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.

*"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 ?*

But there are lots of reasons? I’m an adoptee and can think of plenty. Mum may have a severe mental health problem that doesn’t respond to treatment and means she needs full time care, for example Schizophrenia which hasn’t responded to any of the medications so far, where her psychosis prevents her being able to care for herself let alone a baby. There may be a long history of abuse and neglect in the family, a lack of understanding in the parent of how this affected them and consequential emotional problems potentially including addiction that have not been addressed (and would take years to fully treat) and therefore a baby needs removing at birth. There may be a relationship with a dangerous person, eg. Person convicted of past sex offences, where the mum is not able to remove herself from the relationship and will not consider it or recognise the dangers. The mum could have severe learning difficulties and function at a much lower age and be unable to parent as a single parent due to this. If an adult can only process things as a 5 year old could, leaving a baby with them would be utterly unfair on both of them and the parent may well be unable to recognise their own inability to care for the infant as well as lacking the capacity to learn.

These types of reasons aren’t condemning people for things they haven’t committed, they’re recognising that someone is simply not in the right place to be able to care for a child and that child would be at risk. Yes, it’s very complex and completely heartbreaking for everyone - especially the child who has lost their chance to grow up with their biological family and experienced the trauma of separation (possibly more depending on circumstances) - but babies are not removed for no good reason and no one is condemned for something they haven’t done.

Also, not sure if my perspective is at all helpful OP, but I agree that as an adoptee I’d rather have contact if possible with siblings when young and have them included in my life story. I met some of mine around the ages of 17+ and found out I have more than I’d been told (including step children within birth family and half siblings) and a huge part of my story had been missing, so it was quite a shock! Obviously there are some children who it doesn’t suit and situations where it’s not advisable or SS/adoptive parents feel it’s not in the best interests of one sibling, but where those don’t apply, I think sibling contact (inc partial sibling) can be useful and help create a more complete picture of your biological family as you grow. As you say, being close in age they may come across each other (a step sibling around my age with bio parents tracked me down on Facebook), so I think any knowledge or contact is helpful.