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.

Claw 2 they were not removed.
Look at the link
59 per cent of the looked after children were subject to a care order .
The rest would suggest were receiving services and were not under a care order.

Ah I see.

Guess we'd better go back to trawling through Hansard for the last [insert how many years JH has been an MP] then.

What, no takers?

Maryz do you think so, seems an extremely low figure to be in receipt of services if DWP figures of 3 out 5 families experienced poverty (although more up to date figures might have changed, it still seems very low)

It does say why 'looked after' children received a service. I took 'looked after' to mean looked after by the LA.

Many were s20 voluntary agreements. Where correct me if I am wrong parents retain full pr .

Claw 2 my son was classed as looked after by the la because one weekend per month he spend a weekend at a respite service away from home. Due to his disabilities to give rest of family a break. But he was never under a care order. Looked after is not the same as a care order or being removed from the family.m

I imagine being referre by ss to a food bank could mean family is classed as looked after. It doesn't mean that by receiving a ss service they are under child protection. My son was briefly under child protection when my ex was a risk. But I left him with dc and no further action was needed.
He still receives services from ss as a disabled young person.

Claw I think several posters have spent some considerable time explaining that it really is not the case that children are taken into care because of low income. I have spent 30 years of my working life in Children's Services, and it simply is NOT the case.

Indeed if it were then LAs would be removing thousands of children from people reliant on state benefits or low income, and in this day and age that amounts to a great many people. JH's claims were not substantiated in his mention of SSDA903 that was meant to prove his point, and I don't think he realised anyone could get access to this by Google. It has been pointed out to you again and again that what was shown was that 1% of families were being provided with a service because of low income - in actual fact I think the figure should be far higher because people on benefits or low incomes are by definition going to be the families that struggle most to provide the basics for their children. However low finance alone is not and never will be the sole reason for removing children from their family

It is very often the case that in families where children do need to be removed because they are being abused or neglected that there are several other pre-disposing factors, such as financial hardship, immature parents, lack of family support, poor housing, learning disabilities, mental health problems etc. As devora says these issues are inextricably woven.

I'm not sure why you are unable or unwilling to accept this.

As for JH I see he's crawled out from under his stone again and my hasn't he got porky since the link provided for the 2005 case that set him off on this track of waging war on social workers and all his nonsense about forced adoption.

Yes nennypops you are so right JH mistakes us for idiots who cannot see that all his attempts to prove anything result in abysmal failure and his ability to understand quite simple concepts are severely limited

I think the man is unhinged. Seriously unhinged.

Take some comfort Maryz that your brain is not as mushed as the vacuum in JH's head where his brain should be.

Yes Cest, i appreciate that, i have a disabled son myself and 'voluntary section 20' could cover services for respite etc. It doesn't say whether they were removed or not, so we are still non the wiser!

Anyhow my brain is mush too, its late and im to bed.

Nana, really where does it state that 1% were only being provided with a service, i must have missed it?

and you have more information than the rest of us? where does it say exactly what amounts to neglect? As far as i am aware failing to provide for basic needs for whatever reasons amounts to neglect? Do you have the stats for low income resulting in failing to provide for basic needs? Why i am not allowed to question this?

The stats show legal status as care orders, placement order granted, detained for child protection, freed for adoption, voluntary agreements s.20 and youth justice.

This doesn't suggest just receiving services. Voluntary agreements suggests just receiving services and as far as i can see it doesn't say whether that 1% was included in voluntary agreements.

But still its late, im no legal expert or social worker, so i will bow down to your superior knowledge, not question anything and go to bed!

Thank you for posting that link - really useful. And obviously not hard to find or post so what is JH playing at?

Claw, it's quite dense and I have only skimmed, but I note the first pie chart is headed 'receiving services' and one portion of the chart is marked 'low income'.

I think we need to know precisely what is meant by 'low income' for a start.

If it helps, this is my take on it. Since 1999 I have been involved in 100s of care cases. Sorry, I can't cite precise stats as I haven't kept those kind of records. Of all those cases I recall TWO involving parents who were 'middle' as opposed to 'working' or 'under' class. These are not precise definitions of their socioeconomic status, but conclusions I drew based on their levels of income, education and home environment.

Does that mean the state targets the babies of the poor?

No. I absolutely agree with Maryz on this. If you have money then you have choices. If you can't or won't feed or bathe your child you can outsource this job to others. If you have a drug addiction, you can buy your drugs without stealing and you can pay for child care whilst you are high.

People on low incomes have no where to go. So their parenting deficiencies quickly become apparent.

I agree we need much more thought about how we help the vulnerable, how much we invest in child protection.

JH could do so much good in this field - what has he said about the scandalous decision of this Gov to cut funding to kids Company?

His energies are instead deployed into spreading fear with misrepresentation, misinformation and out right lies.

The ssda903 return from las provides a central database that can be analysed and I have a number of analyses including the one of adoptions in the year to 31st march 2011 which analyses those children adopted by the reason they were taken into care through compulsion not s20.

That is exactly my point Spero what is 'low income'. JH claims that children are removed purely for 'low income' and there does appear to be a category specifically for 'low income' (although it doesn't say whether they were removed or not). I am not on anyones 'side', I like to make up my own mind.

68,100 looked after children

50,900 foster placement
6,000 secure unit, home or hostel
3,350 placed for adoption

Only 3,260 looked after children were receiving services while looked after by parents.

Figure 5 is still showing 'low income' as a separate category to family dysfunction, family in acute distress or any other reason. So being on 'low income' appears to be a stand alone reason and not linked to family dysfunction etc as others have explained.

So im questioning it (and being treated like an idiot by some for doing so!)

More importantly and rather worryingly the second most frequent reason for a child to start being looked after by LA (and high percentage removed going by the above figures, not receiving services while with parents) is 'family dysfunction'

So why is the LA spending much more money on foster care etc, rather than providing services to help families stay together?

I don't think anyone is treating you like an idiot - I think there is a lot of frustration at the continually unhelpful interventions of JH and some of this is spilling out on you.

Fwiw I think the fundamental problem, as I have said before, is that interventions are piecemeal and inconsistent. Services are offered, then funding is cut. SW go off on long term sick, families have to deal with a variety of professionals who don't talk to one another. Services can end up duplicated or not offered at all.

I would be very interested to know more about Louise Casey and what she has done to 'rescue' the 120,000 most 'troubled' families in the UK who cost millions each year to the state in terms of intervention and services.

We urgently need a debate. I am sorry you don't feel you have been welcomed to it. I will try to direct my anger and sarcasm at its proper target.

So when a family has been 'helped' by inconsistent and sporadic offers of support and their children are still suffering abuse or neglect, there will come a time when the LA has to take care proceedings as the children are by now at imminent risk of harm.

If the state really were running a baby stealing conspiracy I would expect them to operate a little more to targets - as others have pointed out most children wait many many months for a decision re placement and by then they are very far from being babies.

John Hemming, there is a much more useful and thoughtful post on the very issue of low income families and adoption just above yours which you have ignored. Please can we have your response on that is being done to help low income families by the government of which you are a part?

What is being done, not that is being done

With comments such as several posters have spent considerable amounts explaining to me and i am unwilling or unable to accept their explanations. I have 30 years of experience and i am telling you it is NOT the case. Has a certain air of arrogance about it.I don't see why i should be willing to accept any explanation, based on i am telling you it is not the case!

I don't know much about how Louise Casey's work is going. But i would suggest some social workers actually trying to help families, rather than hound them and threaten them in times of need, dropping the i know best attitude would go a long way to improvement.

I appreciate that not all social workers are like this, i have met some good and bad. However the bad (whether intentional or not) can cause an awful lot of damage to vulnerable people, which goes against everything they stand for and doesn't fill people with confidence.

Spero i am not buying into the whole 'baby stealing' thing. I do think mistakes are made, for various reasons and money plays a big part, whether that be lack of and corners being cut or agencies being very protective of their budgets and trying to do things on the cheap, the right services not being provided etc, etc.

Some families will always be 'in need' of services, there isn't a magic fixing wand, this doesn't always necessarily transpire to 'at risk'

Claw, I think the problem is that several different issues are being discussed at same time. You have legitimate complaints about arrogance, high handedness and incompetence of SW you have dealt with.

I don't doubt your experiences - I have met them too.

The problem is JH and his friends will spin this into a deliberate conspiracy to steal your children and all hope of sensible debate is lost.