Why are baby’s removed at birth

[Kmav72]

Why are baby’s took from hospital at birth and later placed for adoption?
Mother has no previous children to have any understanding behind this. Dad does, but still has contact with older child regularly as older child lives with his mother (child’s grandmother). So I don’t feel dad is the problem.

I’m curious about this because the child that was adopted is my child’s half sibling (from dad). We have no contact with dad or dads family at all to get answers.

From what limited amount I know the FRG are good, though I think they would provide little that OP has not already heard. No harm giving a call.

@Italiangreyhound The poster you quoted was thinking of them as a "rights group" in a particular way if you look back through earlier posts (I think). The OP is after general information about how these situations arise and what "normally" happens, as well as seeking letterbox or other contact via the LA. If the LA come back then then that is a great start. However it may not - many people report problems with LAs and letterbox communication. Also, the OP can ask questions on a helpline and get a lot of uncertainty cleared up quickly, probably better than here, and, for general questions, quite possibly better than via the LA. And if the LA do not come back, knowing what the LA is supposed to do in this situation will help the OP. This was my thinking, in any event.

I wish people wouldn't name change, so I'd know not to get sucked in.

I hope you get the advice you need for your child, op.

@Italiangreyhound equally you might be right, as I said upthread, I don't know, and if not they might be able to point the OP in the right direction.

Well let's see, hope Op gets some answers.

"Why are baby’s took from hospital at birth and later placed for adoption?"

I have always wondered that too. Tbh I find it staggering they would do that. Removing a baby if an older sibling was abused is one thing. But taking a newborn from first time parents because they're deemed to be "at risk" ? At risk of what ? Do the SS know the future now ? People are condemned, judged and sentenced for a crime they didn't commit ? Minority report, anyone ?

Can you imagine this in any other context ? Why not put someone in prison because they may (or may not) commit a homicide someday ? That would save lives (and overcrowd prisons with innocent people, but who cares).

The fact that rights to appeal are rarely granted, and appeals basically never won, seems also incredibly fishy given that statistically there must be mistakes made by the SS.

It doesn't help that SS are always assumed to be right - on these boards whenever anyone wonders about a baby being removed everyone's always saying "well SS probably had a good reason". The parents are immediately assumed to be guilty. And, on the few occasions that SS had no choice but admit their mistakes, as the order adoptions had already been granted they decided not to overturn them ! Can you imagine being told, as a parent "oh yeah, guess we were wrong, teehee, too bad but you'll never see your kids again anyway".

Sorry if I sound a bit vehement, my intention isn't to rile people up, but I have wondered about this for a long time. And no, I don't believe in any kind of conspiracy to steal children, I just think that removing children from their families has been so normalized in the UK it's become a non-event. After all, it's easy, no one will question it, it costs less than actually helping the parents. I guess they think it's better to inflict the known trauma of adoption than allow for any risk (and too bad for all the children who would have been perfectly safe in their families).

I'm not saying all children are removed wrongly, or even the majority. But I do think a large minority are removed too hastily. The SS need more oversight, preferably from an independant auditing body. The fact that so many children are removed (according to the fosteringnetwork, 30.000 children come into care over the course of a year, a number confirmed on assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) and parents' appeals are never granted are two huge, huge red flags. Also the fact that numbers have been rising so sharply since the 1980's.

It's mind-boggling that no one questions it, really.

I have always wondered that too. Tbh I find it staggering they would do that. Removing a baby if an older sibling was abused is one thing. But taking a newborn from first time parents because they're deemed to be "at risk" ? At risk of what ? Do the SS know the future now ? People are condemned, judged and sentenced for a crime they didn't commit ? Minority report, anyone ?

You have no idea why this child was removed. The mother could be severely addicted to drugs with no intention of stopping. You also don't know if she has had previous children. The OP doesn't know that for sure as she doesn't know the mother. SS don't permanently remove children for no reason.

Why are babies removed at birth? Look, let me give you a good example. My adopted grandchild was removed at birth because BM was severely addicted to drugs. She was given every opportunity of support to deal with the addiction during pregnancy but refused and continued to take class A drugs. After the birth she left her baby in hospital and went off in search of drugs. LO had severe neonatal abstinence syndrome which meant long term treatment to overcome the dependency. LO went into foster care. BM was given multiple opportunities for contact but she didn’t turn up to half the meetings and walked out of the ones she did attend. BF was busy being involved in crime. None of the extended family were considered capable of looking after the child for a whole range of reasons - drugs, crime, violence, mental health.., The decision to take the child into care and later to be placed for adoption was made by the court, not by social workers. The parents could not keep their child safe and we’re not willing or capable of accepting support to even try. This little one’s story is typical of many who are adopted, give or take a few details. Some families just can’t put their baby first. If my grandchild had stayed with birth family, they would either be severely damaged by now, possibly not alive. That’s why. You don’t know the story behind your son’s half sibling being adopted but believe me, this does not happen easily.

The fact that so many children are removed (according to the fosteringnetwork, 30.000 children come into care over the course of a year, a number confirmed on assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) and parents' appeals are never granted

The vast, vast majority of children taken into care are returned to their parents at some point, only a tiny percentage end up in permanent foster care or in adoption and that’s after being able to evidence parents cannot parent their child safely. The threshold for removal in the first place is astonishingly high with children being left in awful conditions for much longer than most people realise while assessments are done and supports put in place.

Examples of babies removed from first time mums include mums who are so dependent on drugs and alcohol they’ve drank or used throughout pregnancy, engaged in criminal, violent behaviour, not attended medical appointments, not attended pre-birth child protection meetings. If she hasn’t engaged with services and has taken no steps to reduce substance misuse while pregnant there’s no evidence to suggest she will post birth, caring for a new born who is withdrawing from drugs and alcohol is hard, very hard so the baby would be removed for their own safety, if mum still can’t engage and doesn’t come for contact it makes sense the baby would be adopted.

Another example would be persistent domestic abuse, particularly where the abuser has previous form for domestic abuse and has other children. Again lots of opportunity to leave but if she can’t keep herself safe she has no chance of protecting her new born.

Assessment is about telling the future and previous behaviour is a pretty good predictor of future behaviour especially if mum hasn’t been able to protect herself or work with services while pregnant.

Social services don’t make that decision alone, many agencies are involved and ultimate they are legally accountable to the courts. It’s never easy to make the recommendation to remove a child but it is necessary, even with new borns, even with first time mums. And let’s be fair if we leave a new born knowing there was such a level of risk and they died, everyone starts beying for social worker blood.

Children aren’t removed for no reason, I understand that this is done for the best interests on the child.
I think my main question to this was is my child’s father seen as a risk, which I have been re assured that the mother is the risk, however dad had the opportunity to parent alone and chose not to.
Reasoning behind isn’t my place, understandable, but I think that was my main question if dad was to seek out contact in the future, however this is very unlikely, this will be left until my child is old enough to do so. (If he wishes).

I don’t understand why parents cannot make simple changes to their lives to ensure the safety or their child, so I do find this hard to understand.

I don’t understand why parents cannot make simple changes to their lives to ensure the safety or their child, so I do find this hard to understand.

Ending years of drug use or leaving a violent relationship aren’t simple changes to make and carry their own risks. Often the women have their own story to tell of trauma and abuse, they often have family and social structures that act to keep them in a vulnerable place or have no family or social support to make changes, there are often significant mental health concerns and a history of poor experience with education, social work and health services. It’s not easy, possible but not easy. And then they lose their children - which just compounds things.

OP I'm sorry but I think you are being very naive about this situation. YOU don't need to understand why the child was taken off the parents. It was clearly a very severe situation for the child to be removed at birth and no one here can tell you what that situation would be. You may never know because you have no right to information about a child you have nothing to do with.
You have sent a letter but ultimately you need to let it go and be patient. The adoptive family may not want contact with you and your child. That is their decision.

Also, did your friend really contact you to ask why you hadn't taken on a child that has nothing to do with you, and you didn't even know about?

I think my main question to this was is my child’s father seen as a risk, which I have been re assured that the mother is the risk, however dad had the opportunity to parent alone and chose not to.

Have the LA told you this? Because no one here has, or can.

@percypetulant
Yes I was told this by the LA, as I had the right to that information.

@Iminaglasscaseofemotion
I have said in this thread, I don’t want to know reasoning behind the child adoption, I just wanted to understanding why it can happen.
I haven’t sent a letter, I haven’t heard back since enquires were made.

And yes, an old friend did ask yes, she wasn’t aware I didn’t know

did your friend really contact you to ask why you hadn't taken on a child that has nothing to do with you, and you didn't even know about the child is a half biological sibling of her child. I think that that is generally considered a significant connection.

OP did you try to FRG helpline, just out of interest?

I have just seen jellycatspyjamas post at 9.25. OP, I came on to the thread to recommend FRG because up to that point the posts, I thought, had been unhelpful and (I confess) I didn't have the mental energy at the time to give information, but the post at 9.25 has given some comprehensive reasons as to why a baby might be removed, and of course these are just examples. Has that helped you to understand what might have happened? It doesn't say it did happen, but gives examples of what might have happened.

In relation to you having letterbox or other contact, are you clear about what the LA will be doing now, and how long they may take to get back to you?

@thismightnotbesight
I did, thank you. Only advice they could give me was to enquire about letterbox, or leave a letter.
They said they LA would be able able to say whether dad was the risk as we have a child so this would be the only information I could get, however that would of been beneficial to know incase contact between my child and birth dad was asked for, seems very unlikely to happen.

The last contact from the LA regarding contact was over a week ago, when they said they would make some enquiries and get back to me, however I haven’t heard anything since.
I’m aware this could take a few weeks, depending on how they do this. I’m guessing it’s from one person to another, to then adopters then back.

@Marty13 my impression is that in recent years the safety net has reduced everywhere, the services for families have reduced, and lockdown more recently has pushed more families into crisis. There will be some families where removal is the only way forward, families where with better help and support they could stay together, families where if one or even two generations ago there had been better education and more help things would be different for the parents now. Some of the communities these people come from are truly desperate. On the BBC website today is a story about reports to NSPCC during lockdown which is really sad. There is an article about how in some care homes children are at risk and children should only be placed in OFSTED regulated homes. My impression is that there are well run SW practices and others not so well run.

In summary I think that there are many things wrong with what is going on now, and I agree with you and I am sure many professionals and other people with involved would agree too. I also think that most professionals and other people are doing their best.

@Kmav72 I hope the LA get back to you, though as a poster has said it might take a while because of lockdown. I hope it all works out well.

Thank you, I will post with an update when I get one🙂

@Marty13 But taking a newborn from first time parents because they're deemed to be "at risk" ? At risk of what ?

The question you then need to ask yourself is this “What level of harm/neglect/abuse do I want a baby to suffer before they are protected?”

Would you leave your baby in the care of a drug addict? Would you leave a baby in the care of an abuser?

Birth parents are heavily supported, I’m not sure why you think foster care is cheaper than supporting birth parents. Foster care is far more expensive.

I’m adopted, I’m in my late 40’s now and I was removed at birth.

My BM was 19 and my BD had disappeared, she came from a strict Catholic family and she and my SW agreed it was best as she knew that she didn’t want me.

Obviously that was a long time ago though.