Sara Sharif case - update - horrifying

[amIloud]

This case is just beyond the realms of horrifying,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl461xwg3do

This poor child.

Unethical how?

As I understand it the UK is one of the only European countries that implements forced adoption.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForcedadoptionintheUnitedKingdom
In almost all other European countries, adoption which results in the permanent , legal severance of child’s relationship to the birth parents- is a consensual process.

(Sorry for the wiki link but sometimes it provides a useful summary).

the policy that children need fathers and mothers equally.

Do they though? Mothers do 95% or more of child-rearing. I think this is one of the things that needs to be looked at if the family courts are going to get reformed.

I don't believe this is true.

Other countries must have procedures and processes in place aswell of forcefully removing children from inept parents.

It looks like the full picture is a bit more nuanced.
So provisions for adoption without consent do exist in other states - like if the parents have abandoned the child/ can’t be found. Furthermore, in a minority (10) other states there are circumstances where children can be adopted even when the parents are engaged in active resistance/ refusal of the adoption . However , it is widely considered that the UK engages in this practice much more widely / frequently and it is rare outside the UK.
https://fullfact.org/law/are-we-unusual-permitting-non-consensual-adoption/

(disclaimed I am not expert in this area- I am just sharing what I have heard/ understood . I’m sure someone will come along who is much more knowledgeable).

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands. All have far superior care systems to here. Denmark are better than most at publishing data and their data shows that children in care have outcomes on average on a par with those living with families, and superior to those living with families where there is identified trauma/ abuse (as they should do in any functioning system!).

When you have court appointed guardians - whose job it is to protect children - openly claiming as they did in Sara's case that a child should live with abusive family members because care would be even worse then a rational response would be to question why the care system is so abusive and fails children so badly. This isn't a necessity.

Despite early trauma, with appropriate therapy, support, stability and long-term homes with proper care-givers with whom a relationship can be established, children can thrive in a way they would never do in an abusive household. It is a choice not to fund this and pretend this benefits children in some way. It doesn't.

It's also simply not true that the UK removes more children than other countries.

Social workers claimed Sara had 'a really good relationship' with Batool, which was 'a point of safety' for her.

ive read that. As stated the only reason Batool was relevant is she was married to sharif . They wouldn’t have considered her otherwise.

Ridiculous for them to have said that. Data is clear that the most dangerous thing you can do to a child is bring an unrelated adult (who is not specifically trained and qualified and vetted and employed professionally as a carer) into their home. How this could ever have been considered to increase Sara's safety by anybody with even cursory knowledge of the data on child protection is beyond me.

It's also simply not true that the UK removes more children than other countries.

Ok if you want to compare outcomes for children in Denmark. Prior to 2017 Denmark had 1-2 forced adoptions per year (now increasing but we won’t be able to see outcomes for that yet). Compared to some data from wales

https://wendyhopkins.co.uk/insight/forced-adoptions-by-court-order-figures/

So?

If adoptions were forced despite thousands of children being left living with known violent and sexually abusive parents, neglectful parents who don't bother to feed them or provide basic hygiene or even beds to sleep in, no toys, filthy homes often covered in animal faeces, and yet are not removed them I'm pretty sure that in the few cases where adoption is forced there is likely an extremely good reason.

We need to do far MORE to protect and remove children - by force if required - from appalling circumstances and people who are incapable of decent parenting.

In Denmark they tend to opt more for small residential homes with 3-4 children who grow up as a family with stable rotating carers who act in loco-parentis, or long-term foster placements, rather than adoption.

Regardless, what matters from the child's perspective is to grow up somewhere safe with carers who genuinely care for them in an environment where they feel secure, which will never be the case while living with abusive and violent parents.

This whataboutery is tiresome. The fact is the UK is deliberately leaving children who they know are at significant risk of harm in abusive homes in order to save money because the country and its voters don't consider adequate funding of a care system of any model to provide safe homes to these children to be a priority. And then using their deliberate underfunding of it as an excuse to leave children growing up in daily terror and pain and, in some cases, inevitably dying.

Interesting. I don't find it particularly impressive when a country has low rates of out of home care. It's no good leaving kids like Sara Sharif with parents.
Those tables certainly put to bed the idea ive seen trotted out that. "Other countries think the UK remove kids too easily." 🙄

so?

So you can’t use your data from Denmark to argue that outcomes for children in the UK would surely be better if only yet more children were removed from their parents and placed in care - only funded properly..

The Danish system of care is a system where forcibly adopting children has been exceptionally rare, compared to Uk where it is already widely practiced.

As I said in my previous post people are missing the real issues in this case - since the fathers for justice movement the preferences / access rights of men have been prioritised above the safety of women and children, such that allegations of domestic violence against men/ histories of abuse are not taken seriously, and the testimony of fathers is seen as more reasonable and reliable than that of mothers.

Indeed, @RailwayCutting: it's nonsense.

The claim was about forced adoption your tables don’t provide data on that

@Tandora I don't disagree with you that father's rights are unduly prioritised in the UK system. However, in this case Sara's mother had been abusive to several of her children as well. This seems to be a personal hobby horse of yours about the fathers' rights issue but it is not relevant in this case.

Neither of Sara's parents was fit to care for her. This was blindingly obvious and well-evidenced through repeated incidents over many years.

What should have been prioritised here was the right of the child to a safe place to live with people who were not known abusers. And to remain alive. She should have been removed at birth.

The claim was about forced adoption your tables don’t provide data on that

Because it is whataboutery and totally irrelevant to this thread.

personal hobby horse

🙄😡

Actually it was a conversation that developed organically between myself and a couple of other posters . No one asked you to wade in on that point and I’m not sure who made you the thread police

Also I think it’s entirely relevant given the learning that you and others are insisting on taking from this case despite very limited and problematic evidence. Your conclusion seems to be that more children in the UK need to be forcibly removed at birth. I consider that a problem. The problem with the uk system is not that we are too reluctant to remove children from their parents at birth- it’s much more complex than that.

Sometimes adoption is probably the best thing for the child. Imagine if Sara could have been removed when a baby and adopted by a lovely couple. Absolutely no benefit to her to have contact with a violent abuser like her father and sadly the bio mum doesn't sound to have been capable of looking after her given she was found wandering around Woking twice at the age of 3.
Isabella Jonas Wheildon is another child in the news currently who would have been better off adopted than with either parent who were off giggling and drinking while she lay dead at home.

Well what would you call it? Reading back all your posts on this thread it's clear you have a very strong tunnel-vision agenda. I realise it's a man who murdered Sara, but it's not only men who are horribly abusive to their children. You seem to want to absolve Sara's mother of all blame, like your life depends on it. Why?

This seems to be a personal hobby horse of yours about the fathers' rights issue but it is not relevant in this case.

Ps Also I’m completely astonished by this claim. You think a discussion about how allegations of male domestic violence are not taken seriously in family courts, and that men’s access to children is prioritised over children’s safety is not relevant to this case? A case where a child was murdered after being placed in the care of her violent father?

I'm pretty sure someone like Sara Sharifs dad would have wanted to block an adoption if she'd been removed, but what if adoption was the best thing for Sara?

I’d rather you didn’t make this conversation personal. Thanks in advance for respecting that.

Ok so if it's personal then perhaps you should stop projecting.

Again as above . Thanks