Why do I reply

[Tangerineandturquoise]

People wont change their mind- I know they wont, so why do I bother trying to suggest another side to the cute cuddly kids being yanked away from good lives threads
AIBU has reared up again.

You ok Tangerine? Don't let the conspiracy theorists get you down.

I've just seen the thread you are refering too.

YAWN.

don't let that particular poster get you down, nor comments about 'children do better staying with birth family'.

We know the truth.

I just came here from Active. Children do better in birth families than in foster care. They do approximately equally well in birth families and adoptive homes.

Sorry you don't like that.

Button - How on earth can you make a sweeping statement like that? A child who is being horrifically abused will do better in a safe environment, whether that is foster care or adoptive family.

What is 'better' anyway? Stop being beaten black and blue? Id say that's better. Stop being sexually abused? Better. Start being fed? Better. Have a consistent, caring family around them? Better. Stop caring for a drug/alcohol addicted parent? Better. Need I go on?

Why would you want a child to stay with parents that are not capable of meeting their needs? How can that be good for the child?

Op, try not to dispair. Most people have brains in their heads and don't agree with the rubbish posted above.

What? buttonmoonboots what is your evidence?

Some children thrive in foster care! I know of some!
Some children do awfully in when they remain in neglectful or abusive families, I know of some!
Some children must be adopted for the sake being able to have a future, I know of some.

Sorry if you don't like it Buttonmoon, but birth families are not always best for children at all.

I'm a child protection social worker, so I speak from my experience

To be fair it was only one poster who said that social worker took cute babies.

button I think Turquoise was refeerring to the taking cute babies.

I don;t (personally) know of any children who were safe to be left in their birth family so none of my experience would fit in with your case of children thriving equally well in birth or adoptive families. At least not in the last 15 years I can;t talk for before that.

What basis are you saying this from?

Yes children can have attachment issues when put into care/adopted. But they can also have attachment issues, suffer abuse and/or neglect (which is far worse) when they stay with birth families.

Are you saying that it was better that Daniel Pelzer had stayed with his birth mother? Baby P?

Are you saying that a child would be better off if say their parents abused drugs/alcohol and could not prioritise the most basic of care?

Some children who are adopted/put into care can grow up with issues. I would hazard a guess (I am sure more knowledgable people will know exact figures) that a majority of those kept in birth families will have many many more issues or repeat the cycle of their childhood.

I had never come across this phenomenon until MN. In the world I inhabit people understand that child protection cases are incredibly complex and there is rarely a straightforward answer.

Many of the young people I work with who have attachment difficulties have them as a result of chaotic infancy rather than being removed from their birth families. You might even go so far as to suggest that had he child been removed in infancy the attachment issues might have been reduced.

High quality foster placements can be a total game changer for many children - I have seen this first hand.

Thanks guys,
I like that Button has "hidden" the other thread but then come on here to bandy her comments just to make sure she can stick it in. Actually I don't like it.

I watched the policing the met program the other night with the tragic death of the 4 month old baby in Haringay. Was she better with her birth family? Or any of the 2 other children a week that are still dying in this country through abuse and neglect because sw's are not taking ENOUGH cute babies! Are these poor babies better to have a short abusive life than a long and happy normal childhood and upbringing.
Sadly I think people that defend these monsters are on that side of normal themselves so no point arguing with them!

I'm a birth mum and that statement is ridiculous. There is no way I could of successfully parented my little boy so I placed him for adoption. I have a horrific past of abuse at the hands of my father so no birth families aren't always the right thing for the child and the mere fact you've made that sweeping statement suggests you have no idea or you have your own issues.

Granted I'm a bit unusual in that I relinquished as opposed to having my son removed but still... I know he will be safer and more stable without me.

Actusllt, Turquoise, I think its really out of order to bitch about somebody on a different thread started by YOU, then come on here complaining that same poster appeared.

You do have an interesting interpretation of what people say.

I don't think the criticism is aimed at adoptive parents in any case - rather at social workers and inconsistencies across the country as a whole.

*Actually

Anxious - what a brave decision you made. Couldn't read & run - afraid I don't have an intelligent or meaningful response for you, just wanted to say that I think that was a courageous thing to do.

I didn't start the other thread I started this one

I know. You started this one to bitch and moan about the stupid people on the other one.

Nice.

Where has Turquoise bitched?

I thought her post didn't actually refer to Button or you Barley but to the poster who referred specifically to cute babies being taken and not teens.

If you had any idea the number of times we have dealt with SS stealing babies threads you would perhaps understand why we occasionally have a bit of a sigh about it in "ADOPTION" which is afterall a support board for anyone involved with adoption.

I don't understand how research can show that the outcomes for adopted children are no better than leaving them with birth parents as the worst treated children are the ones who (generally) are the ones removed therefore the the outcomes are not comparable. Did they include children killed or maimed by birth and/or adoptive parents in these studies? Because I can only think of 1 child in the last 20 years killed by an adoptive parent and 1 adoptive parent charged with child cruelty.

How on earth can studies which compare the children considered safe to be left with birth family (however unsatisfactory) with those considered to be unsafe be illuminating in any way? I genuinely don't understand it. I would love to read these studies and would like a link if anyone has one.

Surely at best they can say for example "3 children left with birth parents died, 5 suffered permanent injury, 15 temporary injuries compared with no death no permanent injuries and 8 temporary injuries. But of those who survived without permanent injury there was no significant difference in the outcome" - how can that possibly be consider a comparable outcome?

I haven't ever heard an adopters argue that children should be removed from sub-standard parents so I'm not sure why we're being beaten with that particular stick. Children should only be removed from situations that are not safe to leave them in.

anxious

I do understand kew; I just feel it's very bad form to take a discussion from one thread to another, especially as the other thread was overwhelmingly in support of the point turquoise was making.

stupid people, bitch and moan

I know that you're being deliberately inflammatory because you have each taken personal exception to what the other has said but in case you were too cross to read it properly the op of this thread said people won't change their mind, why do I bother to put another point of view forward. (paraphrasing)

Not a stupid in sight or a bitch or a moan - just a question about why she tries to put another point of view forward when people don't listen.

I am cross, but not for the reason you think.

Turquoise disagreed with somebody on the other thread. She was supported in this view.

She then came on here to complain about the person she disagreed with.

I think that's bad form.

If you think its inflammatory to call it as such, then inflammatory I am.

I don't think you probably do understand Barley lots of adoptive parents and even birth parents get a lot of support from this board and at times it has been over-run by the forced adoption brigade (who by the way in case you haven't come across them think the better alternative to adoption is a lifetime in care being fostered )

It has got very vitriolic and at times we individually have retreated from the board completely.

It is also very hard to see people writing that their child would have done just as well left with birth parents when you are in the throes of dealing with the very real, very significant issues created by their birth parents. I think we are entitled to put an alternative view forward - because there is one.

And I should add that some of the most vocal support of birth parents and supporting vulnerable parents to avoid children being removed has come from adoptive parents.

She then came on here to complain about the person she disagreed with.

Where?

What Kew said.

The whole post is about what one (one!) person said on AIBU Kew.

I am sorry you have had to deal with that here. It must get tedious.

I still feel it is bad form to take an argument from one place to another.