AIBU to want to carry on this interesting discussion about the Child Protection System?

[Spero]

Following on from this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2792849-AIBU-to-be-horrified-by-the-Stolen-Children-of-England?

I thought it was interesting. Some people didn't agree with me and said they would tell me why. I would like to hear their views.

I don't doubt that adoption is definitely best for some children. And I don't doubt that the system often moves far too slowly.

But the problem with the Governement drive for adoption and the worries about the unintended consequences of adoption targets is that this risks offending against the law. The law - both domestic and European is very clear. Article 8 of the ECHR imposes positive obligations on the state to take action to protect people's rights. Families must be supported and helped.

We are seeing a dearth of such support and a rising growing swell of real anger and misery, which we ignore at our peril.

As a lawyer, I think respect for the rule of law is an essential component of any society that's worth living in. As a human being I am shocked by the depths of loss and grief displayed by many parents on the Facebook Groups etc.

I agree much more needs to be done to proper,y research what other countries do and what outcomes are for children. But it would be massive piece of work and probably require close collaboration with lawyers and social workers in other countries. Given our new Brexit isolationalism, can't see much chance of that.

But possibly a good start would be to carry out research into just one or two countries who are similar to us, such as France and Germany. I am grateful to all those who said they would help point me in right direction re funding etc and i think that is a much more constructive approach than simply saying there is nothing more that can be said.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/17/a-letter-to-my-adoptive-mother-to-apologise?CMP=share_btn_tw

Sad but beautiful. If only we could just TALK more to one another.

In my LA LAC children are our biggest expense and the threshold is extremely high to even get social care involved.

We leave kids in quite frankly dangerous situations ATM because we cannot afford to put them into care and we do not have enough foster careers.

This is all due to government cuts.

So we don't know whether the UK is out of line with other European countries then? Because we don't know whether the statistics of 'non-consented' adoptions actually do capture the reality of 'placed permanently in another family without the consent of the birth parents'?

We don't know. I strongly suspect the long term foster care type scenarios in Europe will look quite similar to our adoption.

The problem is that there is a very persistent and vocal group of campaigners who say that the UK is alone and a pariah and everything is much better everywhere else.

I am not so sure about that! Similar protests have ben made against Norway for e.g.

Googling adoption in Norway throws up some interesting pages. This story is prime JH conspiracy theory, for example. But the largest adoption agency in Norway exists to facilitate intercountry adoption - though only 61 children were adopted from outside Norway in 2015.

Am still interested in the debate but have had a poorly little grand-daughter on my lap all afternoon - she's just gone to sleep so I've put her on the sofa - parents away for weekend - sod's law! I don't mind though even if I have had to read fairy stories all afternoon. She's not too poorly to notice when I tried to skip a page of the Elves and the Shoemaker!

Haven't had time to look at any of the links. Had a quick look at the comments in response to Louise Tickle's piece in the Guardian - there were 440 comment!

crowdblundering I've heard the same thing from very reliable sources (social workers and team managers) and that indeed is very scary. And I certainly lay the blame for the crisis in public services at the feet of this government. HOW can public services continue to deliver any kind of service when they are having to make millions of pounds of savings. They can't - and then the govt add insult to injury by "allowing" LAs to increase council tax by up to 2% which will bring in approx 1.2 million - some use when they are being forced to save millions in double figures. Drop in the ocean doesn't cover it.

Yet year on year referrals are increasing as are investigations

Crowdblundering is correct. Which is why I find pre care order adoption targets so impossible to believe

spero I have now looked in more detail at the work that the TP project has undertaken, and I absolutely see why you were pissed off that I was accusing you of "jumping to conclusions." However I do still have a problem with the notion that adoption targets might be used at the beginning of the process and a care plan for adoption made to meet targets. I will however attempt to be more temperate in my mode of expression!

As you probably know LT's Guardian article produced a large number of comments (440) in total and I couldn't read each one, but I think it's fair to say that many of them were arguing against her views, noting they were "high on rhetoric and low on analysis" but this of course would be because readers would not be aware of the comprehensive nature of the FOIs sent out in the UK and the task of collating the information received.

One comment stood out for me:

"The article presents a one sided and misleading view of the adoption process. In particular, it conflates ultimate outcome and entry to the process to suggest that the children are coming into care to meet adoption targets. The reality is that the targets relate to achieving better outcomes for the children who have been through the process and cannot safely return to their families. The fact that the number of children going into foster care each year far exceeds the number of adoptions by such a wide margin demonstrates this (However I think many of these children will be in short term foster care awaiting a permanent placement - my comment)
I think the final point this poster makes hits the nail on the head for me. Most dangerously this article does damage to the parents involved as it encourages them to see social workers as the enemy pursuing an adoption agenda that will do nothing to help them make the changes necessary to keep* their children

Many comments related to the issue that the opening para of this article was about "imagining you are a young mother going to court.............." etc rather than looking at the best interests of a baby in an unsafe home.

There were some pretty daft ones about targets. e.g Do the NHS create sickness to reach targets for the number of people they treat and discharge in a day or year. I would comment here though on a target I recall for the NHS i.e. that no one should wait for longer than 4 hours in A & E before being discharged or admitted. They got around this (and I was a victim of this practice last winter) by moving patients into an "Urgent Treatment Centre" after 4 hours, but it wasn't A & E, patients not fit for discharge and awaiting admission. Tada! The target was met. I am sure there are far more instances of getting around targets in the NHS and other public services.

Someone mentioned "Do the police create crime to meet their targets for arrest?" Not as daft as it sounds. I recall a TV documentary about POs needing to "up" their arrest figures and looking out for youths who could have cannabis in their possession.

Another comment about LT's article "Not quite sure I follow this article. The headlines talk about targets for "Breaking up Families" in other words taking children into care. The article actually describes targets for taking children out of care and placing them for adoption i.e. creating families.

I know the article raised my hackles - I suppose it's because here is some journalist writing about an issue that has been at the front of my mind for some 30 years, and the thing that annoyed me most was the comment of an un-named lawyer talking of the awful forced adoptions of yesteryear of young unmarried mothers, and the apologies now being made, and asserting that in 50 years time there would be need for more apologies. LT comments that she agrees. I honestly found that insulting. I was an unmarried mother in 1967 and was fortunate enough to keep my son, but many thousands of babies were forcibly adopted. There was no court case, no lawyers to act on their behalf, nothing - mostly these "fallen" women (as that's how they were viewed) were in a Mother & Baby home for several months, working in a domestic capacity right up until labour started and then 3 months later their baby was removed from them and the adoptors arrived, taking the baby away in their car. A couple of hours later the bereft mother was given the bus/train fare home - end of matter.

Sorry I'm rambling a bit so I'll stop now.

Me again: I think an important issue has been missed out of this debate and I saw no mention of it in the comments on LT's article. I know I've made the point before but I think it worth stating again, that regardless of targets or performance indicators etc., a child can only be adopted IF there is a match between child and adoptor and IF the child is over 5, part of a sibling group or a child with disabilities then the chances of a match with adoptors is extremely remote. Surely that in itself will often mean that targets may well not be met. I might be wrong about this but I think Blair got the idea that all these middle years children in foster care of residential care could easily be found permanent homes but they might not want to cut all ties with their family, nor have their last name changed, and this was the thinking behind the legislation for Special Guardianship Orders. I think he thought people would be coming forward in droves to take these children into their homes with an SGO made in their favour. Of course that didn't happen though I believe the numbers of SGOs has far exceeded anyone's expectations.

I carried out assessments for SGOs when I worked independently, all relatives, mostly grandparents but a few aunts and uncles. In all but a couple of cases I was able to give a positive recommendation to the court and it did mean that the birth parent could have contact with the child, usually every 2 months, and more importantly the child would be brought up in his own family of origin.

I can see the amount of work that went into this project and how difficult it was to collate the information given the variety and opaqueness of some of the responses, but I did note that you had agreed that you could have asked the questions in a more simplified way (sorry I might not have that exactly right) but it was related to getting a better response that could have provided more valid conclusions.

I still cannot believe that targets for adoption are going to impact on the making of care plans for specific children. It can't, because if you have 2 brothers 9 and 11 years, there is no way in the world you're going to have a care plan for adoption. That is just an example but I could give dozens more - the 8 year old with a speech impediment and a diagnosis of ASD, a 6 year old even with cerebral palsy. I won't go on as I'm sure you get my point.

And surely the ultimate sanction is the court - how is a Judge going to make a Care/Placement Order if he/she is not convinced that this is the best way of providing a permanent home for a specific child. You lawyers will know more about that than I do. I've always found Judges to be very astute and fair, and able to get to grips with a case in a few days that has taken me months of work. Do you honestly think that a request for a PO based on a need to meet an adoption target would get past a Judge. Maybe it's an issue defence lawyers could ask in cross examination.

The other issue that I think is pertinent (but not for tonight!) is what happens after a child has been placed with adoptors and the trauma he has suffered in his pre-placement experience starts to manifest itself - the meltdowns over seemingly nothing (but caused by internal triggers) the temper tantrums, the anger and defiance (often aimed at the adoptive mother) the clinging/jealousy of anyone else getting attention, the cruelty to the family dog. The list is endless. Of course social workers do their best to "prepare" prospective adoptors but you can't really prepare them for this kind of ordeal. It's nice and cosy in a prep group and a camaraderie forms, there is laughing and joking, and excitement about the prospect of adopting a child or maybe 2 siblings. But I know the message doesn't get across because adoptors tell us later "we didn't believe all that stuff you told us..........." and who can blame them - they are getting near to becoming a family.

And of course there is no help for adoptors because it's all well and good the government making legislation (post adoption support) but if there are not the staff to carry out this task (which there isn't) then it can't be done. They might send an unqualified family support worker round- totally out of her depth, and making the adoptors even more frustrated. The sad fact is that the trauma suffered in those early days, weeks, months, years will not evaporate in the bosom of the "loving family" - the effects will last to a greater or lesser extent through the lifespan.

magic
IF there is a match between child and adoptor and IF the child is over 5, part of a sibling group or a child with disabilities then the chances of a match with adoptors is extremely remote

You're making the conspiracy theorists' point for them here. If you've a bunch of kids who are going to be hard to place, and a target of placing 10 kids, what do you do? Well, you lie/conspire/cheat to unfairly 'snatch' some more easily placed kids, right? It does nothing to help the kids already in care, but you meet your target.

I mean, I really can't see it myself, but I can see why others might see it that way.

This - and the predecessor - have been fascinating threads. I've learnt a lot thanks.

tdlr - ok I'll try to explain. Every child in the care system has to have a care plan - and IF the case goes to court because the LA believe they have evidence that the child is being significantly harmed, the Judge will want to know how the LA propose to secure the child's future if he makes an Order that means the child cannot return home.

What I posted and you copied in bold is a statement of fact - nothing more nothing less. Each child's care plan has to be individually tailored to their needs. It could be that the LA are going to ask for a Supervision Order (meaning that the child remains at home and a social worker is allocated to monitor the situation) and the PR remains with the parents. OR it may be that relatives have been assessed and found suitable and they are willing to apply for a Special Guardianship Order with the agreement of the LA. Another option is permanent foster care- the parents don't lose PR altogether and will almost certainly have contact with the child maybe ever 2 or 3 months. Could even be a shared care arrangement, where the child lives with foster carers but spends periods of time with his birthparents.

OR the LA could ask for a Care/Placement Order and if the child is under 5 and the order is granted they will try to match with adoptors. Why wouldn't they? This is one of the best ways of ensuring the child has the stability and permanence that every child deserves. Some older children will be matched with adoptors (especially if they have a younger sibling) as will some children with disabilities. I recall one of our foster carers adopting 4 siblings for a neighbouring LA - I actually warned them of the potential problems of caring for 4 very damaged children and not being able to meet their individual needs. The LA in question were glossing over the difficulties as these children were the only residents in one of their children's homes and if they were adopted they could close the home, which is what happened. They made massive savings and the adoptors suffered years of anguish and upset, BUT they didn't give in. They did however say they wished they had listened to my advice.

I can see why you think it's a case of 10 kids under 5 and a target of 10 so yep adoption - job done! It isn't like that and I don't subscribe to the view that these targets are for young children who are in the main "adoptable" - I think the targets are for children in all age ranges. It would make far more sense to have targets for children who are hard to place, as the options for them are very costly, and I firmly believe that targets are related to finance - or lack of it.

You are making a very complex and complicated task sound very simple and it isn't.
I think the danger of this business of targets and LT's article do actually lead people to the view that Speroand her colleagues put forward, that the targets might impact upon decision making in relation to a Care plan for a specific child. And at the risk of repeating myself the ultimate sanction is the court and I cannot believe that a Judge is going to make a Care/Placement Order if there is a hint that this application is to meet targets.

tldr I have just re-read your post. Are you outlining the conspiracy theorist's line re lying/cheating/conspire to snatch more kids from care? Or is that your belief?

I really do grow very weary of people who have no knowledge or experience of how children's services operate and the steps that have to be taken before a child can be removed from home only by order of the court and the complexities of planning for permanency IF the child cannot be returned to the parents. "Snatching" young children is simply not possible only in the belief of JH and his ilk

It never ceases to amaze me - I would not dream of thinking I knew what it was like to be a doctor, nurse, teacher, lawyer, police officer, accountant, refuse collector, or any other kind of employee, let alone critiquing the way in which they operate.

but I think it worth stating again, that regardless of targets or performance indicators etc., a child can only be adopted IF there is a match between child and adoptor and IF the child is over 5, part of a sibling group or a child with disabilities then the chances of a match with adoptors is extremely remote. Surely that in itself will often mean that targets may well not be met

I agree with Tldr - this is EXACTLY Hemming's point. That more and more younger and 'adoptable' children are bring bought into the system in order to meet 'targets' later down the line. He argues, I think, that this is a deliberate policy.

I think there is no evidence for that BUT as the TP set out, even a whiff of anything like that, in the current climate of fear, is very, very damaging and I would have hoped for some slightly more robust official comment along the lines of 'of course decision making for individual children at the outset of care proceedings is never, ever infected by such targets relating to the eventual outcomes, and here is how we guard against it'.

Louise Tickle, like any other journalist, has to sell a 'story' and its a more exciting story if she leans harder on the corruption angle. I am very interested in why the family lawyer she quotes won't be named. I will not be quoted unless I am named, otherwise what on earth is the point? We don't know anything about this family lawyer. There are a handful - Michelle Freedman, Natasha Philips and Marie Claire Sparrow - who are well in the conspiracy camp and quite dangerous for it. I suspect it was one of them and they do not wish to be named because they know I and others would point out their track records in this debate.

I cannot believe that a Judge is going to make a Care/Placement Order if there is a hint that this application is to meet targets.

But you are aware of what the President said in Re B-S which was an appeal against the making of a placement order? All is NOT necessarily always good in the court system.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed117048

See para 30 of the judgment:

We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.

31. In the last ten days of July 2013 very experienced family judges in the Court of Appeal had occasion to express concerns about this in no fewer than four cases: Re V (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 913 (judgment of Black LJ), Re S, K v The London Borough of Brent [2013] EWCA Civ 926 (Ryder LJ), Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 (Black LJ) and Re G (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 965 (McFarlane LJ). In the last of these, McFarlane LJ was explicit (para 43):

"The concerns that I have about the process in this case are concerns which have also been evident to a greater or lesser extent in a significant number of other cases; they are concerns which are now given sharper focus following the very clear wake-up call given by the Supreme Court in Re B."

32. It is time to draw the threads together and to spell out what good practice, the 2002 Act and the Convention all demand.

Magic, Tldr isn't saying she believes there is a conspiracy, just pointing out that having "targets" could be perceived as driving social workers to make their own lives easier by recruiting easier to place children.
The very nature of the word "target" is totally inappropriate in this arena - it's a word that is synonymous with meeting or failing and these are clearly seen as good or bad. If an LA has a target to place 10 children for adoption but only places 8, there is a potential for that to be deemed as a failure and a missed target. There is the potential for someone to try and rectify that.

I don't believe that's happening but there should be no opportunity to allow even the perception of corruption occurring. As an adopter whose child's birth family vocally maintain the "snatched" narrative, it's crucial my child is clear about the decisions made were above board. The danger is this use of a word opens up a sliver of doubt that many will use to exploit or justify their position.

I don't think it's the word target that is the problem - it means something to aim for and we live in a target driven culture. They are part and parcel of almost everyone's job in both public and private employment. I am struggling to understand why the Transparency Project were so surprised that targets were set in terms of adoption as a route to permanency for children who could not return home. I am convinced (as I keep saying) that this is related to funding, as it is the cheapest option, over and above permanent foster care, and residential care. And LAs are all struggling with severely depleted budgets thanks to this government.

You say that there should "be no opportunity to allow even the perception of corruption occurring" and I agree, but I believe that highlighting these targets and LT's article in the Guardian especially, it does just that and I think this does play into the hands of the conspiracy theorists and there is absolutely no proof that decisions when formulating care plans are contaminated or corrupted by targets, merely a suspicion. OK there is no proof that this doesn't happen, but you can't prove a negative can you. I think Spero and her colleagues will accept that is the position.

articles that do point towards possible issues are imo far less dangerious than ones that say 'this can't possibly happen because a rule or a judge wouldnt let it'

No matter if you like it or not people are frightened and they are frightened now, they have been for a fair few years.

And I'm not just meaning people that are hiding issues or problems I'm meaning normal everyday regular parents, perfectly adequate ones ones who only a few years ago would have open their door with a genuine smile if a SW was on the doorstep.

Ive been kicked off online parenting forums when people find out I used to be a SW as have others I know, people mistrust us. If we do not understand that we have contributed towards that and that it is not solely based on adoptions then we hand people who want to use adoptions as their sound bite a loaded weapon.

Sorry I got distracted and posted to soon.

When we say this cannot possibly happen so let's not talk about it further instead of saying what changes can we make especially when doing so ignores the existence of the judgements that state issues have occured it's all fine and well saying 'see this is proof the system has worked' but the system shouldn't have allowed the situations in those judgements to have got as far as needing catching in that net.

It is contributing towards a culture of fear towards the very thing that should be protecting us

This is a really interesting discussion on the Richie Allen radio show with families who have been victims of forced adoption. It's quite harrowing listening x

Interesting to see Michelle Freedman mentioned Spero. Do you have any thoughts about her 2013 shenanigans?

I have quite a few thoughts, and most of those thoughts come from information that she put into the public domain. I can quite understand why there would have been interest in her violent ex and his impact on her family. As I understand it, she moved her child or children to Israel to 'escape' but continues to practice in this country and continues to tell parents they are 'lambs to the slaughter' which is deeply, deeply, deeply unhelpful.

Richie Allen has very close links to David Icke as far as I understand.

And he has given air time to Sabine McNeill. If you don't understand why that is hugely concerning, have a look at the Hoaxted Research website for e.g. this hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/another-petition-not-so-fast/

The answer to the fears and worries of many parents will NOT be found on the Richie Allen show.