UK forced adoptions of foreign nationals

[Hummingbirds]

This is sick! How come in Slovakia the media has reported on this extensively and they've had demonstrations outside the British embassy yet here in the UK there's been almost total silence? With a few honourable exceptions including journalist Christopher Booker and MP John Hemming.

"... The case that goes to the Appeal Court this week concerns two young boys, Slovakian subjects, whose parents have lived and worked in Britain since their country joined the EU in 2004. Two years ago, when the parents took one of their sons to hospital to enquire about a minor infection, social workers were alerted that it might be the result of a 'non-accidental injury'. The boys were put into the temporary care of the family's American pastor, who describes how social workers then arrived with three police cars to remove the children, screaming as they were torn from their horrified mother and grandmother, to an official foster home.

"Thus began a protracted legal battle, involving many court hearings, four different social workers, seven 'expert' doctors and psychologists, 16 interpreters, 13 different 'contact supervisors' and dozens of lawyers. Initially the local authority seemed happy to contemplate that the children might be returned to live with their grandmother in Slovakia, but the social workers of a council that advertises its enthusiasm for adoption on its website then suggested to the foster carers that they might like to adopt the boys.

"By now the Slovak authorities were involved and could see no reason why the children should not come back to live with their grandmother. But earlier this year a judge found in favour of the council, ruling, to the astonishment of the Slovak authorities, that the boys should be adopted."

"The case has attracted widespread media interest in Slovakia, and the Slovak justice ministry has posted on its website a 'Declaration on adoption of Slovak children in the UK', stating that it has such 'serious concern' over the workings of Britain's 'family protection' system, and the readiness of the British authorities to remove children from their 'biological parents' for 'no sound reason', that its representative on the ECHR plans to challenge the legality of Britain's policy in Strasbourg."

"... the Slovak media claim to know of some 30 other Slovak children taken from their parents."

Read the full Telegraph article

But that's a lot of assumptions, Flatbread. You said your study provided proof, but it doesn't, does it?

Have you done a search for UK research?

Flatbread - go to familylawweek.co.uk or the BAIILI site - there are hundreds of judgments there for you to read, the data is already out there. The system is not 'shrouded in secrecy' - what happens is that a child's identity and horrible history is kept private. There is already quite a bit of research on what children think about opening up the family courts. Those old enough to speak say 'no thanks'.

I am off to bed now, but rest assured I have lots and lots and lots and lots more links if anyone else wants to doubt why I say JH is chief proponent of the conspiracy theories surrounding the child protection system.

There are entire forums of people in the US saying near the exact same thing as parents in the UK - CPS/DSHS etc, stole our children to give to foster/adopt parents (it's nearly all concurrent planning over there, so the FP's then adopt the kids), they are against us, the judge is biased, the SW is biased, it's a set up from start to finish and so on. Remarkably similar to the UK, no real difference except no JH involved. Perhaps they also believe it's a big government conspiracy, who knows.

Their threshold does not seem to be higher than ours anecdotally. I am a member of a forum which is nearly all Americans, and the situation they describe are very very simlar to UK situations to ours. Why right this moment there is a user there whose foster son was removed because of MSBP/FII and the case is probably going to adoption. Mother maintains she's a good parent and no reason for her son to be removed apparently. Most situations involve things that would be classified as emotional abuse - drugs mostly and domestic violence, same as here. Pretty sure that in many states over there if a baby tests + for drugs in system at birth, removal into care is automatic and not situation dependent

I don't see many differences between us honestly

Devora, the study provides compelling analysis to indicate that children are better off with their family than foster care, in cases where there isn't sexual abuse or life-threatening physical abuse.

The study is based on data from IL, but there is nothing to suggest that the findings are somehow unique to IL.

Not sure what you are debating...sure, we don't know whether the findings are true for the UK, but that is the whole point...we need more transparency and outcomes data and public scrutiny to study child protection decisions and their outcomes on child welfare

No, Flatbread, it talks about borderline cases. It explicitly says this is true of children 'on the margin of placement', NOT all cases where abuse is non-sexual or stops short of being life threatening. If you read the conclusion it offers three main caveats:

First, the study only looks at older children. It also points out that Illinois places more children with family members than the nation as a whole.

Second, let me quote direct: "the results consider a group on the margin of placement. While this speaks directly to the policy question of whether we should place greater emphasis on family preservation or child protection, it does not attempt to measure the benefit of placement for children in such danger that all investigators would agree the child should be placed."

And last: "the outcomes studied here may relate to child wellbeing as an adolescent, though they may not reflect the potential prevention of serious child abuse in extreme cases. To the extent that the children on the margin of placement are less likely to suffer from the most serious abuse, this may be less of a concern. Still, child welfare agencies may be willing to trade off higher delinquency, teen motherhood, and unemployment rates for slightly lower levels of serious abuse."

I think it is an interesting study and it is a very important issue. Undoubtedly it hurts children to be taken from their families. Undoubtedly it hurts children to stay with abusive families. How can we get as clever as possible at deciding the best path of action to take? If we decide a child is, on balance, better off staying with the family, how do we support their situation within that family?

These are vitally important questions. But the study does NOT say children are better off with their family where there isn't sexual abuse or life-threatening physical abuse. I am debating your interpretation of this study because evidence is IMPORTANT and because if policymakers followed your interpretation it would mean living vast numbers of children in abusive situations when they would be better off taken out of it.

It is YOUR assumption that borderline cases = non-sexual and non-life threatening abuse. I don't think that's a definition that you'll find in child protection policy.

Sorry if I'm being pedantic but I do think it's terribly important to understand what research does and does not say.

Devora, if it is life threatening abuse and/or sexual abuse, the children are not marginal cases. They would definitely go into care.

So yes, marginal cases are where there is likely abuse, but of lesser severity. And in these cases, the study suggests that children who stayed with their family had better outcomes on average than children placed in foster care.

The larger point though, is that we need data-driven studies like this in the UK to guide policy-making and to hold institutions accountable.

Abuse, even if it is not life threatening, is unlikely to be a marginal case. Children who are beaten regularly or neglected, even if not to the point where they risk death, are unlikely to be marginal.

There is a big spectrum between life-threatening physical assaults and marginal cases.

Yes, Flatbread, life threatening abuse is not marginal. But lots of non-life threatening and non-sexual abuse is not marginal, either.

For example, in this country I'm guessing that 'all investigators would agree a child should be placed' where a child lives in a crack den, frequently witnessing domestic violence, given class A drugs, never sent to school, under-nourished, no proper bed, dog shit everywhere, frequently beaten, insulted and bullied. Not life-threatening, not sexual, but not marginal either.

In the US at least, you can be home schooled, so not sending a child to school is not a red flag. And lots of children witness domestic abuse. I think in your example, if you leave out the class A drugs bit, you have what is probably a marginal case in the study.

And the findings indicate these children better off with their families, on average, than being taken into care.

And I think you don't understand research or child protection. But we'll have to agree to disagree

Sorry, you are saying situations where children are subject to physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse and witness domestic violence and drug abuse, and are denied an education (not the same as being home schooled) - and you would consider that "marginal"?

Err, I have a PhD from the same university as the author, so I guess I do understand research.

Oh blimey, do you? Well, then I REALLY don't understand your argument. But my apologies anyway

Yes, and statistical analysis is my area of expertise

Hence my wariness of emotions as a guide to policy-making. This should always be based on data.

Well, I agree that policy should be based on evidence. But evidence is more than data (and policy is MY area of expertise).

Still can't agree with your interpretation of that study, though. And I can't agree that we don't have evidence about what happens in the UK, either.

Am off to bed now. Will be getting up early with a child whose birth family would have probably fit your definition of 'marginal' but were definitely considered unquestionably unfit to care for a child by everyone else who came into contact with them. There's some understanding that statistics can't give you.

Night all.

Devora, sorry, you are not making much sense.

I guess you are a socials worker and hence trying to justify your/your colleagues decisions to take children away from the families.

This is precisely why the system needs to be transparent and data on decisions and outcomes available to independent researchers, academics and think-tanks.

So social workers can't hide their heads in the sand and make emotional judgements. Instead they, and their superiors, will be held accountable for their decisions and long -term outcomes for the children.

Social service worker, I meant to say

I have read none of these things but what Flatbread is saying makes a lot of sense to me. On the whole your birth family do better for you and care and fostering is pretty awful and this is what social workers in the Uk think anyway . On the whole they work very hard to help those families who are having problems. I don't think we really disagree.

We just seem to disagree over whether it is helpful to have outside scrutiny which I think it is, people unconnected to anyone else, lawyers who are not linked, experts who are separate, charities, third parties. The more independent checks and balances the better as the decisions are so very important. As we all know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Xenia, the problem is that vulnerable adults are protected by the same la as protects vulnerable children. And a fair proportion of the parents who neglect and abuse their children to the point of care orders being put into place will be vulnerable themselves.

Help organisations provide legal help to those patents by ask means, but there needs to be a statutory duty for someone to help then so people don't get missed. this really needs a branch of government.

"On the whole your birth family do better for you and care"
Are you talking about "ordinary" families ,in which case I woud say yes,
or families where children are suffering emotional abuse, physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse etc. Anything from one of them to all of them and more. In which case the answer is no.

Agree with your second paragraph, so long as the people doing the checks and balances are suitably behaved themselves.

Flatbread, so you can't understand what Devora is saying, and rather than ask for clarification you dismiss her and an entire profession?

I don't think she is a social worker, but if she is so what? She has been unfailingly polite and informative.

So you would rather wave your conspiracy flag than engage in debate?

I am not a social worker but presumably if I continue to try to engage with you to explain the reasons why children are removed - read any of the cases on family law week yet? - you would simply dismiss me as another conspiracy drone? Or possibly shrill? (a word by the way you would NEVER have used to describe me if you thought was a man).

I had thought that post grad qualifications of the kind you say you have would indicate an inquiring mind and not only an ability but a desire to explore an argument in some detail - not simply dismiss whatever does not fall within the parameters of your preconceptions.

Oh I have an inquiring mind. Which is why I look at research, not anecdotes.

I don't have preconceptions on this issue. Show me the data-driven research that shows foster care leads to better outcomes for children, and I will examine with an open mind.

Flatbread, do you have any personal experience of foster care?