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

Poldark, studies haven't shown that adoption provides better outcomes - there are no statistics. There was a report which said that permanence had better outcomes and the same report also went on to refer to research indicating that continued contact with bio family is also important to a child's wellbeing, yet this isn't the norm and isn't facilitated - so the contact is often managed badly, and this is a key element of disruption. I think all right thinking people understand the need to protect children, but that far more research is needed on the psychological affects of a child being separated from its bio parents, and the best ways of managing that.

Cory, not knowing their roots has caused immense psychological problems for large numbers of adopted chilldren - we know that because they have written about it online all over the place - we don't know exactly what percentage of adoptees we are talking about because there are no statistics.

Open adoptions work in Australia (I believe) because of this - parents who can't cope are more likely to work with the system if they know they will retain contact, I imagine.

It is recognised in divorce how important contact with both bio parents is for the same reasons.

Cory, I think that arguing against contact by referring to abuse and neglect that has caused terror for children is not helpful because although there will be cases like that, in relation to the majority you are looking at situations of competency, MH issues, parents not being competent, not situations of terror. Such as the case referred to by therootoftheroot.

And there is so much more. It would be good to have a debate without the extreme or sensationalism being brought in at all from either side.

Poldarks, thanks for the link to suesspicious minds.It is interesting and strange. Thanks also wouldhave for link to child protection resource. The problem is I have actually sat in a family law office where the solicitor said to my friend upon being shown lots of documented evidence "don't you understand, even if you had 100% evidence you just can't win". We were so shocked anf confused we couldn't even answer. It wasn't until we were outside that it properly hit us. The case was lost and child put on full care order.

And to reiterate the point, when I was there in the hospital with dd I had no means of knowing that correct procedures would be taken. I rang my MIL and sobbed on the phone "they are going to take her away from me". But I could still have seen how going on the run would be the absolutely least safe thing to do. If I'd done that, not only would I not have been in a position to help her: no one could have helped her. I would sooner have given her up than have had that happen.

I can't believe people believe this rubbish.

Obviously I can't say too much but I volunteer in a nursery. In that nursery is a child who is still living with his (apparently) ex heroin addict mother. She has claimed to SS that she is receiving all the help they are giving her. We have reason to believe she is not. We are constantly flagging issues with the child. He is still in her care. He's a blonde haired blue eyed 2 year old. Surely he'd be taken if SS were really stealing children.

SS need evidence to be able to apply for a court order to remove a child. Until they have that evidence the child stays.put. if there's nothing going on then there will be no evidence and the child won't be removed.

Just to back that up.

I have a blonde blue eyes toddler as well.

Surely the fact that I have serious mental health problems (think hospitalisation etc) means she would be a prime target?

It's complete bollocks. Every parent I know who's children are elsewhere (which isn't that many) are not fit too look after them.

They might not think so but it's true.

quaidorsay Sun 04-Dec-16 13:50:05

"Cory, not knowing their roots has caused immense psychological problems for large numbers of adopted chilldren - we know that because they have written about it online all over the place - we don't know exactly what percentage of adoptees we are talking about because there are no statistics. "

But what adopted child grows up these days not knowing about their roots? Surely the people writing online are grown-ups, meaning that they grew up in an era where adoptions were handled in a completely different way?

I believe this is really happening in this country.

But why when you accept that there is no evidence of it, and you haven't suggested any motivation, haystacks? You cite the case of your friend, but did you see the evidence against her? I'm quite sure the solicitor didn't tell her that she would lose because of a plot by social workers and the legal system; I suspect the reality is that s/he was breaking it to her gently that the evidence against her was very strong and he did not believe that she had evidence that disproved it.

Cory, by knowing about their roots, I don't mean life book work or discussions about their roots. The disruption research refers to adopted children now, in this day and age, trying to seek out their bio parents online. As I said, I think more research is needed in relation to all of these issues.

Going back to the OP, she specifies that the parents years later managed to prove that the problem was due to scorbut, which is another word for scurvy. And this is what untreated scurvy does to you:

"Without treatment, decreased red blood cells, gum disease, and bleeding from the skin may occur. As scurvy worsens there can be poor wound healing, personality changes, and finally death from infection or bleeding"

Now explain to me why living on the run with no medical treatment would be a desirable outcome under those circumstances.

AND it's also worth mentioning that scurvy is caused by lack of adequate nutrition. It's lack of vitamin c. so in order to have scurvy in the first place, the child has not been fed properly and food is a basic need isn't it? if you can't meet a basic need then....

Now explain to me why living on the run with no medical treatment would be a desirable outcome under those circumstances

Not desirable. But France is organised into communes and the Mairies (in my experience) make it their business to know who is living in their commune, and I would be very surprised if the house with the caravans would not be known to local agencies especially as it has been on television. The UK first reported fleeing to France 5 years ago or more and as far as I know the UK and French agencies have communicated since then. I just cannot imagine that people would be living in France and not be being treated. I would really hope I am right, anyway. A child with scurvy would be taken very seriously if known about. The health care in France is amazing. We have a holiday home there, and my dh has worked there.

Yes, but the child's medical records would not be there. A whole lot of evidence would be lost. And is it likely that a child whose parents are unable to feed her adequately in their own country, with access to whatever income/benefits they have, would be in a better position to do so while on the run?

To be fair to the pp upthread who said "but what if this is really happening", there have been instances where cases have been built on flimsy evidence, such as the Orkney Satanic abuse scandal. However, in that example the judge threw the case out almost immediately, demonstrating that there are inbuilt checks and balances in the system to prevent incompetent / inept / overeager / corrupt SWs pursuing any particular agenda.

I also agree with the pp who said that we need much more evidence about what works best regarding contact with birth families. But I would gently suggest that those people who advocate more in-person contact between birth families and adopted DC have never had to manage the fall out of contact. As an example, getting a letter from my DD's birth mother will often set her off into a downward spiral that literally takes months for us to stop and correct - she is six, and simply cannot cope with the emotions that this contact throws up for her. I shudder to think what in person contact would do for her (though I know there are posters on the adoption board who have facilitated contact previously, and it is particularly important with SGOs)

Haystack - all I can say is this. I hope it reassures you.

I have been doing my job since 1999. It is now nearly end of 2016. Let's say at a rough estimate I have been involved in about 2,000 cases since 1999.

In that time I have
Appealed 3 times against decisions I thought unjust
Made 1 formal complaint against a psychologist who gave evidence about my client without seeing her in past two years
Made formal complaint twice to Directors of Childrens Services about their practice in 2 different local authorities

So this, to me, does NOT indicate the system is 'perfect' but that serious cock ups are relatively rare.

Let me tell you about one of my great victories. I found a document buried in the trial bundle that showed the LA had failed to comply with Judges request for further open minded assessment. I got those children home. Six months later they were removed again on EPO as parents just couldn't cope. So great 'victory' there - all I did was mess up the children's lives for another 6 months.

But I would do it again because justice must be seen to be done and LAs must act fairly.

No system that relies on humans is error or incompetence free. But the CP system is a million miles away from the disgusting scare stories of Hemming and co.

yes - the fact that people still sight Orkney - 25 years ago - as an example (a valid one) of how systems and people do things badly - it does show how rare such systemic failings are

Social workers can't really do anything right - act and they are baby snatchers - don't act and they are baby killers - no one really sees the day to day work that they do to prevent those extreme outcomes

as to contact with birth parents - it had a massive impact on children and not always a positive one (but not always negative) I work with older children and young people in care and leaving care - it DOES unsettle them and can have a very negative impact on their future plans

When a child cannot return home, adoption is better than long term foster care for the majority (not all) of children, because it places the child with parents.

Parents make decisions for the child. Parent the child. Give them new roots.

Foster carers, even with delegated authority, must ask permission from birth parents or social workers to do things like take a child on holiday, move schools, pierce ears, get hair cuts, seek non emergency medical treatment. And so on. A foster carer has to run some or all of that past social workers or even court, depending on circumstances.

That might be kinder for the birth parents, but it's not about them, it's about the child.

The majority of adoptions in the uk these days are open, to a degree. Some children have face to face contact with birth family; many more exchange letters and share photographs. It's very rare for there to be no contact of any kind whatsoever.

Sorry baby barrister, but that isn't correct.
Every European country has a legal mechanism for non consensual adoption. They just don't use it as much as we do.

I will find link to Claire Fenton Glynn's report.

Every European Country has legal mechanism for 'forced adoption'.
childprotectionresource.online/we-are-not-alone-every-european-country-permits-adoption-without-parental-consent/

www.dailymotion.com/video/x15pc3t_protecting-our-children-ep1_lifestyle

this is the bbc documentary i talked about earlier

If anyone wants to see some more factual and useful documentaries about the CP system, I have been collecting some links here
childprotectionresource.online/information-about-social-work-from-the-media/

AND it's also worth mentioning that scurvy is caused by lack of adequate nutrition. It's lack of vitamin c. so in order to have scurvy in the first place, the child has not been fed properly and food is a basic need isn't it? if you can't meet a basic need then

There are quite a few issues that do not constitute neglect (or even boardering on it) that can cause issues with vit c absorption, it's not great that your first thought Is one that indicates neglect

NHS website

"In the UK, scurvy in children is relatively rare. It usually occurs through a combination of parents being on a low income and knowing little about nutrition. For example, in 2009, a case of scurvy was reported in a child whose diet only consisted of bread and jam.
However, delayed or unsuccessful weaning of babies and toddlers to solid food can also lead to scurvy, if these children aren't given the recommended supplementation of vitamins A, C and D from six months of age, or if they're drinking less than 500ml of formula milk."

needsasockamnesty if i heard of a child with scurvy I would assume gross neglect and so would most people. there was a child in wales that had it and his parents were taken to court after he died.

Not necessarily intended neglect though. But a grossly inadequate diet.