I was trying to fight to get my child back.
The adoptive parents knew that it was possible that I may win and he would come back to me, but as I lost, they got my son.
I put up a good fight in court and had support from a few different professionals who helped try to tell the judge in court; I hadn't done anything wrong, I just need support and a chance.
Social services won in having him adopted however so didn't have to pay out all the funds for supporting us in staying together.
The adoptive parents know I didn't do anythign wrong and I love my child.
I don't have anything against them, they've turned out to be good parents to my boy. And they're good to me too, in all they send to me.
There may even be a chance of me meeting my son again when he starts secondary school. Fingers crossed. It's all good.
But yes, I've had social services do breif checks when I had children after that, and they said it was very unclear the reasons for the first adoption being enforced.
It would be difficult for them to put reasons across for the adoption when their reason aren't necessarily comprehendable reason for many others.
In my case 'risk of possible future emotional harm' was what the judge said at the final hearing.
My two younger children, (born only 4yrs+ later) are fine with me though.

Their decisions for 'reasons for a adoption' in my experience, are at the very least; questionable.

While children may usually be removed for good reasons, from what I've seen it isn't usually the case that they're removed.
The parents are manipulated into agreeing to voluntry care with threats of 'we'll remove them anyway, but it will be better for you to agree to it if you want to get them back in future.'
When the child is in voluntry care social services gather up other reasons to apply for an intrim care order.

In my case, the got an intrim care order after 6 months, saying I didn't have appropriate housing, hadn't actually asked for my child back etc..
Of course I had asked for him back many timesand they said no.

I didn't know it was actually voluntry care until they had the intrim care order.

But then again I wouldn't have known, as they didn't give me my own social worker as they should have- as I was also a child.

I can say with total honesty, that I have never seen a single adoption profile for any child, where the child had not been physically/sexually abused or suffered severe neglect. And I've seen a lot of them. I am sure there are cases where mistakes were made, I don't doubt that, but saying that that is 'usually' the case is going too far.

What gerbils said.

OP_ I think if the children are lucky, they're only severely neglected or have a substance dependent mother with a poor choice of life partner.

If they're even luckier, they are the 7th child and removed at birth because all the older ones have been taken into care and the mother is not fit to look after them. Three cases of recentish adoptees (within the last 15 years) that I know of.

InsanityandherGerbils
I can say with total honesty, that I have never seen a single adoption profile for any child, where the child had not been described by social workers as having suffered physically/sexually abuse or suffered severe neglect.

Of course they will say that, they have to, to get the adoption through.

There probably is usually neglect or abuse, but I suspect there are many unjust cases that you don't know about, because you're only reading one side of events.

Oh come off it

I've never heard one adopter say that they didn't think their children had it that bad in their first home.

On the other hand, I have personal experience of them downplaying and hiding abuse. And I have heard a LOT of adopters fining out that things had been hidden from them (ie. knowledge of sexual abuse, medical conditions in the birth family and so on). Sadly there is an incentive for them to HIDE abuse from the profiles because the children are easier to find homes for then.

"Of course they will say that, they have to, to get the adoption through."

It's not about saying that. It's about PROVING it. Which they do have to do

Yes, it's very easy to fake bruises/burns/broken bones. Maybe the children's disclosures of sexual abuse were faked as well, even when on police tapes. And the positive drug tests the birth parents took.