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/

The thing is JH, it is so hard to enter into any sort of debate with you because of your style and manner.

I simply do not trust you.

And I am from one of the very families you claim to support.

I also think the way you have twisted 'trippy's* withdrawal of her post to suit yourself is pretty low.

I also think you should spend a great deal less time trawling internet boards and get on with your job.

If what John Hemming is saying is true, it shows a MASSIVE correlation, in that parents have suddenly become more unworthy of having their children back with them.
Or the cash bonuses for perminantly seperating children in care from parents DID have an influence in the way underfunded SS departments made their decisions.

The advantage of having different jurisdictions in the UK is that we have separate figures for Scotland as well.

I'm sorry but used as I am to looking at Excel spreadsheets, and armed with three postgraduate qualifications, I cannot understand that chart. Surely there must be a clearer way to display the same information?

(a) This page is not in context, it's one page with no attribution. Link to original doc, please
(b) Am no expert, but doesn't it show a massive increase in looked after children of all ages? And the 'cease to be looked after' numbers change much less than the others?
(c) As MrsDevere said, having seen you twist Trippy's retraction to suit yourself, I cannot trust your interpretation.

Or it could mean that resources were badly used. That children were left with families for too long, or that children slipped through the net over and over again.

Just because they didnt die at the hands of their parents didnt mean they didnt suffer.

I dont know. Nor does JH he just pretends he does.

Why would anyone want to remove more children from their families?
Even accepting that mistakes do happen and that when they do they are hidious and tragic. Why would whole groups of people from all over the country get together to remove children from their families? Through different governments and different LAs, people from different backgrounds and agencies?
Why would they do it?

Yukon most children don't return to parents. So the alternatives are adoption with a permanent family or a childhood in foster care. Adoption is the better option.

I don't understand the chart :/

John Hemming, can you explain what it means?

It looks to me, after wading through the tortuous labels, that what the figures could show is that more children are being taken into care than in 1995. However what is deemed to be acceptable parenting back in the mid 90s (eg physical punishments) are now no longer considered acceptable. I am also slightly wary of the missing data and the random spread of 10s and 20s in the "died" column which points to no trend whatsoever and does not even appear accurate.

Eric, I'm asking for figures on the usual ammount of children returning home, and if there was a drastic change, post targets.

Many people I know who've been in care have gone home again!

Also if any of the figures are true rather than just plucked from thin air (no references at all are supplied) then it may also show a disinclination to allow children to languish in the care system for their entire childhoods vs 15 years ago when many children did.

There are also vast numbers in the "care ceased for any other reason" column. What other reasons are there? Abducted by aliens? Released to own flat and job? Child sought legal emancipation from care system?

I do not necessarily think SS are removing more children, because that requires a lot of evidence, however I know of a case personally when parents have been manipulated into signing their child into care, and in my case them being dishonest about me being able to get my son back if they looked after him for a few days.
In both cases the children weren't technically 'removed'.

I think they've been choosing adoption of kids in care, instead of reunion with support a hell of a lot more. Did the adoption targets influence this? is my question.

LA's have realised that time is of the essence. Previously, although birth parents have always been supported the supports in place were not consistent with the time frame most suitable for the child.

For example a child would be placed in care. The child would remain in care until first Court hearing. It was at this hearing the most appropriate support for parents was discussed. By the time the supports were put in place and a final hearing took place the child was too old to be adopted. It is common knowledge that by the time a child reaches 5 years of age his chances of becoming adopted fall.

The situation is now a child comes into care. Support for parents is put in place immediately, before any Court Hearing. When the first hearing happens SW already have knowledge of whether it will benefit the parents to have more support or it would not make any difference to the child remaining in care however much support was put in - As it is felt by lots of people, not just the SW that the child's best interest would be served by not being rehabilitated with parents.

Therefore children are now being freed for adoption quicker, therefore giving the children a chance of a happy childhood within his forever family.

Sorry if that is unclear. I am in a rush - school run.

Fishy, I'm afraid 'SS supporting parents in getting their child back' is NOT a theory I'm familiar with.
What sounds more familiar is SS saying 'jump' and then saying 'you didn't jump high enough' 'you didn't jump at the right angle'
Or even more common; SS; 'you didn't jump at all' Parent; 'I wasn't told to jump' SS; 'you should have known to jump'.

^The situation is now a child comes into care. Support for parents is put in place immediately, before any Court Hearing. When the first hearing happens SW already have knowledge of whether it will benefit the parents to have more support or it would not make any difference to the child remaining in care however much support was put in - As it is felt by lots of people, not just the SW that the child's best interest would be served by not being rehabilitated with parents.

Therefore children are now being freed for adoption quicker, therefore giving the children a chance of a happy childhood within his forever family^

Perfect summary.

Yukon - I don't have access to those stats. I doubt it though. Children are generally only freed for adoption when the parents have been exhausted as suitable options. Honestly, nobody would rather a child was adopted rather than return to safe parents.

yukoncher I think there are a lot of reasons why children are put up for adoption rather than the family supported to have them at home.

From your posts I cannot see why your son was removed.

In lots of cases its because what is in best interestes of the parents is not what is in the best interests of the child.

For a mother who has suffered abuse, been in care and now has a drug habit. It would be best for her to undergo counselling and be given as much time as it takes to come off drugs. Her child would be kept in care for as long as it takes. There would be no pressure on mum to keep up contact or to prove herself in any way. It would be best for her to allow all this to happen in a gentle and organic way. Then it would be best for her to be allowed to have her child back.
I mean this sincerely, not in a sarcastic way.

But for the child it isnt best for them to be left in care and have sporadic contact with the mother whilst she takes an indeterminate time to get herself sorted,includeing relapses etc. It is best for the child to have a secure and permenent home as soon as possible.

These two things dont fit together. There lies the problem. What is best for one is not always going to be best for the other.

I support open adoptions and particularly kinship care because of the increased chance of a relationship being maintained.

Surely they would come under "went back to parents or relatives" in the case of illness in the family, Stewie? I am disputing the accuracy, exactitude and provenance of the statistics Mr Hemming is so hoping will impress us. My guess is that until x date in time very inaccurate exit stats were recorded, and some will will be unavailable now (hence the x in some columns) and that Mr Hemming has therefore just cobbled something together in his little chart.

Funny that,
the social worker who came out to check on me and my new DS2 4 years later, having all imformation from the old SS department, could not actually understand why my first son was adopted either.
So you're not alone.
They supplied a letter saying I'd missed so many appointments, yet they had had to cancel the same ammount due to staff shortages themselves, and critisized me not knowing where I was living from day to day. Yet they not once offered to help me and DS with a place to live, and amazingly failed to tell me that I should have had a social worker for myself, as well as one being appointed to DS. And obviously a mother and baby unit or a joint foster placement would have resolved my housing difficulties. Not once did they tell me where I could get help with a secure place to live. I was 16.

Like I said, I have 2 children now, aged 4 and 1 who're perfeclty well in my care.

I hope all the ideology of how they usually work is true, for the sake of other parents and children.

JH, just because she asked for her message to be withdrawn doesn't mean she withdrew what she said, it means she didn't want it left up there. Considering this has been the first time she's admitted her story to anyone I'm not surprised.

ilovemydogandMrObama, I don't get your point to me. I have never said anything about them always being right or always being wrong or whatever it is you're trying to get at. I said that we only get one side of the story but people are always willing to believe what they hear without all the facts.

Question to anyone who works in CP. Have you ever met a parent who honestly accepts that they did wrong and if you did are they the majority or minority?

I don't want to go too much into detail of things I know but one example is a couple who had abused all their children, they were all eventually removed and adopted but they kept getting pregnant because they didn't accept that they had done wrong. They were told with their last child that if she delivered it naturally it would be damaged by the birth if it survived. They skipped the area, gave a false name and she delivered naturally at another hospital. Baby was damaged and died a few months old.

I know plenty of SWs who work their hardest to keep families together, those who feel frustrated when the parents don't keep their end and those who work to successfully keep a family together. It's unfair to say all SWs say "Jump" and punish parents for not jumping! Not that there aren't any but they're far from the majority.

Trippy probably withdrew her post because she's fucking scared of this man.

Thank you Mrs Devere for mentioning kinship adoptions, they are far, far more common then people realise. A lot of the babies I meet who aren't going home with their mother are often adopted by a grandparent or other family member instead.

Oh John John John.... you remind me of the bad old media training courses of the 1980s, when MPs (and others) were taught how to avoid difficult questions by providing whatever answer they wanted to give ("I think the real issue here is..." etc) in the fond delusion that the questioner would be distracted from their original question and happily accept the new line of discourse.

Except, of course, the questioner just gets fed up that they can't get a straight answer to a straight question. And the MP continues to parade around pretending that they know all about everything because, "I talk to people in my constituency..." Talk at, more like.

And you call this being accountable.

This is not being accountable. You hijack threads intended for adoptive mothers, where you know you're not welcome, say offensive things, and refuse to answer questions or engage in honest debate. You don't listen, you don't learn. You simply peddle your agenda. And now you're implying, aren't you, that Trippy has maliciously maligned you by coming up with some vague assertions that can't be verified. Well, John, THAT IS WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME.

Come on, I challenge you to debate like a grown-up. If that's beyond you, maybe you should leave us alone forever: you must have more footballers to annoy.