Another child reverses an adoption

[johnhemming]

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7958099/She-defied-the-law-to-find-her-mother.html

This is another thing happens when children are wrongfully adopted. In these cases the adoptive family are also victims of the system as well as the birth family and the children.

I would be amazed if it was as straightforward as this article states.

There are ALWAYS 2 sides to every story.

I am sitting here now looking at my adopted dd. So happy and secure and leading a very differant life to the one she would have had with her BM.

Her BM would tell a very similar story to the one you quote JH. What the BM doesn't talk about are my DDs 7 siblings and half siblings all of whom are now adopted but the first 4 didn't get taken at birth a oh how they suffered.
I'm not saying there are never mistakes. If only one child had been wrongly removed it would be a tragedy but so many more children are saved by the tireless work of SWs.

I have never said that the system always gets it wrong. What I have said is that as a result of a mathematical error made in calculating the adoption target too many children have been wrongfully adopted.

The victims of this are the people involved - including the adoptive family.

In Scotland 2/3rds of babies taken into care are returned to their parents. In England over 2/3rds of babies taken into are are adopted.

England has a worse record in terms of protecting children from abuse than Scotland.

I read that too. One hopes children will get more power. Part of the problems I see is children are not given their own rights enough. I remember as a teenanger wanting more legal powers but there is never political will for that. The children's commissioner has not done anything like I had hoped in representing the position of children not just on divorce/residence issues but more generally.

'Adoption target' What utter nonsense.

I don't know what you mean by nonsense but there have been targets. I just did a 2 second internet search and found this document which I doubt is faked - www.fassit.co.uk/gov_adoption_targets.htm

The original page was deleted from the Hammersmith and Fulham website, but I saved a copy
johnhemming.blogspot.com/2008/03/hammersmith-meets-adoption-target.html

To find the adoption target simply search in google for BVPI 163 or PAF 23 (sometimes PAF C23).

BVPI - Best Value Performance Indicator
PAF - Performance Assessment Framework.

An absolute mountain of misery has been caused by the implementation of these targets.

I also have the list of how much reward money was paid by the government to local authorities for increasing adoptions.

The internet, mobiles and other technology is certainly helping many children and parents publicise problems and stay in touch particularly if the children are older which is a good thing.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306108/Couple-loaned-girls-paedophiles-duping-social-workers-convicted.html

Most adoptions are not like the above. However, I do know of other cases where children have been worse treated in care than by their birth parents.

There is definitely a case to have more open adoptions where the birth parents are able to contact the adopted child(ren) and vice versa; cards at Christmas/birthdays would at least keep some sort of communication method in place. The whole secrecy of adoption really has no place in society and benefits no one, least of all the child.

I've seen several open adoptions and they work quite well. It's infrequent indirect contact, but nevertheless there isn't the idea that the child has been abandoned. More along the lines that birth mom/dad couldn't keep the child safe, but are still good people etc.

I agree with that.

We have an open adoption with BM having twice yearly direct contact with dd.
It works well for us. There were a few teething problems with BM calling herself mummy and talking about other family members as nan, aunty ect.
We explained that it was very confusing for dd to hear this and bm accepted our point of view.
DD understands that X grew her in her tummy and did love her but didn't know how to be a mummy. I think dd will grow up feeling more secure, and of course there will be no questions about her identity because she will be in a position to ask bm as she grows up.
I don't think this type of adoption will become common but I certainly see the benefits if the adults involved can work together.

I think greater openness in adoption is now definitely the norm. Not many with direct contact, as in dolphin's family, but certainly we were considered for children where direct contact was on the cards. In the end, we have adopted a little girl where the agreement is for regular indirect contact with a number of birth family members. We were considered for about 20 children, and in ALL cases we were asked to agree to some form of continuing contact.

Throughout our preparation for adoption, it was drummed into us how vital it is not to make derogatory remarks about the birth family, particularly the birth mother. My dd's birth parents are part of her and her life, and to talk of them being 'horrible' is to attack her own self-image. On the other hand, you can't present an idealised picture or the adoption itself doesn't make sense. It's very hard for adoptive parents to get this right, but we are certainly told how important it is that we do.

I am sure that mistakes are made - social services are overstretched and under-resourced, systems are not tailored to individual needs and recruitment problems means the calibre of staff is not always as high as we'd like - but I would be amazed if this case was as simple as the Telegraph is making out.

But what is important is that there is more open-ness of the cases. Sometimes judges deliberately want judgments published so they can show XYXZ father has brought 200 court applications and almost has an obssession with having 100% contact with the children or none at all and is unhinged. Without the publication you cannot know whether he's a wronged father or not.

johnhemming - this American story may be of interest to you as there are bound to be similar UK stories. www.mountainx.com/news/2010/091510local-family-feels-vindicated-by-breakthrough-research

Interesting that article refers to another case of a baby who was put up for adoption because she had been separated from birth mother for too long, even though mother was cleared of any wrongdoing - social workers delayed too long.

My BIL and SIL had exactly the opposite experience. They fostered a little girl from birth until the age of 2 with a view to adoption. BM did not want the child and always maintained that she did not know who the father was. Then, just before the adoption was due to be finalised, she suddenly came up with a man who she claimed was the father and the child was taken away from BIL and SIL and handed over to this man. He never had to prove paternity, the BMs word was taken. This despite the fact she had never mat this man, called BIL and SIL " mummy and daddy".

BIL and SIL are not allowed any direct contact, but are allowed to send cards etc.

This completely destroyed them both and it still hurts now, 7 years later.

It just shows there is no consistency in approach so stupid decisions are made that are definitely not in the best interests of the children.