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

What im trying to say is yes kids should be taken away if in danger but they should be fostered rather than adopted.

maleficient it's because children have much better outcomes when they are adopted above long term Foster care. Do you really believe that children should be denied the chance for a permanent family because it's too unfair to the birth parents?
And what do you think foster families look like? They are also couples/parents!

malificent7, the problem with loving foster homes is:

a) that there aren't enough of them to go round, particularly for the kind of long-term fostering that we are talking about here. There aren't enough people who are prepared to look after a child as their own for maybe 18 years while knowing that the child can be moved at short notice at any time during those years. Lots of people couldn't foster on those terms- I know I couldn't- and you can't force people to become foster parents. hats off to the ones who do, but there is a shortage.

b) that it does not give the child a secure belonging-family: they know that they can be removed from their new home at any time as long as their birth parents convince authorities that they have cleaned up their act. This means it can be very difficult for a child to develop secure attachments.

c) the child's memories of their birth family may be either non-existent or absolutely horrendous, but they have to be returned to live with them the moment they convince authorities that they won't do it again. The message given is that their memories of extreme neglect or physical or sexual abuse don't matter when weighed against their parents' wish to try again. Or that the bonding they may have been doing with their foster parents doesn't matter when weighed against the wishes of a person they don't even remember.

haystack10 Sun 04-Dec-16 08:02:55
"Re parents fleeing the country, what if they really are innocent but know that the authorities are going to steal their children no matter what they say, do or comply with? Surely if they have no other way to keep their children safe and out of the care system which is known to be horrendously damaging, they must leave?"

Did you read my posts?

How can fleeing the country with no resources be defined as "keeping your child safe"? How is living in a caravan with no money, no access to health care, no support of any kind, and (in the cases of people referred by Hemming & co) in some seriously dodgy company, to be defined as "keeping your child safe"?

Some of these parents have been flagged up because their children are showing medical symptoms which either are the sign of abuse or have been mistaken for abuse. If we assume that the second is correct and there is no abuse but a medical condition, how could running away into the unknown be defined as keeping the child safe?

I was one of those parents. A consultant decided that dd's unexplained joint pains, occasional bouts of faintness and frequent UTI's were the result of sexual abuse and that we could not be allowed to take her home from hospital for her own safety.

Did I at this point snatch her up and get on the next ferry to the continent- away from her medical records, away from any chance of getting her investigated further, away from any chance of accessing disability support if that should be needed?

No, I bloody did not. If I had, no doubt dd would be completely incapacitated now: she would not have accessed any of the treatment which means she can now function and hold down a job as an adult. If it had been a more serious condition (which I had no means of knowing at the time), she might have died.

I did what a responsible parent does: I stayed, I engaged with the doctors, I cried a lot but I never stopped listening. I got her that treatment, by clinging onto the thought that it was about her wellbeing, not about my feelings. I had flashbacks for over 10 years, but dd was safe.

If she had been taken into foster care and got medical help that way, that would still have been safer than the caravan in Spain (or wherever it is). If she had been adopted, that would still have been safer that the caravan in Spain.

Of course I would never condone possibly abusive parents leaving the country with their children, but what if there really are families whose evidence is being ignored whilst every professional body looks the other way? How can they reveal their evidence to the public when it is illegal to do so?

I don't think you read my last post, haystack. I was an innocent parent. If I had fled the country, dd could not have got medical treatment (no access to her medical records, and the EU only allows you emergency treatment). In her case, chances are she would have ended up permanently disabled, but sometimes abuse-resembling symptoms are the sign of a medical condition that is more serious. Some children might well die under those circumstances. The parent will be innocent of abuse. But that won't help the child.

what if there really are families whose evidence is being ignored whilst every professional body looks the other way?

This isn't happening.

Corythatwas, i'm pleased that for your family all went well, you received the correct support and treatment for your daughter and it's good to hear she is doing well. I'm talking about innocent parents, no abuse or med problems but for some reason every agency has turned against them, not followed correct procedures as in your case, what do they do? Poldarks,how do we know this if they are not allowed to show their evidence to the public, ie mumsnet

Haystacks, do read the thread and the Child Protection Resource website. It will allay most of your fears. Parents can reveal their evidence in court, where it matters most: judges are certainly not in collusion with others to have children taken away from innocent parents, are under a duty to make an adoption order only as the very last resource, and to test the evidence put before them very carefully. Parents get the right to free legal aid as of right, regardless of their means, so can instruct lawyers - and there are some very good lawyers working in this field. They have strong rights of appeal. Judgments are published, with names anonymised, so again if there are obvious concerns they get picked up by journalists.

Have a look at the Lianne Smith case. She is the mother who fled abroad with her two children after her partner was accused and subsequently convicted of repeated rape of a child. She killed her children in a Barcelona hotel room. Was going abroad the best thing for that family?

Why should families have to show their evidence to mumsnet? Fgs
I would suggest you acquaint yourself with some judgements that are published on bailii if you are that interested.
I know what children's services and family courts are like. I can't convince you - so it's up to you. Believe there is a massive conspiracy of ineptitude, deliberate malice and baby stealing if you wish. If you apply some critical thought you will find that this is unlikely.

suesspiciousminds.com/?s=Care+proceedings+&submit=Search
This is an excellent blog by a family lawyer with lots of discussion of judgements, by no means uncritical of children's services

Haystacks, do you actually know of several families where innocent parents find that "every agency has turned against them, not followed correct procedures" and had their children put up for adoption? If not, you're worrying about a fiction and, frankly, playing into the hands of people like Hemming and Josephs. If you do know of such cases, do you actually know the parents to be innocent? As pointed out upthread, parents in that situation regularly proclaim their innocence when it is obvious that they are anything but.

haystack10 Sun 04-Dec-16 12:26:32
"Corythatwas, i'm pleased that for your family all went well, you received the correct support and treatment for your daughter and it's good to hear she is doing well. I'm talking about innocent parents, no abuse or med problems but for some reason every agency has turned against them, not followed correct procedures as in your case,"

"For some reason" is rather what it hinges on, though, isn't it? SS don't sit down and randomly stick pins into a street atlas to decide which families to investigate. There will be something that has brought these families to the attention of SS, something that makes them think (however misguidedly) that the child is being abused or neglected.

And my point is that this something may very likely be something that would put this child at even greater risk if running away to the continent.

When I started my battle for dd, I did not know if she would ever receive a diagnosis, I did not know if she had a genuine medical problem. Nobody knew. The point is that if I had left it at that, nobody ever would have known.

suesspiciousminds.com/2015/09/15/parents-consenting-to-adoption-within-care-proceedings/
This one is interesting as it pertains to a consented adoption (rare) where social workers went over and above to give the mother an opportunity to parent and where the extended family conducted a social media campaign of harassment against the social workers despite not requesting any role in the proceedings

Or to put it another way: A & E see thousands of children with broken ankles every day. If they pick up on one particular broken ankle as being unusual, because it looks different or because most children don't break their ankles under those circumstances, maybe there is a problem here that should be investigated? And how would you do that from a caravan in Spain?

That is how dd presented for the first 8-9 years of her life, until we finally got a diagnosis. No obvious medical symptoms, just a lot of unexplained pain, some odd infections and a series of accidents that simply should not have been happening in that way. I'm sure it looked as dodgy as hell.

To follow on from Cory's point, if social services do stick a pin in the map to pick children, why would they do so? Why would judges and other bodies even go along with it (even if you believe in the "adoption targets" thing, that's nothing to do with judges)?

There is always some initial trigger (even if parents are entirely innocent).

Cory, it's great that correct procedures were used and I assume because of the good ending, honest reports were made. What if inaccurate, dishonest reports were made and other agencies good reports were hidden and this resulted in your daughter not only being ill but placed in care on a care order. I believe this is really happening in this country. I'm trying to say that if it is, we wouldn't know because it is hidden from the public. But thankyou for your story, it made me feel better, sounds as though the agencies acted as they should although must have been awful for you all at the time.

does anyone remember a documentary on a couple of years back called 'damned if you don't' which followed child protection social workers in bristol?

there was a family on it-mum and dad and toddler child called toby. mum was also pregnant with a second child. That couple-particularly the father argued vociferously that social workers were out to get them, that they were trying to snatch their child, that they had no right to interfere in the family etc etc. he was going to write to the mp-

However his little boy was living in filth-the carpet was soaked in dog urine and faeces. He had no bed or toothbrush/ He slept where he dropped-usually on the sofa with the dog. Social services bought them a bed for him and they never bothered to build it. Dad was rough with the boy to the point of bruising him.

would anyone think that was an acceptable life for any child ever?

Adoption quotas are bullshit. They don't exist. It is still very very hard to adopt in the UK and so it should be. I speak as someone who adopts.

I believe this is really happening in this country.

But why do you believe it? Who benefits if this is going on?

I remember it, Theroot.

I also know a similar case where the parents were bought a washing machine and had it installed for them, were bought washing powder even, and all they were asked to do was put a load of the children's clothes on. Never happened.

Poldarks, I'm not taking any notice of Hemmings or Josephs, don't even understand their agenda? I mentioned families showing their evidence to mumsnet because I often see mnetters complaining of no evidence of wrongdoing. So i'm asking what if evidence is being ignored in court and furthermore, what if parents are then told not to speak to anyone outside court? What can they do, where can they go?

you've got to think , what do i think is accceptable for my child? what's the bare minimum? a bed? clean sheets? clean clothes? regular food? going to school? not to be physically harmed?
there are plenty of children living with their parents who don't have even those basics. that bare minimum.

if social workers wanted to take children willy nilly then that wouldn't occur would it?

or this one

violent rowing alcoholics who don't see why that isn't a good place for a new born?

haystack10 Sun 04-Dec-16 13:11:07
"Cory, it's great that correct procedures were used and I assume because of the good ending, honest reports were made. What if inaccurate, dishonest reports were made and other agencies good reports were hidden and this resulted in your daughter not only being ill but placed in care on a care order."

Then she would still have been in a better and safer place, because the foster parents would be able to get her to hospital and access her medical records. Which I could not do if we were on the run. Being on the run in a strange country is a very unsafe position for a child, almost anything would be better and safer.