To think (hope) Eastenders portrayal of social services (Lexi & Lola story) is wrong?

[MoonlightShadows]

I am watching it at the moment and am finding the Lexi/Lola storyline quite disturbing, I can't imagine social services really carry on like this and think it's an unfair portrayal.

Realistically though, the 60 and 70 babies adopted realted to finalisation, not placement. We will not see a large rise in this figure because of the time it takes to get an adoption order. 10 weeks from placement, followed by several months of waiting, means the baby has to be placed aged under 7 months ish, 8 months at the latest, to get legally adopted by their first birthday. So the media will continue to get their news headlines of 'ONLY x babies adopted' for years to come

relates not realted, sorry

Anyway i have ordered DD not to have a child until she is clear of them. On her way out to come home to me they were still having little stabs in the dark at ADHD and aspergers, something i had raised during the CP and they emphatically denied. Without actually taking her to see if she DID have them. It seemed they were adding to her paper trail, just in case of something.. but then after what i've been through with them i am overly suspicious now of anything they do and their motives for doing so.

I'm not aware that there was ever targets for the number of children being "taken" for adoption. The targets were to get those children who already had a "best interests" decision placed as soon as possible - Ofsted have said agencies won;t get a good rating unless they can place within 12 months of a bewst interests decision. But I'm no expert on this.

yes Lilka thats a fair point - I'd love to see placement figures.

Neither am i to be honest, my experience is one of LT FC ..

I would be interested to know of those babies taken from the delivery room, still covered in birth matter, right from their mothers' arms.. they would surely be adopted sooner?

yes presumably they are in the 70 under 1 yr. My understanding is that children on the at risk register (don't think its called that anymore is it?) at birth go into foster care. Even those who go into a foster/adopt type programme wouldn't be placed for adop0tion before 6 months would they - at least thats not my limited experience.

My own experience is that they hovered about holding meetings and stuff while i was expecting DS2 but got told straight that all the paperwork was clear that i was a good mum to DS1 and the only reason i couldn't parent DD effectively was bc she was abused and i was abused.

If that hadn't been the case i know they would have tried to take him. They told me they considered adding him (unborn) to the CPR

They might not be in the 70 under 1. It depends on the circumstances. Concurrent planning/foster-adoption should be decided on before the baby is even born. so it will go to concurrent carers at birth. I suspect concurrency accounts for quite a few of those 70

If not, and the baby needs normal foster care, it may take a long time. It takes some LA's 8 months to over a year to place relinquished children placed in care at birth, let alone children who have been taken away and therefore assessments required, several court dates required etc

A baby taken into normal foster care at birth may be 2 years old before placement, easily :(

I can't believe that they say BF is good for these children and then take them so the mum can not even try to feed them, in the case where they are being assessed i mean. I hope things have changed now regarding that.
Obviously there are parents who should have the baby removed at birth (drug addicted babies ect) but i am positive i'm not the only person who has had a child taken under dubious circumstances. there should be more MBU's where these people can go and be observed. Most people do not deserve to lose their baby. Some, yes, but not that many as in your figures, surely something could be done to lessen that figure.

Its not always relinquished (given away willingly) babies though, i know one personally who had a male SW in the room with her as she gave birth and she wasn't even allowed to hold the baby. she wasn't drug or alcohol addicted, just a young care leaver. In what world is that right.

I know Things, relinquished babies are very rare, nearly all children are taken away

Then something needs to be done to lower the number. the best place for most not all, but most, children is with their birth family.

I actually asked for a support worker to come in and was refused due to DD not being on the child protection register.
I asked that she be returned home during the time she was on the interim CO and asked again for a support worker and was refused.
Assessment centres should be staffed by workers totally and utterly independent of SS and should not be funded by them, and having someone standing over me telling me how to parent would also make me turn like exorcist head and tell them to eff off lol.

MBU's have their place but the one i went to visit prior to being told myself and DD would be placed there .. the staff were waffling on about testing bath water with your elbow ect, DD was 10 years old! I had made arrangements to give up my job as they told me i would have to be there for three months, then at the last minute i was told that i couldn't take DS. It would have meant moving their schools, everything.

It is a total joke.

And interventions cost money? Well so does a court case/proceedings.

MDV do you know that the average court case costs about enough to be able to buy, say, an ex council house outright?

What intervention would possibly cost that much?

Not having a pop at you by the way lol :)

I find the only thing SS are interested in these days is if a child is on CPR, otherwise, a family can be struggling and in crisis, and they simply dont care.

I still think the entire thing is in need of overhaul following consultations with service users, parents, foster carers. Because i read the FC forum sometimes and despair of how they are treated, too.

They wouldn't place DD with my mother because even though her assessment to do so was favourable at the beginning and again near the end of the CC, they said she would 'allow too much contact' and also she was 'the mother of the abuser' (stepbrother) even though he didn't live there.

She wasn't bothered about the money but yes i agree with you, have known kinship carers and they don't get any support and nowhere near what they deserve to get, FC's don't fare much better either.

Surely the contact would be more often than 3 weekly?