Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services! II

[saragossa2010]

As the other is full.
There are far too many cases where the authorities rush to remove children and do not give both parents and wider family a say. Adoption is rushed through.
The fact a senior family judge is insisting he is involved in the rest of this case is a good thing and the more cases like this which receive publicity the better.

The point is it is like justice in China and Russia. If it's secret then those involved cannot justify themselves. If we have more in the public domain that is a greater good than any risk from disclosure to the children and parents involved. it is why open justice and published judgments and rights for all those involved in child disputes to use twitter, blogs and emails and no stifling of free speech.

Thankfully things are all moving this way and we lucky to have people like JM and C Booker to give publicity to the issues which need much wider debate. I would imagine most social workers and lawyers involved in this area are very happy that the issues get more public debate not less. Most professions would.

No?

What a surprise

I looked at the case you linked to, Mr Hemming. I can't see any way of reading it which supports the proposition you claim it supports.

These are the relevant paragraphs:

So - if either the parties agree to instruct experts jointly, or the parties' separately instructed experts agree, it isn't easy to appoint yet another expert because you don't like the opinion, particularly when that will lead to further delay. And what this case re-stated was that even where there is expert agreement, a further opinion should be allowed where the issue is of critical importance to the case.

And interesting comments on publicity at the end - seems pretty clear that the judge considered the child's interests paramount in terms of whether the judgment could be published (it could, with the family anonymised). How would taking away the privacy afforded to family court proceedings affect these children?

Any truth in this? Before I get flamed for even daring to ask, I am just a normal person, no political agenda, trying to make sense of this.

"Tim Loughton MP (East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities have received payments from central Government for achieving adoption target levels; and how much each received in each of the last three years.

John Healey (Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government)
I have been asked to reply.
30 local authorities have been rewarded for successfully achieving adoption targets in their local public service agreements (LPSA). The better outcomes and amount of 'performance reward grant' (PRG) each has received over the three years 2004/05 to 2006/07 in relation to their performance in these targets is set out in the following table. In addition, 13 local authorities did not achieve the adoption targets in their local PSA and hence received no PRG for this target. One local authority is still to make a claim

Local PSAs—which are negotiated between local authorities and central Government policy departments, facilitated by the DCLG—have helped to incentivise local authorities and partners to provide better public services to their citizens around priorities for improvement locally. Evaluation shows they have been successful in doing this, with real benefits in improved outcomes for local people and communities.

Local PSA adoption and placement targets: payments made to date under local PSAs"

It then lists local authorities and amounts awarded ranging from £685,134 to £318,916 for example

claw2
if you google it you'll see that it was a NuLabour policy that they scrapped in 2008, much to the delight of the fragrant Mr Hemming

is there a big issue with social workers having targets? if a hospital has targets nobody complains... as far as I can tell, adoption targets relate to how long a child spends between being put forward for adoption and actually adopted; I can't see why anyone would think that keeping that time to a minimum, while ensuring things are done properly, would be a bad thing?

the idea that there are targets of how many children should be put forward for adoption strikes me as ridiculous; I can't imagine anyone thinking that was a good idea and am sure there would have been a furore had it been brought in.

Thanks Talkin, so true but it has stopped now. I will continue reading.

Im just trying to determine what is fact and what is lie.

I am currently reading the site and the bit about who profits, seems there is big money involved.

Yes there was a target set in 2000 to increase the number of adoptions from the care system by 40% between 1999/2000 and 2004/2005, which was not actually achieved in the end and which was in response to the serious problems throughout the 1990's with children staying in care with the case going nowhere for years. The government wanted more cases to be settled quicker so they set targets for that, the sole intention being to get more children already in the system to be adopted without long delays. I have no idea how much financial rewards were given to the council (but remember it was only to the council funds, conspiracy theorists like to claim that social workers themselves get paid more if they get loads of children adopted, which is completely untrue)

Also, since before that councils were judged on the proportion of children who were in care, were adopted, but not given any financial rewards for good performance

Adoption targets were scrapped in 2008, so irrelevent for the last 6 years

Ah ok thanks Lilka, is there not still some kind of target on timing though?

@johnhemming

You keep posting meaningless stuff. Who actually gave you permission on behalf of the mother to publish her story? And who convinced her it was the best thing to do for her, you?

Because when the truth comes out, if she loses custody of her daughter because of your intervention, all your lies will come to haunt you and probably bite you in your backside.

Don't get any facts from Ian Josephs website, honestly don't. He has a real way of stating quarter truths and twisting it into total crazy

For instance, he takes adverts from voluntary fostering agencies, whose foster carers look after the hardest most challenging children, who often have major difficulties and thus the agency pays them a lot - up to about £400 a week...he then uses this as the basis to claim that ALL foster carers are paid £400 a week, rather than SOME of the ones caring for children with serious emotional, physical, medical or behavioural problems. Of course birth parents reading his site swallow it and then when a foster carer comes on MN and says "I get paid about £120 a week and my foster kids mum was ranting at me today and told me I get paid £400 a week, where on Earth did she get it from, that's absolutely insane" I'm thinking "from Ian Josephs"

desertgirl this government have introduced completely new targets related to timings (eg. judging councils on how long it takes them to approve adopters, and I think but am not sure, judged on how many weeks it takes to place a child following a placement order)

They are then publishing maps etc showing which councils are meeting targets and which aren't etc

These are very different to the old targets of 2000 though

@lilka

IanJ is actually posting on Gardner's blog repeating his (enter bad word here) for the delight of the commenters there. Of course, don't report abuse or you get jailed! Unbeeeeelieeevaaaabllleeeeee!!

Sorry but I try to contact abuse and rape charities at this point, enough is enough.

Thanks Lilka, sorry for the deviation from the topic, now understood.

Lilka, I never take anything as gospel from any site.

I will say its a shame they don't offer £400 a week to the parents of the hardest most challenging children with major difficulties! it would go a long way with helping them to 'manage' with things such as respite, therapies and equipment etc, etc.

I don't know how, especially in light of the Ian Watkins case, he DARES to have the audacity to tell parents not to report people who sexually molest your small child, to the Police. It's not only astounding, it's outrageous and disgusting considering how he communicates with women (usually birth mothers) who are in a very vulnerable position and advises them not to report not only sexual abusers, but also not to report violent partners. In other words, if your boyfriend beats you up and tries to stab you, don't go to the Police

Due to the nature of my work, just occasionally it hits the national press.
This autumn, one of my reports was like a rash.
I have the master copy.
I found the reportage highly amusing, and it made me utterly disrespect journalists and their political hangers on.

The fact that copying and pasting my name from the report seemed to result in spelling errors
and that all of the "exclusives" clearly came from the same police press release (with grocer's apostrophes)
was all too clear.

And has resulted in me always asking
"who is paying this person to ask this question"
as nobody does anything for free (or else they would starve).

I will say its a shame they don't offer £400 a week to the parents of the hardest most challenging children with major difficulties!

Very few people would argue that support for families in crisis with very ill or challenging children, is limited and not good enough. I wish families got more money and respite and support for sure

But foster caring is different, this is the state employing people to act as carers for it and expecting them to do training, fill out paperwork, have their lives filled with social worker visits, filling out paperwork, taking a child to contact and above all parenting a child who might have many needs. Given that fostering often requires at least one in a couple to give up work entirely, financially, very few people would ever be in a position to do it if they didn't get paid a reasonable amount

I don't think many foster carers are paid a reasonable amount as it happens, I think plenty are not getting anywhere near enough money

John.....still not got anything to say about Ian Josephs that isn't a really vague "well we disagree on some things, but we discuss issues together"??

Where is Gardner's blog please?

Lilka, foster caring doesn't sound very different at all, most carers of very ill or challenging children, do exactly the same and more. Give up work, fill out paperwork, fight tribunals, fight for their children's right to an education, social workers visits, taking a child to numerous appointments such as hospital, therapy etc, etc. If I remember rightly foster careers of very ill or challenging children even get respite as matter of course. Parents don't.

and on that note, I really am off now, have my own disabled child to care for!

Well done Lilka and maryz for your excellent posts on this thread and your attempts to inject some reason and rational debate into this thread. Thank you Lilka for your long post detailing the truly horrific "advice" being given by one Ian Joseph.

OK JH I know you don't like direct questions and you rarely respond but just this once maybe you can answer Lilka's very pertinent question in her post of today's date at 17.44. It's a simple enough question - do you agree with this "advice" by Ian Joseph or do you not? Maybe you agree with some of the "advice" and not all of it. Just tell us.

Thank you too Lilka or it might have been maryz for telling us about the book "Bubble Wrapped Children" that JH is pedalling as proof that "forced adoptions" don't work. Those of us who have worked in this field are only too well aware of the way in which children's experiences whilst in the care of their birth/step-parents affects them to a greater or lesser extent through the lifespan. We also know of the many adopters who are struggling against all the odds to help children overcome these early traumas, where they learn that adults are not to be trusted. We also know that post adoption support is thin on the ground and this is because of the lack of suitable experienced and qualified social workers available to carry out this important work. Cameron et al have slashed the budgets of all public services, including Social Services and at the same time are demanding improved services. It cannot be done.

Of course it is true that some of these adoptions break down and the older the child is when adopted the higher the breakdown rate. I am not going to quote exact figures as I don't have them to hand. No matter how much JH likes to believe and broadcast his view that this proves that "forced adoptions" don't work, it is because of the emotional harm that was perpetrated on them in their pre-placement experiences with birth/step-parents.

Can I just for a minute go back to the issue that occupies so much of JH's time i.e. "social workers snatch children from loving parents to get them adopted." I think there are only maybe a couple of people on the thread now who cannot see through JH's wild allegations that have no substance, so for them I would just like to make something clear.

A social worker has no right to remove (or even snatch) a child from their family FACT The police have power to remove a child from his family under the terms of the Police Protection Act for a period of 72 hours. A social worker can only remove a child once a court has granted an Emergency Protection Order (EPO which lasts for 7 days) These cases are heard in the Magistrates Court and the birth/step-parents are invited to attend the hearing. Indeed Magistrates are not at all happy about making such Orders without the birth/step-parents being present, but sometimes they simply will not attend Court. IF the EPO is granted (and the magistrates have to be satisfied that the social worker has evidence that the child is being "significantly harmed" or "is likely to suffer significant harm")the LA has 7 days to get the matter before a FPC to make application for an Interim Care Order(ICO) and again the court has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to grant the ICO. Just thought I'd make that point clear.

claw2 I think you are one of the people on the thread who still believes the irrational claims made by JH. The sums that you quote that are awarded to LAs for reaching adoption targets are in respect of children already in the care system who are placed with short term foster homes or even in a residential children's home, they arenot in respect of how many children are coming into the system. Everyone involved in these matters is of the view that children who cannot be returned to the care of their parents deserve to be placed in a permanent family who will care for them throughout their childhood and young adulthood and who will remain a "family of resource" to them throughout their lifetime. Adoption is one of the best ways of securing a child's future on a permanent basis and this is why an additional grant is made to LAs who are reaching the targets.

Incidentally Claw2 the money goes into the LAs Children's Services budget, it isn't shared out between social workers who have managed to "snatch" the highest number of children and get then forcibly adopted. Incidentally this term "forced adoption" is quite ridiculous because in all my 30 years as a social worker and middle manager in Children's Services I have rarely come across birth/step-parents who have agreed that their child should be adopted, and I would imagine this is the experience of other professionals in the field. Sometimes they have "voted with their feet" in the sense that they have not attended any of the court hearings dealing with the future of their child/ren.

SO come on JH please answer the question posed in relation to the advice given to birthparents by Ian Joseph ...........are you in agreement with this advice or are you not??????

Bloody hell Lake he's bonkers

He genuinely enrages me. I literally feel the anger rising whenever I get into a conversation about this man

Usually I ignore his ilk and it doesn't get to me....I think maybe IJ is different because I know for a fact he has been and continues to be in contact with a great many birth parents who believe him. It's knowing what he's doing to vulnerable people which is one of the most anger inducing things

As well as his 'all "forced adoption" is a crime and is evil and wrong', but then as adoptive mother of 3 who were definitely NOT 'given up willingly' it would anger me