Anyone written to their MP about so few children available for adoption

[oasiswaterpool]

Am thinking of doing this - what response did you get?

In our LA, not many 5-7 year olds are available for adoption because at that age they are, especially if they have multiple difficulties, seen as un adoptable - a recent trawl for a 6 year old girl I know yielded only 1 family who would fit the criteria. These children tend to be placed in long term foster care, for many reasons - such as maintaining contact with birth family. Maybe you need to widen your criteria by age or difficulties you would consider?

All too often there are multiple link's for a child , study history and back out
even when, child is still developing , most have development delays it not too say they will be permanent especially 0 to 18 months. Have seen many a child placed who have surpassed the problems, there is the occasional child who will need lots of additional support however is not exclusive too children in the care system but effects all outside the system.

We are able too access's and deliver support from birth which lessons and
eliminates possible secondary problem's, all is transferred with the child which ever pathway is taken when they move on.

oasis. Yes I was being ironic/sarcastic.

It would be interesting to know when enquiring about adopting 2nd DC do SWs look at the 1st DC's notes or do they ask potential adopters all about the circumstances surrounding the 1st DC's history. Does anyone know?

I don't think the formally access the child's file, in fact I am certain they don't.
As part of the matching process they will look at the history of your child, to what depth will depend on the issues involved and actually may become more intricate when a possible match is found.
The fact that you have parented through one set of issues can make you seem positive to the placing SW- but if they think one or both children need more of you it can be a hindrance, they want to know; what you have learned-support networks-ability to access services and how positive child one is for a sibling. Can you do it again.
I thought having had quite a tough time with DC1 we wouldn't get far applying second time around (although obviously we very much wanted to) but actually all the troubles we went through were seen as a positive.

"We need to stop being so worried about being PC in this country and do what is right for the children." And what is so wrong with children placed with family rather than adopted, especially when the social workers have got it wrong. Waiting to be berated as a troll. There but for the grace of, before you judge families as unsuitable and adoption the only way. its about time that the current practice is reviewed. There are so many children out for adoption because social workers, guardians and the courts are hell bent on adoption.

Pixie This post refers to how a recent case in the courts has meant the courts have changed their practices (whether rightly or wrongly) so they are the exact opposite of 'hell bent' on adoption and there are actually fewer children waiting to be placed for adoption, because they are with their families, or in foster care having regular contact with their families.

Even before the case that altered everything recently, when you say you would class the courts as 'prioritising adoption', only 7-8% of the 10's of thousands of children in care get adopted (after a lot of intervention and prevention, unless it is more clear cut risk e.g. proven sexual abuse or physical abuse), to deem the system as hell bent on adoption, surely a number above 50%, or even 20% would be needed to justify that. Just saying.

It should have read, I left the post to answer the phone and lost track.
there are far too many children out for adoption rather than rely on their suitable family members.it seems that it is only recently the pendulum has swung back in favour of the family. However from the 'other' side you may feel differently. As a family wrongly judged by social services, and while now we have come to accept the adoption decision because not to would have us all implode, I am not sure anyone appreciated the hurt in a family where the child removed was manipulated for adoption at all costs where the evidence was purely circumastantial and relied on hearsay and lies.
As for the article I have come to read some of her articles with my own suspicious mind. I have come to the realisation that not all lawyers can be trusted either. Even the ones that 'work' for the birthparents. It is so much easier to believe the children are always removed justly. When in fact there are so many out there that are removed because it is more convenient for the social worker. If I hear one more time it is the judge who removes them I will scream. He or she just reads what she is given and in the far to often case removes them because they will always favour social services. We all know they don't lie ever. As for writing to your MP. We have done this and he is very worried about the state of the social services department we are dealing with and the number of parents he is supporting and its not your favourite now ex MP John Hemming for a change.