to think there aren't Government targets for forced adoption that social worker have to reach?

[orlantina]

At a bus stop last night. Someone had put a handmade poster up about forced adoptions. Children being taken off parents by social services and put up for fostering and then adoption to meet targets. It was pretty hard hitting - pictures of children who had been 'taken'. The social workers and lawyers involved were named. Talk about Facebook groups. Talk about parents not being allowed to talk about it because of legal action and threat of prison.

I struggle to believe that social workers would not take a child from their parents unless there were real concerns. I also struggle to believe that children can be put up for adoption by the State to meet targets. I want to believe that any child put up for adoption has been removed from their parents because it is ultimately in the best interests of the child and that their parents pose a real danger to the child.

But this was a hard hitting poster.

Of course there aren't. People who have had their children removed from their care and later adopted are NEVER going to hold their hands up and be 100% truthful about the reasons why. Always easier to paint the social workers as the villains, paid to spirit away happy and well looked after kids.

Oh I definitely think they do!

""Having said that - I am starting to believe that the country should have to prove what they are offering for the child is significantly better than staying. Being in care is damaging. It's not a case of the birth family are damaging and care isn't, ever.""

That is the reason why it can look like a neglect case is being ignored. The emotional damage to the children would be worse than the effect of what they are living in.

Likewise why babies are removed. A baby dies or is disabled very easily, so the environment may be adequate for an older child, but you can't take the risk of leaving a bay in the Parents care.

""It isn't linked to targets as such but to the fact under 3s are easier to adopt. It does show it isn't an entirely 'fair' system, though.""

The reason for that is to minimise Attachment disorders. Attachment Disorders effect a person throughout their lives. It effects all of their relationships, including with their own children. It is an evil thing to do to a child. If the Parent can't provide stability, then the person's needs that come first, is the infants.

I was a CP SW. As said it is the Courts that remove children not SW's. I wish that the real figures of the amount of children killed or disabled/left Mentally Ill, by their Parents was published,it might change public perception.

Some find it scary that their children aren't theirs to do with as they want. It divides opinion as the Charlie Guard showed, so it's got to be decided by the Courts.

It is a long process to remove a child and then go to adoption. There is usually a long list of issues and then a lack of doing what is needed from the Parents, or wider family.

""People who have had their children removed from their care and later adopted are NEVER going to hold their hands up and be 100% truthful about the reasons why. ""

Some are, in fact many are. When you consider the amount of families that have some CP involvement (that could be just from the School) then the amount of Parents in denial is small.

I worked with Mothers who had multiple children removed, or killed etc but went on to successfully Parent. Part of that process was fully understanding what went wrong. Others choose to not have anymore children, but still recognise what went wrong.

I sit on a LA adoption panel as an independent representative and I can categorically tell you that social workers do not have targets like this to reach. They have timescales once proceedings have begun so that lag is reduced and children don't languish in the system. In any case it is the court that has the final say in any adoption process. If the social workers haven't assessed the case properly and it hasn't been ratified by an independent panel then it won't even have reached the court. There are so many checks and balances at every single stage of the process. There is no way social workers are snatching kids just for adoption purposes. That is just ridiculous.

I've seen these type of posters before and IMO they show the sort of unstable behaviour that precipitated removal in the first place.

I worked with Mothers who had multiple children removed, or killed etc but went on to successfully Parent.

Multiple children killed and they were allowed to parent again? Fucking hell.

I think Cory is correct. Some parents won't admit their mistakes and drugs/sex etc take priority over thier child. Then they play the victim card.

If anything ss leave children who should be removed from their families with them more often.

It's total bullshit. It's also completely illogical if you think about it for even a minute.

It's spread around by people who have had children removed and can't accept it is their own fault. The very fact they take no responsibility for them selves and their children is one of the reasons they lost them in the first place.

I'm in a FB group called something along the lines of 'social workers took my children' and this claim is posted about daily. It's a common beleif amoung people who have children's service involvement - sadly. I guess the belief males them feel better about their situations.

""Multiple children killed and they were allowed to parent again? Fucking hell.""

It is Women from very abusive backgrounds who failed to protect their baby from an abusive Partner, because it was their norm, in some cases they ha , had siblings killed/seriously injured and it was hushed up in the family. We are still dealing with the Adults who lived through much lower thresholds.

As long as they were fully understanding of what went wrong and did the work with therapists etc and the Father of the baby knew what his role needed to be, then there have been cases of Women being given a chance. Everyone I knew of has been successful.

I find this whole area terrifying. I've had some horrendous experiences with mental health professionals (years ago) which made me always stop and think, this sounds unlikely but it could be true, because I know what it's like to be powerless and at the mercy of dodgy professsionals. Or even one dodgy one but of course the others side with them - like any manipulative people you meet in life. Also when professionals seem to cease to see you as a human being - I can't put it into words very well, but I've only experienced that attitude, and the way they look at you, in abusive relationships otherwise. (NOT ALL PROFESSIONALS! - Just explaining what it's like with the dodgy ones!) For myself, when this happens, when I'm powerless to someone treating me as subhuman, something snaps inside me and I'm shaking, sick, and in a sort of trauma state. I can well imagine someone less articulate who hasn't experienced this before would appear to act incoherant, angry and irrational when this happened (it's taken me a looooong time to learnt to deal with it myself, and it still really messes me up).

I don't believe there are targets as such but I suspect there are dreadful, unjust cases that for various reasons get under the radar. So the occasional genuine case fuels speculation and excuse-making about the rest. There's also a massive lack of appropriate care/treatment/support for mental health and associated problems before people become parents, let alone timely intervention when pregnant etc. It scares me that my past mental health could be used against me, despite doing all the right things, seeking (but not getting) treatment etc. There was a well publicised case and the mother posted on here some years ago, all turned out ok but she was longterm stable, with a partner and had gained a medical degree in the interim. What if she was single, still suffered flashbacks, and unqualified/unemployed? Yet you see examples of dreadul parenting that she (or I!) would never do, but no-one gets involved. Like if you have a black mark against you name (the person I mention had MH issues after BEING RAPED fgs!) you have to be perfect, but otherwise people can do what they want and really fuck up their children.

Argh - I sound like I'm agreeing with the poster - I'm not, just have concerns about some areas and think the occasional dodgy case slips under the radar. (Reassurance about past mental health welcome, as I am terrified but would like children!)

Ther are no targets. There are no financial incentives. Children are not targeted because they are adoptable.

Very very often parents have older children removed but keep babies. It is unusual for babies to be removed while older children are not - when that happens it is often because either the older children have different dads and can go live with them or other relatives, or because the children are so embedded in their family that removal would cause them more distress than leaving them at home.

We are obliged to give evidence regarding the alternatives to leaving children at home - the courts are rigorous in looking at all options. We also aim to place children with family members where possible.
Adoption has no financial benefits to the state - none at all. It's expensive and time consuming. It is only done where nothing else will do.

I think the fact some children remain and others are removed shows that the system, no matter how flawed, is acting for the individual child.

If a woman with three children, lets say twin boys age 14 and a girl aged 5 moves in a new boyfriend with a history of abusing prepubescent girls then the youngest is in more danger.

Many families are complex with different fathers, children raised by other relatives, children singled out for one reason or another to receive abuse.

Daniel Pelka had a sibling who was not physically abused (who knows what emotional abuse he suffered watching his brother be starved).

Wow, op report or throw that poster. Its dangerous to the children photos and staff named. It be made up as believe me taking dc is a last resort for ss.

MissMoney, you're making the mistake their of assuming that whether or not children are taken from their parents is some sort of moral judgement on the parents. It's not. It's a matter of whether or not they can cope and meet the child's needs. SS wouldn't care what the root cause of MH issues were, just that they didn't interfere with caring for a child. You couldn't leave a child with someone who couldn't care for them just because you sympathised with them because they'd been raped. If having a partner is a factor that's not a judgement on a single woman, it's simply the fact that a partner is there to offer support and can step in for the children in times of crisis. Ditto qualifications. It's not a moral judgement that someone with qualifications is better, it's that she has shown that she is stable enough to commit long term to something, she can deal with stress, she is responsible and can manage her time and that her MH issues are under control enough to do normal day to day activities and also complex demanding activities.

If she didn't have qualifications or a partner there would be different ways she could demonstrate the same things, e.g. Appropriate support and capability.

Pengwynn I work in this field. I have no targets. We have more children than people to adopt them.

HTH.

"Being in care is damaging. It's not a case of the birth family are damaging and care isn't, ever."

The Rees report (2014) suggests that, at least educationally, being in care has a positive effect on outcomes, particularly when compared to Children In Need.

There will never, ever be a baby target FFS.

If you honestly believe there are such things, go ahead and try it. Ask to adopt a baby and specify gender and hair colour or something, watch the response. (Hint - it won't be 'oh yes I think we have one of those down on the estate, we can collect it on Tuesday.')

As someone who's looked into adoption the first thing you are told is you are unlikely to ever be offered a baby.

I get so angry at people who say whimper first and foremost about the rights of parents, or trust their friends' second-hand accounts of things and think there's a system out there to vilify them for no reason.

I wish someone had taken me away from my birth family and given me to people who had properly been able to love me.

Vulnerable kids should always come first.

peng the number of children who become LAC is seen as a negative outcome though so your logic does not make sense.

There are no targets for adoption in any shape or form. There are timescales that the court process needs to meet to prevent children from drifting in the system too long without a final decision being made.
No social worker will ever get paid more if they take children into care as apposed to work to keep them in the family unit.
The system is badly underfunded and highly stretched, it has been for a long time. It will not always make to right desicion and children can and will be failed, although I would suggest that this is usually not being removed from a family rather than being so.

the number of children who become LAC is seen as a negative outcome though so your logic does not make sense

On the whole it's a better outcome for children and also for local authorities if they can keep children in the family. BUT there are many cases (I have personally worked with loads) where individual children have utterly blossomed and thrived in foster care and have achieved amazing outcomes both in education and emotional wellbeing which they definitely would not have achieved if left with neglectful or abusive parents.

Usually, children who are removed from their family were already on the social work radar, until a specific incident resulted in them being removed

There are no targets for removing X no of children from their families. There are targets / timescales for what should happen after a child is removed. This is to ensure that a child doesn't remain in a "temporary" foster placement for indefinitely. At some point, the child has to be rehabilitated to the family (if things have improved), or else permanent plans made (if not sufficient improvement).