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

The judgements of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court are not anecdotes.

My experience over 10 years at all level of courts is not anecdote. Some good hard data for you there.

I agree with you that more research into outcomes would be invaluable - I am particularly concerned about adoption breakdown rates.

But I can't take you seriously as you appear to be simply rude and dismissive of anyone who politely points out the nonsense of the various conspiracy theories. And no doubt, 'confirmation bias' is something that just happens to other people isn't it?

A marginal case I can think of is when children are taken away because they witness domestic violence. I have to say, that, to my mind [though not ever having witnessed domestic violence myself], that that is one instance where I have questioned in the past whether that is enough of a reason for a child to leave home. Though in the case of that that I know, the mum herself wanted the child to go into care, as she didnt feel able to cope.

Spero, you seem to dismiss everything as conspiracy theory.

You do know, I presume, that researchers have to declare are their source of funding, to allow others to judge if there is any potential conflict of interest.

For example, if a study came out saying smoking is good for you, and is funded by a tobacco company, would you label the people who questioned the results as crazy conspiracy theorists?

There are a lot of issues around pharama funded search, doctors courted by pharmacy companies, and the impact this has on professional objectivity. It is not conspiracy theory, but common sense.

You seem to think social services is above this scrutiny and scepticism, because they are supposedly do-gooders, and in your view, any one who questions this is a conspiracy theorist.

Amillionyears, I have no experience of foster care, no contact with social services. I am completely unbiased, and base my opinion on what data driven research indicates. I have no axe to grind at all, one way or the other.

If anything, the only strong view I have, is that social service policies should be based on research, and their decisions and outcomes available for public scrutiny.

And I am sorry to sat Flatbread that I can think of no other reason why you won't come out of your narrow world and accept merit in other people understanding and experience.

I haven't describes the child protection system as 'shrouded in secrecy' that phrase.

Forgive me I have misnterpreted you, but for me, that deliberate choice of such pejorative phrasing showed indicated what sideof the divide you all - coupled with your rather energetic personal attack on me for not polishing JH's halo.

I agree with you that as a society we would do well to look long and hard a outcomes for children and how best t break the cycle of abuse. But there is loads of research, going back decades now as to the impact on children abusive upbringings. I was horrified to read the research into neurological development and how body produces and handles cortisol as that seems to be saying that it is to late if no intervention in the first year of a child's life.

You do not seem to have a genuinely open mind.

Sorry, 'shrouded in secrecy, that was your phrase'.

Sorry, IPad clearly having nervous breakdown there.

And btw, I assume you don't accept the judgments of domestic and international courts because you seem to think they are on par with a cigarette company producing a report on lung cancer??

I really am baffled now. Have you read ANY of the judgments on family law week? Even a short one?

Flatbread. I appreciate what you said on your post last sun at 21.51pm about outsiders not having a real clue as to what social services are like.

Do you not personally know anybody involved on the system at all, that you can trust to give you a bit of an overview? Or at least their personal perspective?

Flatbread, I am not a social worker. I do not work in social services. As an adoptive mother I have an interest in the system and some experience of it (both good and bad) but no vested interest in protecting social workers.

I have a strong interest (professional and personal) in evidence-based policymaking and I still maintain that you misunderstand that research. I'm not attacking the research, I'm asking why you are ignoring its own caveats and insisting it says something that it is clear it does not say. I can only think it is because of your lack of experience of child protection in practice, so that you think there is 'serious' abuse (sexual or life-threatening) and 'marginal' abuse (everything else) whereas the category of cases being discussed are those 'at the margins' i.e. the minority slice at the balancing point of being taken into care, where small shifts in moving the threshold either way will have an impact.

And this point IS important because you are basically saying that unless children are in direct and immediate peril they are better off staying with abusive families than being taken into care. If that was the stance taken in UK policy, many thousands of children would remain in abusive families.

The research makes the obvious point that there are families where neglect, even 'mild' abuse, are harmful but not as harmful as removing the child from the family. This is more likely to be true for older children. Removing those children will reduce their chances of being abused, but raise their chances of ending up in crime, pregnant etc. It suggests that policymakers and practitioners should examine whether by moving the threshold up a bit, outcomes might actually be improved - for older children in marginal abuse cases, NOT for all children in abusive families.

What is confusing about that?

Oh, and of course this point is made only in the context of Illinois. You say we can assume that child protection practice is the same here as there; I say that's quite an assumption. It may be a correct one, but neither of us know.

Right, I'm not going to explain that research anymore. It's bathtime.

Spero, I want to know the impact of the decisions, made by social workers and the court. What happens to these children in the long -run? Do they have better outcomes in life than similar children who stayed with their families? If the outcomes are worse for children in care, does it lead to a change in child protection policies?

How will looking at court judgements tell me about longer-term outcomes for these children? What we need to know are the effects of the judgements. Not anecdotes, but long-term systemic data on outcomes. And then hold institutions and people accountable for the decisions they make on behalf of children.

Amillionyears, Why would I be interested in a personal perspective of a social worker? How is that more than an unreliable anecdote? For example, I can (and have) talk to pharma executives and individual doctors and they could tell me till they are blue in the face that the pharma sponsored 'business trips' to resorts has no influence on medical practice. But the data tells otherwise and it is ultimately data that should govern policy-making.

Similarly, a social worker can tell me that foster care is effective, the system has loads of checks and balances, the home situation is horrific etc. But at the end of the day, if the data shows that the children are worse off being removed from their parents, then that is the outcome that is most likely true.

flatbread is spot on. My concern as someone with a degree in Science is that the research on the effect on children of our approach is intellectually weak. For example when children are placed for adoption; some are never adopted; some are adopted and the adoption breaks down before 16; and for some the adoption lasts until 16 or later.

The research only generally considers the outcomes for the third category (and finds problems there). However, if you wish to test the outcomes of the decision on placement then you should consider all the children not only those for which the approach is relatively successful.

Incidentally Justice for Families won another appeal today (in this case for an adoptive family against the local authority).

Flatbread, not just a social worker. Anyone at all involved in it.
The children themselves, either in it, or gone through it. Voluntary workers, paid workers working in homes, people who have adopted, people who have fostered, those in the law about it, etc etc. it isnt just sws.
The people that speak would speak from experience of the here and now.

johnhemming, do you speak to the people above as well?
Not just families who yes, may well have genuine concerns about the system?

I think there a so many things going on in this thread.

On whether children are better off being removed from their birth family, I agree that there appears to be little empirical research that can definitely point to a best approach. Perhaps that's because the number of children adopted from care each year is so low that by the time a number of controls have been introduced (eg to take account of length of time spent with birth family, length of time in care, age when adopted, number of FC placements....) the cohorts are too small? Just a theory (not an excuse)

But I found [http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/filedownloading/?file=documents/surveys-and-good-practice/a/After%20care.pdf&refer=0 this report] very interesting, in that it asked care leavers (NB not adopted children, but children who were in long term care when they turned 16) what they thought about their experiences. The majority said that they felt they were better off being taken into care than left with their family. That has got to be important in this debate, no?

Sorry, this report

Absolutely Families.
Very good link.

From the MIT study:

Children who stay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care. Those who:

Were arrested at least once:
? Stayed with family: 14%
? Went to foster care: 44%

Became teen mothers:
? Stayed with family: 33%
? Went to foster care: 56%

Held a job at least 3 months:
? Stayed with family: 33%
? Went to foster care: 20%

These findings are from a statistically robust study of 15000 children over a 12 year period, controlling for a number of biases.

Amillionyears, can you please tell me how talking to a few individuals is in any way comparable to actual research? If two or three volunteers tell me that foster care is effective, am I going to dismiss the outcomes data?

To be clear, these are the outcomes for a cohort of 15000 children, of roughly similar characteristics and circumstances, who either stayed with their troubled families or were put into foster care

Whether you agree with the results or not, it is a pretty solid study. We need similar caliber of analyses in the UK

Using data puts all of your eggs in one basket.
Do all of it, speaking to people, volunteering yourself if you are able, and research.

I keep thinking,when you make personal decisions in your life do you base it mainly on research?
Yes you may choose to if buying a kettle or tv, but for personal stuff like choosing a partner or husband, does not personal experience come into it as well as asking others about him? Are you married or with a partner Flatbread?

That study.
Can we not conclude that probably the children who were taken into care were more emotionally damaged already, before they left their parents homes? And that is why they were taken into care in the first place. So it is not comparing like with like.

No, Million, if you read the study, it controls for selection bias as these children have a roughly equal probability of having gone into care or staying at home

I don't know what being married has to do with anything, it is a personal decision. But yes, my professional decisions are data-driven and based on robust evidence, as far as possible.

But your personal decisions are not.
And the children and then adults have very indivual situations. Which is personal. And cannot be wholly dictated by studies. fwiw, on of my DSs works in research. And he will say that it only takes one or two wrong inputs, to put a whole study out.
Since then, I have been a whole lot more wary of studies.

Flatbread, that is a very interesting study. Does it distinguish between those who benefitted from long term, stable FC and those who experienced a number of placements? Because I suspect that makes a big difference in outcomes