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

This is the documentary, in case anyone who has sufficient French is interested;

m.pluzz.francetv.fr/videos/les_enfants_voles_d_angleterre_,148653060.html

On the surface, I have adopted a blonde baby everyone wants. He is perfect, and healthy, and very bright. He should have been snapped up by a nice wealthy family.

Except that wasn't the case, and he waited a significant proportion of his life for the right mum. I also don't tell people his story, because it's his. His birth parents will definitely tell a story about the system conspiring against them.

But there is more. And I'm not telling the internet because it's private.

There's the problem. Those who don't care about children can tell whatever story they like, because those who do care, care about privacy.

There are many children awaiting the right adoptive parents. Some of these are from minority groups. All the stories are heartbreakingly sad, for the children, as to why the parents can't parent.

I suggest those who believe this ring an adoption agency, as a test. Let them know you are nice, rich and middle class, and you want one of those many healthy babies, you don't mind one from immigrants. See if they'll even assess you. They won't. They will assess you if you're willing to take deeply scarred children, sibling groups, sexually abused children, or babies who spent time on NICU withdrawing from whatever cocktail mum took. This should tell you something about the children available for adoption.

Yes, I know two cases where the baby was " snatched" at birth. The mother of the first neglected her children and allowed her boyfriend to beat the shit out of a two yearold. The first time he broke his arm and they gave a great story about it. The older sister, four, was sullen and watchful and wouldn't engage with staff. After a spell in hospital step dad beat him at Christmas and tied him to a tray and they watch him go downstairs. Just after Christmas they eventually phoned an ambulance. He was dead! This sweet, adorable little boy. No doubt she spins a good story about SS removing her baby immediately (after she got out of prison.)
The other one I can't discuss.
SS do sometimes make mistakes re Orkneys my friend was living there at the time and some mistakes were made there but stealing babies for adoption ...really!
SS get hundreds of referrals I know two social workers and believe me the stress is high and they are human and due to case loads occasionally make mistakes and I do get annoyed sometimes if I can manage to read reviews( supposed to because of my job) but what about all the ones that get right. I know of a case where the kids only meal was the one at school! Parent / step parent drinking and paying for drug addiction.
OP do you believe everything on telly?

I can honestly say, I know a woman, who whilst pregnant, was told her child would be removed. And it was, before leaving hospital.

I've just watched the start of the documentary. My French is out of practice so keep that in mind, but...

Before the credits even roll, the mum is telling us sadly how social services gave her 5 days notice to find a solicitor to prevent baby being removed. 'Who could do that?' said the woman, who had instead managed to find a TV company to film her escape to France.

I don't have time to watch the rest now and frankly I'm not sure I can be arsed. If you wall want to think me and my adopter friends raising stolen babies, me watching a documentary and pointing out its obvious flaws isn't going to change that.

Countries which don't have so-called forced adoption generally instead leave children removed from their parents for their own safety in children's homes for years, or moving between a succession of foster parents. Or else they don't bother and leave abused children where they are. Is either alternative honestly better than the UK system?

So what was the background, MrsSnootch? What reason did the SWs give? Has the person you know given you the whole story?

There was a series on TV about adoption, can't remember what it was called but it followed a SW team and looked at all parts of the process.

One mum whose child was in care kept failing to show up for contact with her child. A dad kept kicking off in meetings and they ended up losing their child as well. I have no doubt that those people will be bleating about how their children were snatched by SS for no reason but it was really clear that they just didn't care enough about their children to work on being good parents. Who the hell can't even be bothered to go and see their own child yet moans that they have been taken off them?

I used to work in a methadone clinic years ago, when I was expecting DD2. One of the prostitutes who was a regular was also pregnant. She told me that she was planning to breastfeed so she could keep her baby a bit longer. She had already had three children removed from her care. That wasn't enough to stop her taking drugs or prostituting herself and she seemed resigned to having to have the fourth removed from her at birth. I found it incredibly sad.

I know a few children who are in the care of extended family or adopted. Mostly because their own parents are quite simply, not fit to be called that. The (mostly) grandparents are picking up the pieces and trying to help their grandchildren recover from awful abusive former years, neglect and misery.

Exactly, WouldHave. I would love for there to be no adoption at all, no need, because all children would having stable and loving birth families who were able to raise them in a safe environment where they would thrive. However, until we have that kind of world, sadly there needs to be some mechanism for the state to step in and protect children where their own parents are unable or unwilling to do so.

IMHO countries which don't have "forced adoption" fail to prioritise children, by subjecting them to an uncertain future bouncing around the care system until they get spat out into adulthood (where they are significantly more likely to repeat the cycle when they have children themselves). The UK system certainly isn't perfect, but I haven't seen a model anywhere else that would appear to be significantly better for the children involved

I wonder what the motive is of people wanting to make the French believe that in England babies are stolen for adoption.

Maybe just for sensationalism/increased viewing figures I guess.

I am peripherally involved with CP.

The stories I see/hear distress me immensely. Many many birth families explain away/rationalise tremendous harm to their children.

I also see many families being supported at huge cost to keep their children.

Sadly the cocktail of socio-economic and health factors that are the basis of so many abuse or neglect cases often I'll equip these parents to fully participate in the court or child protection process. Contact is missed, court appearances are missed, solicitors and counsel are inadequately briefed.

Family court judgements are published on baili.org. Everyone should read a few they give a real insight into what goes on behind closed doors in some homes.

Bollock! Bollocks! Bollocks!!

My sister is a lawyer who specialises in Care proceedings and removal of children from families.

Sorry - I should have said that the "Bollocks" was for the programme - not subsequent posters!

MrsSnootch - it is not uncommon. I too knew of someone in that position. The baby was her sixth. All the others were in care or had been adopted.

All had been neglected, two had been sexually abused by a "boyfriend". The woman was an alcoholic. The chances were the child would be born with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. The "family home" was filthy. And I mean filthy. And she wanted to take a baby back into it??

A couple of people have said that the UK is one of the few countries which has forced adoptions. Is this true? What happens to children in abusive / neglectful families in countries where there isn't forced adoption? Do they have to remain in the abusive family? Spend their life in foster care?

user, yes. Foster care or children's homes.

Countries which don't have so-called forced adoption generally instead leave children removed from their parents for their own safety in children's homes for years, or moving between a succession of foster parents. Or else they don't bother and leave abused children where they are. Is either alternative honestly better than the UK system?

That aspect of this confuses me every time. When people say that "the UK is the only country in X that practices forced adoption" do they literally mean "without parental consent"?

So ALL the other countries in Europe require parents to agree to adoption?

Is that right?

One day I'll get beyond the bookmarking stage on this and catch up on the obscure stuff.

There's an interesting article here - suesspiciousminds.com/2014/11/17/habeas-corpus-2/ - which says quite a lot about Hemming. He applied to the court for an order of habeas corpus (i.e. to release a person from custody) on behalf of a woman whose name he didn't know and whom he had never met, in relation to whom he hadn't bothered to find out whether she was in fact still in custody, and who had had legal aid for full legal representation in the case in question.

One of the films up thread of a baby being 'snatched by social services' links to a later interview with the father. In his version of events he says his wife had to live in supported housing because of her learning disability but she ran away to live with him. He also says that they'd already had 3 children removed because they were unable to care for them. He admits they couldn't care for the children themselves but thinks it should have been dealt with by supporting them.

That is so sad. I know a couple of foster carers who do a fantastic job, particularly with older children but is it really better for a young child to spend their life in limbo.

Manumission - yes, that's right.

This Independent article from last year is worth a read (it's only short). It makes the valid point that "forced adoptions" should properly be called "contested adoptions", ie the adoption proceeds even though the parents have contested it.

Lives in foster care. No permanence. Threat every few months that their abuser could get them back again. Growing up without real parents. I think it's a very adult centred system in some places (Ireland, ahem), where children are chattles.

No system can be perfect. Would you rather dead children, or children sometimes being brought up in the wrong loving home, very rarely? At the moment, I think we risk damaging children far more than we adopt too many.

There is a huge double standard for the pearl clutchers. They won't expose their PFB to the slightest germ, but SS are wrong to say a newborn can't go home to a bedsit covered in dog shit. It's like these kids deserve less. They don't.

I'm a foster carer.
I've known children be removed at birth, and I've worked alongside birth parents who are devastated and bewildered about what has happened.

"He'd never hurt her, he only hits me because he loves me. I can't leave him, he needs me." Safe environment for a child, when older children have been abused in the past?

"I'm a good Mum. I make sure they're safe in bed before I go out to work. I change their nappies every day (yes, once a day)."

"It's ok, my Mum will help. I know I was in care when I was younger but Mum's much better now, she only smacks, she doesn't use a belt on us any more."

"I never shoot up in front of the kids, I don't want them to see that."

All very loving parents, all committed to doing the best they can. Most offered space at mother and baby units. Some accept, some can't or won't.

All children removed at or shortly after birth, or as soon as they are stable enough to leave hospital following neonatal withdrawal.

There are no targets for number of children to be adopted. Our LA won't even approve adopters who only want a healthy white baby as they already have enough couples in that position approved and waiting.

There are targets for timescales once a child becomes looked after. Best interests decisions for that child should be made quickly. If it is possible for them to go home, support to birth parents must happen in a timely manner. Wider family assessments must also happen, alongside looking for adoptive parents. Yes, sometimes this drifts. It shouldn't, but as a pp mentioned, life can get tricky. Bps can become pregnant again, and current baby may wait until new baby is born (that shouldn't happen but sometimes it does). It can take a while to assess grandparents if anyone else who steps forwards.

And, if the baby has significant issues as a result of pre-birth stuff (drug/alcohol damage) then it can take a while to identify a suitable adoptive placement.

If birth parents are engaging with services and attending parenting classes and other assessments, that can take a while too. If mum needs to be moved to a safe space then it may take a while to achieve that.

Adoption is only ever the last resort. But yes, it is done when it's in the best interests of the child. Children aren't removed in order to meet the needs of adopters. But children may be placed with adopters rather than left in foster care for another year or more whilst parents get their lives back on track. Because ultimately, it's about what would be best for the child as they are now, not what might be better for them in a few years' time. And those adoptions can go ahead without the agreement of the birth parents, if the court believes that a stable adoptive placement would be better than an ongoing fragile dance between birth parents and foster carers and social services.

I have seen things go wrong too; I have seen children removed following what turned out to be a false allegation. The children were removed late afternoon, and placed with foster carers for several months whilst investigations were carried out. Deeply traumatic. And ultimately false, and the children were returned. But what were the social workers supposed to do in those circumstances? The allegation was serious and if it had been correct, the children would have been at risk. Had they left the children with the parents whilst investigating, and the allegations been true, those children could have been left with even more harm, possibly another of the cases where "they knew and didn't do anything." SWs are damned if they act too swiftly and damned if they don't act fast enough. But all they can do is act on the information they have. What would you prefer that they did?

In a perfect world we'd not need adoption, and I'd be out of a job as a foster carer too. But right now, children need both fostering and adopting, and both services are there for the child. Needs of the child first, needs of the birth parents second, in order to enable them to meet the needs of the child. Adopters come a long way down the list - adoption is the very last resort. And even then, it's less about the needs of the adopters and all about the needs of the child.