Italian adoption case III

[Juliet123456]

The last thread says all I need to know about those in the system. It also the most legally dangerous thread I have ever seen on mumsnet. I hope someone has been through the posts for libel risk. It also entirely one sided and biased and makes me laugh.

The defensiveness of those involved in this area will hopefully disappear once we have the openness that JH and indeed many others are seeking and obtaining as the judges increasingly accept that it helps everyone to understand what are very difficult decisions - parents, children and lawyers and social workers and expert witnesses in this field.

It will continue to be important always to get to the facts and where possible publish the facts. I continue to believe that almost any of us could have our children removed if the state set its mind to that. If publishing more decisions and giving rights to parents and those involved and the children to write what they like on twitter, facebook and the like and to let parents and children even when separated communicate and talk about any issues they choose will help then let us hope the law continues down that course.

One could recite the first chapter of 'Stig Of The Dump' in Parliament and it'd be in Hansard.

Doesn't mean I really have a little cave dwelling boy frpm the Stone Age living nearby does it?

Oh dear, you really don't understand what objective evidence and references mean do you?

ssda 903?

what is that John?

does it actually give a correlation between the cases of children, taken into care due to 'low parental income' (is there a code for that?) and their adoption?

Are you saying that the percentage of children taken into care due to parents low income (again, evidence?) is higher than those children taken into care for 'other' reasons?

Evidence please?

To be honest, I find it a bit sad that a man who purports to have all the facts at his fingertips to prove his assertions seems to have such trouble accessing these same facts, and disseminating them to an interested and aware group of women, who, if he could back up his assertions, would prove an invaluable force on his side.

Why wouldn't you? It seems like such an easy win to me. MN on your side? Rocking!

poor little cave dwelling boy. are you sheltering him for his parents from SS?

I should imagine that not being able to meet a childs basic needs due to income, such as food, clothing, shelter, amounts to neglect and can result in a child being removed?

Isnt that around about way of children being removed due to low income?

Shouldn't the answer be providing more help for these families, not removing children.

I am seriously concerned that John, bless him, has form of processing disorder.

Fact A is fact A. It cannot be in any manner shape or form, supposition B.

An inability to process new information and integrate it within existing knowledge, and modify responses accordingly is a real handicap in society.

Claw. Removing children from their parents is a very time-consuming, money-consuming business. Let alone the cost of maintaining them in care.

There are thousands upon thousands of children, who if you were to meet them in their homes, you would want to snatch up and hustle out of there.It would break your heart, it really would.

LAs struggle financially to fulfil their legal obligations towards children taken into care. It is only ever a last resort measure. Often after years of support and intervention with the families involved.

It depends on what you spend your limited income on claw.

If like me, you spend it on feeding and clothing your child, not a lot to say really. We are poor. sometimes very poor. but we muddle through.

If you choose to spend your income on legal and illegal drugs over caring for your children, thus depriving them of a) a sober and responsible adult and b) food and clothing etc then eyebrows may well be raised.

I for example, cannot afford to heat our flat for more than an hour each day. Would ss take ds into care for this? no, they would see I had bought him another jumper/cheapo onesie and realise I was doing my best.

If however they came round to mine and it was freezing, and ds had had no hot food except for school dinners for weeks on end, and my bath tub was stacked with vodka bottles and my living room littered with little bits of scorched tin foil, I would not blame them for asking a few searching questions.

And yes Mary, sexual, emotional and physical abuse is in no way definable in socio-economic terms.

Its just harder to spot in 'comfy' homes. God help us.

Right ssda 903.
Less than one per cent of llooked after children who were provided with a service was dur to "low income ". ..provided with a service. This coule include say referral to a food bank. My disabled son was under the looked after stats until last year as he got short breaks/respite (they changed the rules now he is no longer "looked after " tho he still gets short breaks from ss)

Nowhere does it say reason for adoption low income but if it did I assume it would also be less than one per cent .
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244872/SFR36_2013.pdf

cestlavie!

wow! who would have thought a quick google could provide actual stats??

John, word to the wise. Google could be your friend. Embrace its power!

facts at your fingertips! Anytime you are challenged, whack 'em with the truth!

but not blogs. blogs are bad. mostly opinion. could get yourself in all sorts of trouble if you claim opinion is fact.

Just sayin'.

Carpe, Hamsters often eat their offspring, don't they?

No babee hamsters for adoption.

Bastards.

I am aware that these parents might have added difficulties, such as mental health, learning difficulties etc, etc. It doesn't make any sense for LA's to spend more on fostering, care homes etc, than it does on supporting families on low income.

claw2, there is of course a strong correlation between poverty and having your children taken into care. Because poverty is immensely stressful, and either causes or compounds all sorts of other problems, and reduces the ability of parents to manage life's challenges. People who are poor are more likely to commit crime, to be victims of crime, to get physically or mentally ill, to be homeless. Doesn't mean they're worse people, it means they're less well resourced to cope. (It's one of many reasons why society has a strong vested interest in tackling poverty and social inequality - for all our sakes.)

You also have to think of the difference between low income and poverty. In theory, the lowest income you can be on is state benefits level - so if children were taken into care because of low income alone, then surely that would happen automatically if their parents are on benefits? I'm sure in many, many cases part of the reason children are taken into care is because their parents are struggling terribly with poverty, but that is likely to be combined with, for example, drug addiction or alcoholism or simple inability to hold it all together - then you might get children malnourished or sleeping in dogshit or having no food in the house. But the issue is how their parents are coping with poverty, not their low income.

So I simply do not believe that JH has evidence of children being taken into care solely or primarily because their parents are low income.

A lot of la activity does not make sense. I do have stats for the small numbers (1-5) of children adopted because of low parental income.e

ThE link above says. Less than one percent were looked after and received a service this could be referral to food bank. There is no correlation made in ssda 903 between adoptions and low income it doesn't say

I looked at ssda 903 I did find Codeset for Category of Need 'N7 low income - Children, either living in families or independently, whose need for services arises mainly from being dependent on an income below the standard state entitlements'

So being on low income is a category of need and I assume if need is not met, a reason for children being taken into care.

My son is in the three percent disabled children looked after but he is not subject to a care order he just received a service short breaks

So this is the JH pattern: he regularly googles himself, gets mentioned on MN, klaxon goes off in the batcave and in he comes, lobbying pompous hand-grenades in his wake.

When he gets challenged for evidence, he throws in random quotes and references to unrelated issues. When challenged further, he tells people they can trawl through his Hansard speeches or chucks in reference to SSDA903 or whatever it's called, without explaining what it is and knowing that we won't know. When challenged further still, he loftily tells us he has better things to do with his time than to engage with the likes of us on an internet forum (he is vair important, you know). Or he goes to the pub.

supporting parents at home it the first and best path for ss.

Morally and financially. It can go on for years and years. Years, tbh, which we as random onlookers would NOT have wasted giving these parents the benefit of the doubt.

Sometimes it just doesn't work. Children have to be removed. But the burden of prove on ss to prove it to a judge is very very high.

Hence sometimes children do get very badly hurt or even killed.

Because without actual evidence, you cannot get a judge to agree to an application for the removal of the child from its family, unless past performance indicates that their is a serious risk to yet another child in the family.

Bruises CAN be explained away. Underweight children CAN be in a loving home. The list is endless.

IT IS NOT EASY to get a child into care, let alone have it adopted without parental consent.

Need for services eg food bank does not correlate to being adopted due to low income.

I am only saying that between 1 and 5 childrenare adopted each year that were taken into Cate because of low income.

John, quite clearly we are not going to just take your word for it on all these assertions.

Quite clearly we are not going to read all your speeches in Hansard (dear god what a prospect).

So why don't you just give us the evidence? I mean the EVIDENCE, not your interpretation of it.