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/

Doubt it, how much do court proceedings cost?

Plus refer back to earlier comments about government's ability to sustain a massive conspiracy...

Sorry, just realised I read that with my 'conspiracy theory' hat on. I do agree that massive preventative investment is being neglected and instead we're just dealing with fallout from the worst cases.

confuddled the problem isn't that social workers make mistakes that's the problem. Of course they make mistakes, but whereas in most professions or jobs, the mistake can be rectified, it's impossible to reverse an adoption.

There's also the fact that the Family Courts, almost always give social workers, CAFCASS the status of expert witness so their observations are elevated as having more weight, than for instance, the mother and father.

For the most part, think ss get it right the majority of the time, but when they get it wrong, it's such a tragedy

It's not cheaper for SS to remove children and have them adopted. No no no not at all

They are seperate issues. The may overlap but how can posting on one thread mean you dont care about another?

CP isnt the same as adoption.
It takes years and years before a CP issue becomes an adoption. The youngest average age of a child freed for adoption is 2. Most are much older.

It costs thousands to take a family through the courts. Its one of the arguments used to keep families together.It an argument I used to keep my DS within the family. Long term costs of keeping a child within the family are less than other routes.

Most children taken into foster care are returned to their families or stay in care. They dont get adopted.

Eric, when I lost my son, I was absolutely told, my my lawyer and barrister, that despite court appointed child gaurdian recommending a mother and baby unit, and me fighting for that too, the social services will likely not do that as it costs £1000 per week, the only other option was adoption. They chose adoption. Certainly did sound like the cheaper option.

Believe me, yukon, it's not. From a child going into care to the point of being freed for adoption they need to be looked after in a foster placement. This costs ££££. They may also never get adopted, in which case it's £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ until they reach 21, or even 24. Factor in all the other associated costs, therapy, social worker, medical costs, etc etc etc and it's really not cheaper to take a child into care.

You were given very bad advice, which I'm sorry for.

Ok, to be fair, they won't necessarily invest money in funding a P&B placement if they don't believe there is a chance of success. They would see that as a waste of money. I can't comment on whether there would have been a chance of success in your case, possibly. But to refuse to provide a P&B placement on grounds of cost when there is a good chance it would be successful - that would be completely unethical. The GAL and courts would not allow a decision such as that to be made.

ada07 Fri 27-May-11 10:41:28
john hemming what do you mean by ''trippy has withdrawn the allegations about me'' ?

trippy Wed 25-May-11 13:14:16
Message withdrawn at poster's request.

It remains that "trippy"'s comment that some have used to criticise me does not correlate with any case I can remember.

I would like to be able to look at it further, but "trippy" seems quite confused about the age of her first child and all the circumstances involved.

Okay if an infant aged one is in foster care, the social workers have found an adoptive family for the infant. They take it to the big court hearing and just need the go ahead from the judge.
The mother, mother and baby unit manager, and court appointed child gaurdisan all go into court saying 'she needs a chance WITH support, hasn't done anything wrong, we have a mother and baby unit place for her waiting.
This was my situation.
You're telling me it would NOT have been cheaper to just adopt him out? (and easier, no time consuming calls outs to see me and my son, no One grand a week mother and baby unit costs).
Because as my barrister and soliciter said, it certainly seemed like a funding issue.
There's no reason I wouldn't have coped. I had no drug addiction, was feeling low AT THE SITUATION but was fully willing and begging to go to a mother and baby unit.
Had a baby 4 yrs later whom I'm looking after perfectly well, with no support.

Where the hell do they get off?

You're telling me in my situation, putting my DS through the adoption wasn't the cheaper quick option?
After all, adoption meant they didnt have to bother themselves with supporting or checking on me with DS.

CERTAINLY seemed like adoption was the easiest, less costing thing.
Especially when the adoption targets would have been in place.

Oh FFS JH she has withdrawn the (extremely personal) post, not her allegation against you.

I note that "John Hemming" has failed to answer/ignored my questions.

Yes, if I called someone a twerp and went on to list my name and address before I thought better of it and had the post withdrawn, I would probably continue to believe that person to be a twerp. Do you see what I mean, John?

Yukoncher

I really can't comment on your situation. However - adoption targets relate to children already in care and no child has ever been removed from their parent in order to meet adoption targets alone.

My child was already in care, because I let them take care of him shortterm at a distressing point.

I think adoption in my case was the cheaper option, (than giving us support) wasn't it?
You could comment on that scenario

I think Trippy, if real, was a bit unreasonable to blame missing midwife, health visitor, parenting classes, on John Hemming.
Anyone knows missing midwife appointments and scans would cause concern. And John Hemming told her to do that?

Anif she had no concerns, and social services were helping her and had great plans for her, until John Hemming got involved, then why would she have sought out John Heming's help?

Doesn't add up that John Hemmings made her lose her baby

The targets were to shorten the time it takes to get a child from court order to adoption though werent they?
Not to increase the actual amount of removals from families and then to adoption.

I remember it because I was working with vunerable families at the time and it worried me. I was worried that families wouldnt be given the time needed because it would take too long.

Its not the same as targeting families to use their children for adoption though.

A lot of this is about criticising me. Someone who used an anonymous user ID posted some allegations against me which

a) Are not allegations that I think have any basis in truth ... and
b) Have now been withdrawn

I think it is entirely reasonable that those people who have based their criticism upon those posts now withdraw their criticism.

I am not going to go into any other issues until this issue has been resolved.

thefirstmrsdevere - the target BV163 was about increasing the numbers of adoptions as a proportion of the children in care. The end result was more children taken into care and a higher proportion of those leaving under 5 going to adoption and a lower proportion returning to parents.

I can't accept what you're saying without seeing the figures. In their proper context, not cherry-picked to appear to support your allegations. Links?

thefirstMrsDevere
I read that they brought in targets (with cash bonuses for the LA)
to get the most amount of child out of care and adopted as they could.
And adoption of under 3s went up by 300% and adoption of over 4s halfed.

Was there a dramatic change in the percentage of infants being able to go home to their parents?
Do statistics show a change in the amount of under 3s in care were adopted out, rather than being supported to go home to their parents?

Answers to those questions would be interesting.

I have uploaded some data
spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjMKhMcESE6udG5JVWI3dlQwajhfMHBtTEZBQllhWlE&hl=en_US

Mrs DeVere. I agree. I always thought adoption targets were to shorten the time from Court orders to Adoption for children already within the Care System - in order to ensure children were given the best chance at having a forever family, rather than languishing in Care throughout their childhood.

It is only from reading certain people's posts on the adoption thread I realised that some people think Adoption Targets means snatching babies from perfectly capable parents to give to childless couples. Mad!