Vicky Haigh in Ireland

[johnhemming]

In my view not an acceptable way to treat a pregnant woman.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

I am using the stats that were used for the adoption targets.

Without placing them into their context.

The context is that these were the figures that local authorities were rewarded for changing.

No, John, the context is that out of over 600,000 cases, only about 44,000 spent a full 12 months in compulsory measures. 2000 of these children went on to be adopted.

So, (and excuse me if my maths is wrong) the number of children in care is the equivilent of 7% of the cases seen in a year, and the percentage of children adopted is 0.3%, approximately. Oooh, I see what you mean, clearly we are being over-run with baby snatchers.

You see John, for some children, and its a small percentage, being returned to their parents will never be an option. You seem to think there is something wrong with offering these children a secure and permanent home. But then, I don't believe you have much empathy with the children in these situations.

What you need to look at is the flows in and out of care. Not the numbers of references to Childrens Services which include some children referred more than once.

Of the children that left care in 2010 aged under 5 (of which there were 4,700) 2,000 were adopted and 880 returned to their parents.

These are the English figures. Each are individual children rather than multiply counted.

You keep citing that figure, but I genuinely don't understand what you mean by it. Are you saying that 2000 adopted is too high a figure? How do you know? What would be a better figure, and why?

What about the over 5's who have little chance of being adopted? Are there very good reasons for them coming into care? In other words is it only the under 5's who are snatched for no reason at all??

No, John, I don't want to look at a tiny section of the data, because you are cherry-picking to suggest that adoption is most common outcome. Look at the rest of the figures and you can see it is not.

2000+880= 2880. What happened to the other 1820? Or does that not suit the agenda?

spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjMKhMcESE6udG5JVWI3dlQwajhfMHBtTEZBQllhWlE&hl=en_US#gid=0

So according to that table (which doesn't actually state the source of the data) 4700 children under 4 left care in the year preceding 31/03/10, 7500 entered care. And by the end of the year 11200 remained in care. So? What does that tell us? There is no information about adoption in that table.

And my point still stands. Out of a referral rate in the hundreds of thousands, SS took 7500 children under 4 into care. 2000 children were adopted, 11200 were not. An additional 880 went back to their parents, 1820 are not accounted for in your figures. Not a picture of efficient baby snatching.

Grandhighpoohba Excellent posts.

grandhighpoohba Excel has a system whereby you have a number of tables in a file. Google manages the same and there are two tables. One looks at the flows in and out of care and the number of children in care. The other one looks at what happens to those who leave care.

So your argument is that it doesn't matter how many children are in care or for how long, the important thing is that they're not adopted?

Is that it?

Sorry John, I didn't see the other table. But the figures still stand. 2000 children out of these figures is still a small proportion. And these figures tell us nothing about why these children were adopted and the others weren't.

And most importantly, you are yet to explain what outcome you would prefer when parents are incapable of caring for their children.

Ok John, I have looked at the 2nd table. Am I right in thinking that of the 2000 adoptions, half were unopposed? As in the parents agreed to the adoption? And that in only 970 cases was the need for consent removed?

Grandhighpoohba, I want to be your mate

John, I still don't understand what we are meant to infer from these statistics? Is it just that a lot of children were adopted? What number of children would be acceptable to you, and why?

Anytime Hester

My argument is that if you look at the details of the system that it does a lot of harm whilst claiming to be done in the best interests of the children.

Our approach to care is very anti-family compared to that on the continent. Places like Denmark have far better outcomes for the children.

For example we remove babies close to birth and then place up to three babies with a single foster carer.

My view is that although at times we do need to remove children from the care of their birth families that things could be far better both for children and the wider family.

What the statistics show is that for some reason parents in england are more dangerous than those in scotland.

But everything you have said is opinion, not fact, and disconnected from the statistics.

And, as you perfectly well know, the statistics do not show that parents in England are more dangerous than those in Scotland. Even if they show that children in England get taken into care more often, what does that tell us? That English social workers are too snatch-happy, or that Scottish social workers are negligent?

I do hate this slopping around of statistics to 'support' opinion and conjecture. Give us some real evidence, please.

"My argument is that if you look at the details of the system that it does a lot of harm"

And where do I find that on the spreadsheet?

John, if your argument was that there is room for improvement in Children and Families Social Work in England and Wales, then I don't think anyone would disagree, not even the Social Workers on here. For what it is worth, the Scottish System is in some ways an improvement, and there should be a rational discussion about that in England and Wales

Unfortunately your arguments on here tend more towards "RUN AWAY!!!!!!! Evil Social Worker Baby Snatchers at large!!!!!! Here is some anecdotal, one-sided evidence and some data out of context to make me look more convincing!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me make some sweeping generalisations! "

Which is a real shame, because in your position as an MP, you could make a real difference, you could start a proper discussion about this. Instead you choose to make yourself look like a fool in front of anyone with half a brain. By behaving like this, you marginalise yourself, and any issue you are associated with. Such a waste of opportunity.

Here's an idea, instead of spending your time messing about with statistics, why don't you go and meet the children in your constituency whose lives were improved by intervention, who had a chance at a happy childhood because they were removed from the most hideous situations. And then come on here and see if you have the nerve to suggest that adoption is a bad thing.

Oh, and what Hester and JimmyS said.

My LA doesn't let FCs look after more than one baby at a time. I can't imagine any would let one carer have 3 babies.

What you get on the spreadsheet is an argument that English parents are much more dangerous than Scottish parents.

Something I don't think is true.

How can statistics give you an argument?

Statistics may show you that more children are taken into care in England, but there are any number of possible explanations for that. You clearly believe that the explanation is that English social workers are too quick to take a child into care, and Scottish social workers are not. That is your opinion, but you have not given us any facts to support it. The statistics just show a difference, they don't show you which statistic is the 'right' level of intervention.

John, it is a long time since I studied statistics and methodology, but there are some real stats whizzes on MN and I'm sure one would be prepared to offer you some help with this. Take my word for it: statistics do not argue. They cannot argue. They just give you a number, and they are the starting point in discovering what is going on, not the end point.

I'm quite prepared to accept that there are individual cases of children being taken into care unnecessarily, but you have provided absolutely no evidence that too many children overall are taken into care, let alone that this is part of some public sector plot.