AIBU to be horrified by the Stolen Children of England

[LivingOnTheDancefloor]

I just watched a French documentary called "England's stolen children" and can't believe this is happening in England. Horrifying, scary, unbelievable, it is like a horror movie...

Basically, social services are taking babies from their parents based on suspicion that abuse might happen in the future, except that the decision is made based on ridiculous things.
A lady had her three children taken from her, including a breastfed baby because she went to the ER for a child's broken ankle and they judged that he must have been beaten by his parents (only based on the ankle). X years later the parents manage to prove the fracture was due to scorbut. And they found out the initial report from the ER says "no sign of fracture".
The judge admitted they shouldn't have taken the children and the parents were innocents. But the children were given to adoption so the parents will never see them again.
That is just one of the stories.
Some women are told while pregnant that their newborn will be taken as soon as he arrives (and thzney do it).
The documentary says it is due to the facts that counties have to reach a number of children given to adoption so they target poor/uneducated parents and find any reason to take their children.
And as fostering costs money to the state they prefer adoption.

AIBU to ask if you heard about it here in the UK? And if yes, what do you think? Could it be true or are they exagerating?

I am really shaken.

www.google.fr/amp/s/researchingreform.net/2016/11/14/englands-stolen-children-controversial-new-documentary-on-forced-adoption/amp/?client=safari

Sorry, no idea how to post links, and I am on my phone

The others have made really good points Turning, but you also need to turn it around a bit - don't just think about your needs and wants, but those of your future children.

I don't quite know what you've faced, but is there any way at all that your conditions could harm them somehow?

If so, how can you tackle that to protect them? What would you expect from social services, GPs etc, to facilitate that?

Can you start this now before you even have children? (If medication and counselling for example, start medication and counselling; if building a social network, start volunteer work to try making friends; if having a baby network, look up local groups which you could be a part of in advance?)

It might be that you've mostly healed and offer no "threat" anymore in any way whatsoever, in which case that's great.

But also FWIW (and you might hate me for saying this) I grew up with a mum who had severe MH issues. I don't know if she somehow stayed off the radar or if they ignored this stuff when I was growing up, but it did us no end of harm. It wasn't her fault, she had a right to have kids and all, but we shouldn't have had to deal with all that. It was traumatising.

If they are now trying to be more careful about this sort of thing, please just try to look at it from the kids point of view, and take the help you can get.

I'm watching bits of the documentary in between doing other stuff.

I've got to the part where Hemming appears...

I think the real scandal here is that the documentary team don't appear to have conducted the most basic research into who they are talking to, what their beliefs might be, and how credible what they're saying is. And there's been no attempt so far to present any counter-evidence or a balanced view - everything that people are saying is being presented as fact. Really, really poor journalism.

I wouldn't get bogged down on what others have written in the past about you turning. It is something you have no control over. What you do have control over is your future.

Social services shouldn't write off a person based entirely on their past. I have seen situations in which parents have been able to turn around what many would deem impossible. For example I worked on a case where a mother was in foster care with her new born (something which is becoming increasingly more common and is honestly so much better than mother and baby units for certain cases). She had only 18 months previously had all of her children taken into care (7 of them). At the time she was in an abusive relationship, didn't have a job and was a heroin user along with her partner.

Betwern that and the birth of her eighth child she had made a number of steps which had meant social services were not removing this child at birth as the norm but were opening up a new assessment. She had left her partner and taken on two jobs. Had made friends at these jobs and had stopped associating with people from her past. She was back in contact with her mother who was now offereing a lot of support. She had stopped taking heroin and was now on methodone and reducing. When I left that case things were looking very positive for her and her baby, though that was where my involvement ends. I don't know for certain what happened next but if I hazarded a guess she got to keep her baby probably on a child in need plan. She engaged with all professionals without even though she was incredibly angry still with what had happened with her previous children.

if I could write a manual in what to do when under investigation she would be the perfect example of what to do.

For example, they are presenting as fact that there are financial incentives for local authorities to increase the numbers of adoptions. Not that they place more children that are already cared-for, but that they just straight up increase numbers of adoption. Pretty sure that's not accurate, or at very least, not the whole story, and an appallingly biased slant.

Just seen your post, help. I'm very sorry to hear of your situation. I think knowing you have issues and managing them is key, which it sounds like your mother definitely didn't do.

I've always been fine looking after others - can move the earth if it's for someone else (or pets!). Have learnt to do the same to some degree for myself, however I sort of manage things my way hence not fitting neatly into fulltime employment right now. Weirdly I feel better than I ever have in myself, just very aware I'm working through trauma.

I actually think the experiences I've had have made me more empathetic and a lot of situations I cope calmly with because, hey, it's been worse! I also do well in "emergency" situations where others freak out - get wonderfully calm and clearheaded in fact.

I'm not TTC right now and wouldn't in my current situation either. But even for the situation NOW, I don't think SS would try to remove a child - it's the past stuff that bothers me.

Basically I do not think I pose a risk to a child, however I also think my mental health notes don't reflect ME. Apart from anything else, there are factual errors in there. eg. I got a letter a couple of years ago (copied in to letter to GP) where they wrote something like "Turning says she sometimes likes to manipulate people..." I don't, and I didn't say that. It's what they think though. They seem to have a view of me in their imaginations that means they don't see ME, and misinterpret things, or write what they think they remember me saying.

This is why it is so very frightening.

(I've also spoken to plenty of decent MH professionals, however the awful ones always seem to be in charge or able to override the others. My inability to access suitable therapy was brushed off repeatedly as "a team decision", turned out to be one woman deciding on her own. Unfortunately was head of the CMHT, felt like attempting to negotiate with an abuser.)

It's so frustrating when you see crap parenting (ongoing, not a snapshot... recently had to call SS ) and yet I'm the one who'll likely be automatically investigated. As if others have to do something appalling to have children removed, whereas I have to do something wonderful and be 100% perfect to keep them in the first place.

Anyway, forewarned is forearmed, knowledge is power, etc etc... we shall see what the future holds. Thank you x

YANBU. My great-grandfather was a child migrant - sent to Australia from England by himself when he was 10 years old. I think he was my only English relative. Apparently he was subject to and witnessed years of abuse - presumably something they took him away from his parents for. He only remembered them being very,very poor and itinerant, not at all abusive. He was such a musical, lovely, quiet spkorn man who died when I was around 5.

I still keep being drawn back to the escaping abroad story with a kind of gruesome fascination.

So your child has been found, maybe repeatedly, to have injuries that cannot be explained by the ordinary accidents of childhood. The two other possible explanations are:

a) that you or your partner or somebody else has abused the child

b) that there is an as yet undiagnosed condition that is causing these injuries

You know (and Mr Hemming believes you) that a) is not the case. It follows that the most plausible explanation is b): that your child has a medical condition, possibly a very serious one, certainly one that is causing him harm.

And at this point you decide (and Mr Hemming encourages you) to go on the run to a place where you will have no access to his medical records, where no doctors will know about his past history, where you will have no resources to look after him and will only be entitled to basic immediate care, and where you possibly do not even speak the language. And this is somehow supposed to prove that you are fit to look after a child? And that Mr Hemming is fit to advise anyone on looking after a child?

When dd was under investigation, I wanted to be cleared of suspicion, of course I did. I wanted to be able to take her home, of course I did. But more than anything else, I wanted her investigated, I wanted to know if it was serious, I wanted her to be treated, I wanted to know that she was not at risk from whatever made her different from other children. What else is parenting about if not about wanting to keep them safe and well?

spoken

I know one of the families who had a child removed and adopted because of risk of future emotional harm, and who have since run to France with a new baby. I suspect they have been involved in this documentary at some point, as they are adamant they are totally blameless, and their child was stolen from them.

They are also completely nasty, vindictive, aggressive and violent people. I am talking numerous death threats, to many people, violence, including to police, social services. Refusal to co operate in any way. Destroying private property.

Took years and years of assessments, court hearings, appeals before child was adopted (during which time parents refused to attend contact). They tried to snatch child, having not seen the child for over a year, to run to France. They are still adamant that they will trace child and snatch back.

Frankly, they are completely deluded.

*for gods sake it's not 6 months is likey that the child was on child in need then child protection for years before they were removed and taken into care

My foster daughter was a child in need for 2 years then on the child protection resister for 18 months before she was taken into care so yes the order took 6 months but the reailty was birth mum had nearly 4 years to get her shit together

Tha damage that had been done in those four years was shocking I only wish they would of took 6 months from the first sw visit to getting the order if fucking only

And tbh I sick of hearing these my friends child was removed yadda yadda

It's unlikely you know the whole story no matter how close you think you are I very much doubt my foster daugters mother told her family that she was letting her boyfriend sexually abuse the daughter hence the cries form them were all picking on her if only they knew the whole truth sat in on the meetings

The time period can be much sorter the.

No it really can't I was foster carer for 7 years and it's really not
Court delays judges giving BP that one more last chance it's really not shorter

Even were birth parents have had other children removed I have fostered and now adopted and even with children whom have been removed at birth it's never just six months from the frist day social workers visits birth parents hahaha if only

To be fair it can though it often isn't. There are incidences when a child is immediately removed on first contact with SS and then court proceedings begin but it is rare.

OnTheTurningAway

Just read your response to my post. I'm so sorry if I said anything to trouble you further.

I also had some things in my notes that could well have been used as part of a bigger picture. What I meant was getting something relatively recent to say 'she's mentally competent at the present time and has been for x amount of time.' It just made me feel better.

I got this from a few sessions with a private psychiatrist (who didn't see me enough to have seriously gone up against a doctor who had dealt with my case over a number of years, but it was still an up to date appraisal) an clinical psychologist, also seen privately. I saw her for long enough to establish there was 'nothing' to work on at the present time and I was in a good place for motherhood.

It's not uncommon for care proceedings to be initiated immediately but usually children have been known to services for a long time before this happens:

Our son was removed at birth, care and placement orders at three months. He was child number five and bm disappeared during proceedings, v rare though.

poster Barbadosgirl Wed 30-Nov-16 21:07:35
Our son was removed at birth, care and placement orders at three months. He was child number five and bm disappeared during proceedings, v rare though.

my point is how long had they tried to work with mum before the 3 months ages I would think as soon as they found out mum was pregnant so not really 3 months

My daughter had her placement two weeks after birth she was born in prison however they had been working with BM from 6 weeks pregnant and rather than turn her life around she committed futher crimes while pregnant and in jail she also had 5 previous children removed

About a month before the birth, Fishwife, which is when she emerged! I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle: it wouldn't have exactly come as a shock to her when ss geared up for a placement order.

Is this only being shown in Europe post brexit?!

No, this has been known for at least 8 years.

Thanks very much for this thread and the discussions.

It's no surprise that this was picked up on Researching Reform - treat that website carefully.

I have posted this on the Transparency Project as part of our Family Court Reporting Watch. We have been given a grant of £50K from the Legal Education Fund for this work, so thankfully not everyone is willing to just suck this rubbish up.

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/englands-stolen-children/

Spero Good to see your are still about and fighting the fight.

sojnds like a total nonsense programme to me!

Good to be back! And its thanks of course to mumsnet that I am here at all. The wealth of interesting information that people can provide here is really useful.

But on the other hand, really, really depressing to be having the same kind of arguments that raged in 2014.

however, I like to think that Hemming et al are peddling their wares to gullible French people because not many people will listen to them now in the UK.

But he has caused serious problems abroad before - demonstrations on the streets in Slovakia apparently.

Yy, it's good to "see" you again Spero (I've name changed, but I was around when the online resource was first set up). And great news that you have got some funding for this important work.

I did worry what the consequence would be of JH having rather more time on his hands once the good people of Yardley had spoken...

Hello Wimple!

Here is another interesting take on the whole thing from 'Annie' -www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/11/28/my-child-was-nearly-adopted-and-here-is-why-adoption-targets-scary/#comment-124992

She was also using mumsnet in 2013/4 as she had been approached by both Hemming and Josephs and advised to leave the country. She stayed, 248 days later got her son back and is now hoping to train parent advocates.

I note that for all their considerable personal wealth, Hemming and Josephs have done nothing to help set up and fund such projects as parent advocacy - which could do so much good.