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

[Barbadosgirl]

AuntMatilda my son was removed due to the risk of future harm. BM denied she was a risk to him. I imagine that had (from all accounts I have) this likeable, charming and seemingly engaging woman told people that it was a conspiracy and it was unfair and she loved her boy etc. that she would have been very convincing. As it happens, the last child left in her care suffered a serious physical injury that went untreated for some time.

The system can be unfair. There is not enough money and resource to support people and there are probably people who could parent with intense support but without that support cannot. There are children who stay far too long in risky or abusive situations, there are children removed too soon perhaps. People get it wrong sometimes but the idea of quotas and commission is nonsense. The idea that because some people here think sws got things wrong with their friends does not mean they did get things wrong.

Grindel as for those inappropriate videos doing the rounds on YouTube. The fact some people get upset when their children are being removed is, I would have thought, not surprising. It must be horrible. Why does that mean it should not have happened in that case? Where is your evidence for how that decision was made? It isn't there because the sws will be under a duty to protect the confidentiality of the child. Unlike the people doing the filming who were the only people, presumably, who knew their behaviour and reactions would be caught on film.

[WouldHave]

Whilst the people who did the documentary might have attracted bad feelings it doesn't make the principals of the documentary fundamentally untrue

The documentary seems to go down the standard Hemming/Joseph line of rubbish about social workers taking pretty babies in order to fulfil adoption quotas and having financial incentives, and I'm prepared to bet that, as usual, it is very short on evidence of that proposition. At one point Hemming used to come on here regularly before he was banned for trying to out posters who challenged him, and he was always incredibly evasive when it came to providing evidence for assertions like that. Likewise Joseph and his acolytes have a track record of turning up on discussions like this, in Joseph's case usually under new identities, and I suspect they've done so again with this thread.

The trouble with these documentaries is that social services aren't allowed to give their side of the story because of their duty of confidentiality. Unsurprisingly, when parents whose children are taken into care get in front of a camera, they give a one-sided picture. It's noticeable that when they appear on TV or in the papers they never seem prepared to waive confidentiality and publish the evidence against them.

The financial incentives idea is particularly absurd. Foster parents get paid, and the rates for children with learning and other difficulties are several hundred pounds a week. Parents get legal aid irrespective of means for the purposes of child protection proceedings. Therefore many applications for care orders are strongly defended, and children are separately represented. That means in turn that social services incur hefty legal expenses, which are often multiplied by appeal hearings. The £35K a year figure given upthread is a conservative estimate.

[pklme]

By definition, children are removed to soon (they haven't been hurt- yet) or too late (they have been hurt, someone should have stopped it).

A child I fostered was significantly delayed in going to adoption in order to wait for her baby sibling to be placed with her. The whole thing was delayed for the parents to be assessed for suitability to parent again- twice in a year- in case anything had improved. The third baby- yes, three babies in three years, went a bit quicker, but not much. That family had £££ spent on them by SS, to attempt to get child 1 returned. By child 2 and 3, it was clear it couldn't happen.

The first choice for placing children is with other family members, even if they live abroad. I have seen vast efforts made to get children placed with family members. They only get to adoption if there is no one suitable.

People from other cultures may parent to different standards than those raised in the uk- I believe corporal punishment is a big part of some cultures and the discipline is abusive, by the standards of this country. Think also of spiritual abuse, exorcisms, or even FGM etc. Those families are convinced they are good families doing the best for their children.

[PigletWasPoohsFriend]

I heard that people get paid wrll for remiving children from parents. Perhaps commision. Shocking.

Where is your proof or is it all gossip

[Oddbins]

I work with a lot of looked after children
I see the reports from social workers
I see the effects of early neglect
I see how these children end up with complex special needs
I see their parents on FB etc slating the LA and giving their version of events
I know that professionals are bound by confidentiality and cannot respond
The public story is almost always the parents story and in my experience they will seize on an a minor inaccuracy in pages of reports to try to discredit the system- the report said that the door was locked and there isn't even a lock on it (the door was bolted)
the report said there was no food in the house but there was a cupboard full (in a locked cupboard the children couldn't access and they were left alone)

[PoochSmooch]

I had an insight into this case recently where I made friends with one of the women that Hemmings and Joseph have scooped up in their crusade. She is absolutely lovely, charming, funny, great company, a really nice friend, and as far as I can see, an excellent mother to her younger child, while also being close to her current partner's children.

She's as sane as a cup of tea, right up until you get her started on this stolen babies crap. Her case involved an allegation of abuse that the child made against the father. Very notorious. If you follow these cases you know which one this is. We only rarely talked about it (she has since moved away), but the connection that I could never make was how anyone was making a profit out of her child, when the child had been sent to live with the father? The child in this case wasn't stolen, or sold (if they ever are). The case was awful, so painful and traumatic for everyone involved, but egged on by Hemmings and Joseph, it all gets rolled together into one awful conspiracy to wrench babies away from their loving mothers for profit for unknown persons.

But it doesn't make sense. The evidence isn't there. All I can conclude is that the whole process was so traumatising, that people have to cling on to these stories to prop themselves up after horrendous experiences. Which I can kind of understand. But the stories are still nonsense.

[Lostwithinthehills]

Looking at the whole thing as an outsider I can not see why anybody really believes that social workers systematically snatch babies to put them up for adoption.

1. the majority of people who train for and enter social work will do so because of a desire to help. There will be a minority who do it for negative reasons, but most will be well meaning. So how do you turn well meaning people into baby snatchers?
   
2. why on earth would social services and therefore the state want to target any resources specifically to snatch babies so they can adopted? The state barely funds ivf treatment for the childless so why would it steal babies for them? I could be wrong but I imagine taking a baby from it's birth parents would be at least as expensive as ivf.
   
3. why do social workers and the state want to give adoptive parents stolen babies? What is so special about adoptive parents that all these resources are directed towards giving them a baby?
   
4. if social workers steal babies for adoptive parents why is the adoption process so hard? Wouldn't it be easy so the state approved parents could get their babies quickly?
   
5. where are the Amal Clooney style social justice lawyers publicly challenging the state on behalf of hundreds of families?
   
6. why on earth would there be targets for the number of babies given to adoptive families? What is in it for social services or the state?
   
   Obviously there will be one off cases where social workers have made mistakes, but i just can't believe that baby snatching is systemic.

[SeaEagleFeather]

I think TonaldDrump and ontheTurningAway make good points though.

Most social workers do the best they can in horrendous circumstances with cases where your heart could break (though that wouldn't help the child involved)

I have seen two cases though where the decision to remove the children was wrong (probably). One was a catalogue of unfortunate mistakes which mounted up.

The second was just .. awful. It was a complex situation, previous children had been taken away. The mother went on parenting courses, worked as hard as she could to improve her mothering, but when she became pregnant again she was told that the baby would be removed at birth. Two external people who were involved were convinced that the social worker held a dislike to the mother and was being deliberately destructive. After a change of social worker two later children were allowed to stay, with the mother getting support.

I've had to work with desperately sick social workers who play cruel games with both their subordinates and their clients. I was young at the time and it took a while to see, but the entire team was poisoned in one case by the team leader. Good people in the team were undermined and isolated from each other and bullied. Same - level colleagues and higher-ups seemed unable to do anything about it. The system has quite a lot of checks built into it. But destructive people are there and I can no longer believe that all situations are treated with a rational approach. Plus of course, sometimes honest mistakes are made.

But most social workers are doing their best in impossible working conditions. Far too much pressure, far too many cases, far too little support and help. It's a disgrace to a 'civilized' country how people and families who are struggling so badly get such insufficient support.

[RhiWrites]

My father worked in social services for 30 years. This crap is offensive to the dedicated people who work every day to help children in abudive situations.

Taking children away from their birth family is always a last resort, social services try hard to provide parents with additional help and support and children with a safe loving home.

I can't believe there are people on here entertaining this idea. It's like believing that Westerners steal Asian children. It is nonsense.

[PoldarksBreeches]

Social workers are limited by the same human failings as any other group. A sick system will produce damaging results. Poor management, excessive caseloads and non existent support for social workers definitely leads to bad decision making because there is no possible way to do good work consistently under those circumstances.

[Barbadosgirl]

Lostwithinthehills exactly. I have on this thread and on others asked people who trot out these theories to explain why they think social services do this and where the evidence is but they never do answer. We only ever get the shocking YouTube clips and the anecdotes about friends having their children taken for bumps and scrapes.

Poochsmooch I know the case you mean. I seem to recall Heming coming on here and vehemently denying brainwashing a child into making up allegations is emotionally harmful to that child or is justification for removing said child or reviewing whether subsequent children were safe from harm. They were also outraged she was punished for disobeying an injunction. When I mentioned the attitude that a birth parent's rights come before the child's general above the law mentality going hand in hand with the Heming/Joseph agenda it was this case I was thinking of. The conspiracy theory agenda didn't stop there- one of the people who supported her case was found liable for contempt of court for spouting that Freeman of the Land stuff.

What really makes me mad about this stuff is that is harms the vulnerable. Look, I am not going to deny it boils my piss when I hear the sages on here telling everyone me and all my adopter friends want nice, problem free babies and are willing to conspire with state-sponsored kidnappers to get them. When I hear my son's hardworking and fair social worker who pulled out all the stops for him described as a commission paid stooge. When my own son is, by implication, categorised as one of those second-rate drug damaged babies who we don't really want. I will get over it. I will make sure my son learns about his birth family and has contact where we can so, as an adult, he can make his own decisions. Ultimately this doesn't need to impact our lives.

However, if you are a vulnerable, drug-addicted woman who has suffered abuse, is possibly self-medicating due to undiagnosed lds or mh issues and comes from a background of dysfunctional relationships. You have then had the heart rending experience of having your much-loved children removed. Another is on the way and you have one person telling you that you have to, possibly for the first time, face, name and deal with your issues including getting clean and recognising why you were unable to parent your other children. This long, painful journey then has to be completed within a fairly tight time frame. Then on the other you have someone telling you it is not your fault, it is a big baby-snatching conspiracy, look Denise from This Morning says so. No need to make changes, it is not anything you did, it is all about the baby snatching! What do you think is going to seem more attractive to that vulnerable young woman but what do you think would actually result in her getting to parent this new child?

[Barbadosgirl]

Seaeaglefeather I can well imagine. Anyone who has read the Victoria Climbie report can see how an inept or bullying social worker can paralyse and poison a team. In my limited experience of dealing with sws I have seen some who are unable to put their personal feelings about, for example, same sex couples aside. An underfunded and undernourished system which is also made the whipping boy in the Press when anything goes wrong (Peter Connolly being a prime example) is going to be at risk of getting it wrong or at risk from people on a power trip. That is what actually needs to be addressed. It all gets a bit lost in this nonsense.

[Leanback]

You never know fully what goes on in other people's homes. Those with second hand stories should bear that in mind.

[Oliversmumsarmy]

Someone upthread mentioned reports from experts.

My friend had to borrow money to get her own report done as the report from the so called expert was rubbish. The "expert" engaged by SS not only didn't have a qualification to his name but hadnt even met her.

What I was trying to say was the programme from all accounts featured a genuine family where the courts found them without fault.

Whilst in hindsight you know the courts are not going to rubber stamp something it is still a shock when someone says something put of the blue.

Take on board that these SWs are still working. I doubt they altered their way of working just for friends benefit. If my friend struggled with English I shudder to think what could have happened

[klassykringle]

Well I for am thrilled - we can adopt a newborn after all and have it handed over at birth! We don't even have to acknowledge the parents.

You see, as people suffering from infertility we'd just love that - we don't give a shiny shit about the child or its future happiness. We just want a baby.

Also - we can just demand a nice, clean middle-class one and social services will steal it, no questions asked or issues involved, right? Phew!

Why have we never come across this fucking horseshit information before in all our adoption research?

[OlennasWimple]

Great posts BarbadosGirl

[worriedlassy]

My French friend says all her friends at home are up in arms about it. Frankly we think it's pure bollocks

[user1480182169]

Social services are massively overworked and underfunded. WHY would they be going around snatching babies from everyone? What would be the point of that? There is none.

Simple basic logic tells you this is utter nonsense.

[comehomemax]

When my own son is, by implication, categorised as one of those second-rate drug damaged babies who we don't really want.

Barbados, yes to this. It's like a punch to the gut isn't it.

[MsHooliesCardigan]

I presume the case the OP is referring to is Mark and and Nicky Webster which was an appalling miscarriage of justice and every parent's worse nightmare. All 3 of their children were removed and adopted on the basis of medical evidence which was subsequently proven wrong (doctors claimed that their middle child had fractures which could only have been caused by non-accidental injury but it subsequently turned out were due to scurry and calcium deficiency as a result of allergies) and the mum being wrongly diagnosed with Munchausens by Proxy. They only kept their 4th child by fleeing to Ireland as he would very likely have been removed at birth if they'd stayed in the U.K.
However, I have quite a lot of contact professionally with CP and I think that it's an awful job and that most social workers are genuinely doing their best.
There absolutely are not targets for removing children from their parents. There is a push to get children who have been placed in care adopted quicker which is completely different.
I have had one case of a baby being removed at birth- not literally snatched from her arms as soon as she delivered but she wasn't allowed to leave hospital with her.
This woman had schizophrenia which she had no insight into, was a heavy crack and heroin addict which she funded by sex working. She would regularly go missing for months and be found living with some random bloke she'd met in the street who was pimping her out to his friends. Does anyone honestly disagree with that decision? I 'm curious about what would happen in a case like that in countries that don't have involuntary adoption. The thought of someone like her walking out of hospital with a newborn makes my blood run cold.

[tldr]

Yy, barbadosgirl

These theorists leave me wondering why right from the first time you talk to adoption agencies, they go to such lengths to make sure you know it's likely that any child you may be able to adopt will not be those perfect, problem-free babies.

[tldr]

hoolies, baby would likely end up in foster care, spending it's whole life waiting on mum to sort her shit out.

[ghostyslovesheets]

The idea that social workers would have either the TIME or the NEED (sadly) to seek out and make up abuse allegations is laughable

[PoldarksBreeches]

The "expert" engaged by SS not only didn't have a qualification to his name but hadnt even met her

What was this woman's solicitor doing then? All parties have to agree on experts. I've had experts rejected by parents solicitors for various reasons - what went wrong here?

[Mischa123]

Im sure that the birth mother of my child would tell you a very convincing tale about her being the perfect mother to my child (and previous and latter children) this is in fact utter crap. (I know because I knew her) this is not likely. Children are not removed for no reason