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

[Spero]

JH repeatedly describes the entire system as 'corrupt' and 'evil'. He refuses to dissasociate himself from those such as Ian Joseph who say even worse things. So I include him in the conspiracy theorists camp.

If my client could have told the judge about the changes she had made to her life, he might have granted her application. But she chose to spend her time in court reading out parts of the Forced Adoption website which painfully and immediately underscored just how little understanding she had as to why her child was removed.

That's why JH and his friends make me so angry. Because people like her are told that nothing is ever down to them, nothing is ever their responsibility, instead all the fault is with the SW or expert who 'lied'.

Individuals within a system do stupid things. That does not make a system corrupt. The system is inefficient, underfunded and close to break down. That's what we need to understand and deal with.

The Websters case is a very stark example of why mistakes in this field really matter. They didn't get their children back. But remember one of their chi,dfen had unexplained broken bones. It turned out later that he had scurvy! The doctors missed it because they had never seen a case of scurvy before. You can criticise the doctors for negligent failure to diagnose. But how does this make a system 'corrupt'? What else could a court do when faced with a child with broken bones and no explanation?

[Spero]

Sorry, didn't answer your question about 'cash for councils'. I think any policy that encourges finding families for children in care is a good one. Outcomes for children in care are bad. Every child deserves a family, a place where they know they matter.

[claig]

And as for people who knock John Hemming for coming on Mumsnet and communicating with millions of readers, that is exactly what MPs as representatives of the people should be doing.

He doesn't come on on one of these invited 1 hour Mumsnet publicity chat sessions that other MPs use as they near re-election. He comes on and communicates in order to inform and discuss important issues, without any thought about re-election.

If only more MPs spent their time communicating with the public like that.

If you disagree with him, then debate it, but do so wuth a little less abuse.

[claig]

'But she chose to spend her time in court reading out parts of the Forced Adoption website which painfully and immediately underscored just how little understanding she had as to why her child was removed.'

Weren't you aware of what she was going to say? Didn't you ask her what she would say? Didn't you help her prepare?

[johnhemming]

JH repeatedly describes the entire system as 'corrupt' and 'evil'.
I have "repeatedly" said that not all of the people working in the system are corrupt. There are good judges, good (other) lawyers and good experts. There are even good social workers.

Still you (Spero) misrepresent my arguments.

[claig]

'Sorry, didn't answer your question about 'cash for councils'. I think any policy that encourges finding families for children in care is a good one.'

But didn't Labour eventually change the policy? Did they realise that it was a mistake?

[Spero]

Of course I advised my client! But I can't force her to understand! I can't make her see that it wasn't a 'little bit of drinking that everyone does' that got her into difficulties

When she reads on the Internet, and hears people like JH saying her lawyers are likely to be corrupt and in the pay of the LA, little wonder she won't listen to me and turns to bollocks on the Internet.

Very very sad.

And if pointing out why JH is wrong and why I disagree with him is 'abuse' then I am afraid I have got bad news for you about the next couple of threads on this topic. They arise with delightful regularity.

[amillionyears]

As someone who has some previous experience of the foster care system, up to 5 years ago, and very little experience of the adoption system, I am trying to make a little sense out of all of this.
I started off on the fence on this thread.
Then more towards johnhemmings pov, partly because of the woman on This Morning, Denise something, who always appeared to me to be very sensible.
Now I have veered towards Speros pov.
claig [who I have come across occasionally on other threads,and seemed to be reasonably sensible],if you dont mind me asking, and I am a bit wincing as I write this, you seem to be on the side of johnhemmings. What do you make for instance of the judge's judgement in the case above that Spero quoted in detail?

[Spero]

So JH, what IS the motivation behind SW who take older children into care?

You said once 'because they want to win'. Is that still your belief?

[claig]

'But how does this make a system 'corrupt'?'

No one is saying that the system is corrupt, just that it needs to be improved.


'Yet last Wednesday, Lord Justices Wall, Moore-Bick and Wilson concluded that the Websters, from Cromer, Norfolk, are ?too late? to appeal to clear their names and that the ?peculiar finality? of adoption means it is not in their power to overturn the order.'

'In his lengthy explanation of his reasons for denying the Websters? application, Lord Justice Wall describes the council?s ?belated recognition that they are fit and able to care for Brandon?, as, ?the only mitigation from [the Websters?] point of view?.
He writes: ?The children concerned have been denied the opportunity to argue that they should grow up together with their parents as a family. That is deeply worrying...'


In all spheres of life, we learn lessons and make improvements. What is unique about this system that prevents improvement?

[amillionyears]

x post by about 6 posts. Sorry, it took me a while to formulate the words.

[claig]

'you seem to be on the side of johnhemmings. What do you make for instance of the judge's judgement in the case above that Spero quoted in detail?'


I don't know about the judge's summing up. I don't know enough about it and would have to look into it and try and understand it etc.

But in general I am always on the side of MPs who stand up for the rights of ordinary, voiceless people against powerful people and powerful systems. That is why in general, of the little I know about it, I am for MPs like John Hemming and Tom Watson. I doubt they get everything right, but my gut feeling is that they do a lot of good and are often the only people who help ordinary people get justice.

I believe that all systems and bureaucracies and organisations contain flaws and often do not listen to ordinary, vulnerable and voiceless people. Anyone who tips teh balance in the favour of the public, I support.

[amillionyears]

hmm.
I can see where you are coming from.
I feel that there are flaws in that argument, but cant think of any right now.
Am also trying to think of people who have acted like that and got it wrong, but again, cant think of any right now.

[claig]

People can get things wrong. The world is not black and white. But it is about doing good and fighting injustice and providing a voice for ordinary people. It is about balance. We need to support people who question powerful bureaucrcies and powerful systems. Even if they don't get everything right, they are trying to do what is right.

For 40 years there were rumours about Savile and nothing was done. There were flaws in the system - a system that actually knighted him. Now there are numerous inquiries looking into what went wrong and hopefully changes will be made and lessons learned.

John Hemming has said that threatening whistleblowers should be outlawed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20093569

That will allow lowly employees to inform the public of flaws in systems and that will help prevent injustices being done to ordinary people.

No system is perfect, everything should be questioned and looked at, nothing is beyond criticism. Systems that cannot stand criticism and scrutiny are not in the best interests of the public.

The public pays for all these systems, which is why they should be open to scrutiny and to change if they contain flaws.

[johnhemming]

So JH, what IS the motivation behind SW who take older children into care?
I have not said all decisions are are wrong.
Secondly most of the teenage decisions are S20.

[claig]

'The Judge wanted to hear directly from my client about the changes she had made - and they were quite impressive, considering her previous history.

She stood up and read out large chunks from the Forced Adoption webiste about how her son had been treated as a 'commodity' by the LA who stood to make a large amount of money from his adoption. I watched as the light of interest drained from the Judge's eyes. Her application was refused.'

How does it work? Does she have a right of appeal? Can she state her case again to the judge, but this time leave out attacks on the system, so that the light of interest will not drain from the judge's eyes?

Are there any independent bodies that parents can turn to in these cases? Presumably John Hemming alone cannot handle all of the cases? Shouldn't there be an independent body that can appeal on behalf of parents or is there already?

[Spero]

'But in general I am always on the side of MPs who stand up for the rights of ordinary, voiceless people against powerful people and powerful systems. That is why in general, of the little I know about it, I am for MPs like John Hemming and Tom Watson. I doubt they get everything right, but my gut feeling is that they do a lot of good and are often the only people who help ordinary people get justice.'

I have already given you a number of examples where JH does NOT do good. But your gut feeling is more important? Well, I can't argue with or reason with a 'gut feeling'.

Read Ian Joseph's website and ask yourself - why will JH not dissaociate himself from this man? Interestingly, I have just tried to google and link you to his infamous 'golden rules' where he advises parents NOT to co-operate with SW even where their child alleges sexual abuse. He seems to have removed that one now. How interesting.

And why will JH repeatedly fail to answer simple questions? Do you still believe that SW remove children because 'they want to win'.

[johnhemming]

Shouldn't there be an independent body that can appeal on behalf of parents or is there already?
In theory there are solicitors that can help. Many, however, depend upon Local Authorities for much of their income and hence are not independent.

[Spero]

Claig - re my client.

Extremely competent solicitors had drafted her application and her statement. The Judge then wanted to hear from her directly.

That is what sunk her. I can't leap up and gag her in court. I spent several hours with her prior to this fiasco discussing what was likely to happen. I had no idea that she was going to take out several pages printed off the Forced Adoption website. If she had asked me for advice on that , I would have explaind clearly and in detail why this was such an appallingly bad idea.

Her child was removed because she was an alcholic and could not convince anyone she had insight into her condition and could thus improve in time to meet her child's needs.

She has a right to ask the Court of Appeal to overturn his decision but she has no grounds and an appeal cannot succeed. The judge concluded that the changes she had made were not enough and were not likely to be sustained. He was entirely within his rights to do this after hearing from her.

This is why JH makes me angry. He DOES NOT HELP people like this. He enjoys the self agrandisement, feeling important. He is not remotely interested in any of the issues which are causing real harm to families. I repeat - cuts to services that provided support to struggling families, cuts to court services. We need more social workers. We need more judges and more court time. What is he doing to agitate for change in any of this?

[Spero]

Just noticed JH post below. Anyone who works for a LA unlikely to be independent! What absolute nonsense.

I work for LA, parents and Guardians. Would you like to tell me why I am unlikely to be independent JH? Just what is it that you are accusing me of? Going soft on the LA so that they instruct me again? Complete, utter, offensive nonsense. A direct slur on my professionalism and that of countless others.

But we have been on this merry go round before. But do you see why clients find it difficult to work with their lawyers when they are told they are not independent?

[claig]

'He is not remotely interested in any of the issues which are causing real harm to families'

So if children are wrongfully removed from their families does no real harm to families? I suppose you think that Norman Lamb MP was also not helping the Webster family by taking up their case and talking to Jack Straw about it. Your ordinary person can't get to speak to the Home Secretary about injustices. They are fortunate to have MPs to take up their case.

John Hemming is not the Home Secreatry, he can't sort everything out, but he can help to fight for justice for some people who need help.

[Spero]

Like I said, I can't argue with a 'gut feeling'. You admit you know 'little' about it, but are prepared to accept nothing I say.

I do not agree that JH waving flags for the likes of Vicky Haigh is 'helping' the 'little person'.

I think he has found a band wagon and jumped aboard. I think he does real damage to vulnerable families. I think he puts vulnerable children at risk of harm. He advises people to leave the jurisdicdtion rather than co-operate with Social Services. As you may have read, he is quite happy to raise allegations of extreme seriousness against others without a shred of evidence to justify it.

So we will have to agree to disagree and I will have to keep banging my lonely drum in the vain hope that someone is reading this who needs to know that they should not blindly follow what JH says simply because he is an MP.

[claig]

John Hemming says that the system has good people working for it and they do good work, but he also says that there are flaws in the system and that injustices occur.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that John Hemming does no good at all, and do not seem to accept that any of the people he helps have suffered any injustice.

[Spero]

He is rowing back on this thread quite a bit from things he has said before.

Which is great, because this means he must now agree to dissoaciate himself from Ian Josephs and remove him from his website.

Is that right John?

Still waiting to hear why I am not 'likely' to be independent.

I have never said that people don't suffer injustice. They do. But not because of a system that is inherently corrupt and 'evil' - JH uses this word A LOT.

If he has genuinely changed his mind and is prepared to say so on his website, and cut all links with the Forced Adoption lot, I would be very pleased and hopeful for the future.

Perhaps he could confirm this himself.

[claig]

'I have never said that people don't suffer injustice.'

Do you agree that some of the people who write to him for help have suffered injustice?