to think that John Hemming is a dangerous man?

[Spero]

For all the Hemming apologists - please read this.

www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/04/27/hemming-an-abuse-of-privilege/

''Severing a baby from her mother is a very cruel act that should be done only where you are certain that the baby will be in danger. Like, a mother has
killed her three children and now is pregnant with the fourth''

there are no words to respond to that statement.

It seems to me that the overriding point here is that whatever happens should be in the interests of the mother. Language is crucial here, when talking about the rights and wrongs of removing children from potentially abusive situations, everyone who is on the side of non removal seems to be on the side of the parent. What about the child? What about their right to safety? and those making reference to only removing a child if there is evidence of physical harm, is that all that matters? What about emotional abuse? If a woman was in an emotionally abusive relationship she would be told to leave. Yet a child is only at risk if the abuse is physical? What kind of distorted logic is that?

Stewie - My understanding of the system in UK is that family adoptions are not given the priority they are given in mainland Europe. That was my point. Remembering here, for example, the loving grandparents told that they are too old and especially the biological dad told he can't "adopt" his child.

I just think your energy would be better directed towards changing the system in Ireland as you obviously feel so passionately about this issue, and you haven't just expressed an opinion, you've spent two days on this thread.

im not stupid, you may think my opinion is but theres no reason to start name calling. my opinion is damaging? more damaging that snatching small children from their mothers before anythings even happened? no.

im not going to report you for that anyway!

wannabe - It is in the interest of the child to remain with her family unless there is a very real danger to her in said family.

You might think that any set of parents is equally good for a child. UK system seems to agree with you, given the ease with which they remove newborns and small babies from their parents. I disagree along with many Western countries.

Babies belong with their parents and their extended families. Where there is a problem, the role of the state should be to help, not to destroy the families in question.

I think budget cuts are far more dangerous, and Gideon is a far more dangerous.

It's too bad a thread about budget cuts for the disabled doesn't get nearly as much mileage as this.

Says a lot about MN.

'That makes no sense expat .'

It doesn't? That you spend hours and hours and hours on this thread when the MP in question isn't even of your own country and the system here is a foreign one so really you're wasting your time and energy going on and on and on here, energy that could be better put to changing the system where you live?

If that doesn't make any sense to you, really I wish you all the best.

Maryz - Where have I been nasty to you?

I asked you how you expect to know that a child has been physically abused if there are no signs. I'm still interested in the answer.

Actually, I don't know if the Irish system is wonderful. What I said was that it sounds closer to the system in mainland Europe.

Wow, what an [ahem] interesting thread.

I think most adoptive parents would agree with me that one of the most distressing things you need to do, in the journey to adoption, is read through the case studies of potential matches. I was approved for a baby, so most had been removed from their birth mothers at birth. They had never been neglected, or abused. What they did have was older siblings who had been, variously, left to lie in faeces for hours, given class A drugs, raped, forced to clean their parents' clothing of other peoples' blood, beaten up and threatened by drug dealers, forced to live in crack dens, witnessed horrendous violence and brutality, starved, kept away from school, emotionally tormented.

Not one case was about the mother being a little bit depressed. Depression is very often part of the bigger picture, but I think this idea that most adoptions are about young mums who are just struggling a bit, and over-zealous social workers, is divorced from reality. I'm not saying that doesn't happen - yukoncher you know I have great respect for you, as we discussed on the other thread, and trippy your post made me so sad - but it is very far from typical.

Every adoptive mother I know has had enough experience of 'the system' to think that it needs serious reform. They - I - are quite aware that awful mistakes can happen, that there are shitty unprofessional social workers out there, that there needs to be much more support for young mothers who are struggling to cope, like trippy and yukoncher who have been brave enough to share their stories on here.

But John Hemmings is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He is a sideshow, drawing our attention and resources away from the serious, considered reforms that over overdue and under-resourced.

Well said Hester.

(although apparently, for some, if the children, aren't actually dead it doesn't count as abuse)

Oh, and Maryz is a really valued poster on the adoption threads, who goes out of her way to respond generously and thoughtfully to people seeking advice. She, like all the adoptive parents on here, have to deal with the nonsense being stirred up by JH and his fellow-travellers, so it is absolutely her business to be on this thread.

CoteDAzur Thu 26-May-11 12:25:48
"Stewie - If you look at mainland Europe, you will see that international adoptions are the norm because there are so few babies and young children available for adoption in their home countries."

This might not necessarily mean what you think it means. The only mainland country I have experience of is Sweden and yes it is true that most adoptions there are international. But I'd be very surprised to find it is due to non-interventional attitudes from the Swedish state.

Far more likely to be due to the fact that fewer children are born in the first place to parents unlikely to cope. Fewer unwanted pregnancies, more use of contraceptives, more abortions, a very highly developed societal sense of what is owing to a child and what you should be able to offer before you even consider pregnancy, the idea of having a baby to get social housing being practically unheard of. In particular, I think the attitude to abortion makes a difference here.

Cote, it's simple. In nearly all cases where children are removed before they have been harmed, there are older siblings who have already been abused or neglected. This is where they get the proof they need to take a child into care.

There are, of course, only children who get taken into care at birth. This is much rarer, because of course you don't have the evidence. It is common sense, even for devilish social workers, to let the mother have a try.

[Normal caveat that there are a few individual cases that don't fit these sweeping generalisations, but as this thread is about sweeping generalisations I'll go with the spirit.]

I have given talks to groups of social workers. A very high proportion of those workers came from other countries. SA. NZ and an increasingly large amount from the EU.

I had many come up to me to chat and say how they admired the UK system (whilst acknowledging its faults) because it was proactive. These were people who could only get involved with families in their home countries after a child had been raped or killed or something equally terrible. Many countries are like this due to the desire to keep the state out of the family.

Is this a good thing? Really?

I am not a huge fan of SS. I had to fight to keep my DS in our family. I had to fight really really hard. I also saw how the system continually put his needs behind those of his birth mum (barely more than a child herself). The entire assessment process was about meeting her needs and this was at some cost to DS.

I work on a daily basis to keep children within their families. As much as I admire and like my fellow adopters I would like to see a day when all children could stay within their birth families. This simply isnt possible for all children. I had to prove that I wasnt the same as birth mum because I happened to be married into her family. The rest of the family were barred from contacting us thus wiping out my support network at a stroke. Just because they were related to birth mum

Who thinks there is no need for change? Anyone?

My objection to JH is that he doesnt offer answers. Its showboating and flim flam.

Where is the money because that is what it comes down to. More money to offer imaginative and flexible systems to allow those parents who are not beating their children (the ones we are discussing here) to maintain some sort of family life.

That could be shared care, theraputic communities, extended foster care, 24 hour support etc etc.

It costs money. There is none.

It makes me so bloody angry that by dint of being an adoptive parent I am lumped in with bad social workers, uncaring judges, power hungry baby snatchers blah blah blah.
The people who care the most are the ones involved in this system. Not the ones tutting at the sidelines at what they read in the Daily Wail.

Personally I think extended family adoptions are often not the best idea.

Parents who neglect their children, who are violent, abusive, chaotic and have had no positive parenting models did not spring up in isolation. IMO they parent the way they do because they in turn were parented that way. Placing babies and children with GPs or uncles/aunts doesn't seem to be removing them from the situation from what I can see.

A child who is constantly belittled, criticised, and harangued is probably in a worse situation than one who is subject to a wallop every now and again. They will be damaged permanently by it, though they wear the scars on the inside.

I agree with every single word of what thefirstMrsDeVere has just said. It is because adoptive parents love our children so much that we wish they had never needed to come to us in the first place.

Being painted as part of an evil system that doesn't care about and tramples over the lives of birth parents - as JH portrays us - is really infurating.

The answer is not to lower the bar, to take fewer children into care. The answer is to put in the work and money to ensure that fewer children need to be taken into care. That will be really expensive, and long term, and I for one (as a taxpayer) would sign up to it. I wonder if the Daily Mail would?

The removal of babies/children from addicts is different, obviously.

MrsDeVere- fantastically embarrassing x-post there. Huge apologies- hope you can see my point of view.

I am sorry montmartre but that is simply not the case.
Often it is family members who have expressed their concern to SS for years and not been listened to.
It is a prejudice held by many SWs and it causes havoc.

My DS comes from a huge family. There are members who have done time, been on the game and have substance abuse problems. There are also lawyers, social workers, youth workers, managers, HCPs etc etc.

In many, many cases it is possible to place a child with family or friends. These placements are often set up to fail because they are seen as a cheap option and neither financial nor practical support is put into place.

Research has shown that children do better when placed with extended family.

My DS IS removed from the situation he was in. He also has the HUGE advantage of knowing his GPs, cousins, aunts and uncles, being aware and part of his heritage, having access to information about his family and birth mother.

Your assumptions are based on the whole 'cycle of abuse' notion. Whilst this has its place it shouldnt be relied upon to inform SW looking for appropriate placements.
Perhaps you could visit some kinship carer forums and see just how much work is done by extended families and how they manage to keep their children safe?