Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

johnhemming
However, apart from denying self evidence truths and making false allegations the main approach of the apologists for the system is to be personally critical (the ad hominem attack).

It is where your argument falls apart. I'm a proof of that, because I've no contacts with family courts, I've no children, I've not been adopted, etc etc. List could be endless. I'm no apologist of the system, I believe this system works better than the ones in many other countries, although it is not perfect. Perfection doesn't exist.

What really got to me was the exploitation of the situation of a fellow Tuscan woman for your own gain and to push your political agenda.
Ian Joseph, on another thread, said that he phoned the mother. Therefore, it wasn't her idea to go public. It is you and the other (enter any vile word here for IJ) who convinced this poor woman to expose herself to the public.

Do you think she will thank you after she finds out what your goals are? (Pls, don't publish again your nonsense about her thanking you on December 4th with a letter, the shit hadn't hit the fan yet back then).

'it is the latest in a long line of reports where parents complain to the press in circumstances where they know full well that social services are prevented from giving the other side of the story. It's the sort of thing the Mail loves. I always think parents in this situation would carry so much more credibility if they would agree to all the documents being released.'

I am sure that those parents would want "all the documents to be released". It is not the parents fault that the authorities and the system do not allow this. This is part of what teh call for transparency is all about.

Add message | Report | Message poster johnhemming Sun 15-Dec-13 09:11:43
I am quoting from court orders. If you are saying that court orders are always lies then that is more critical than I am of court orders.

.... failing to mention that one of the court docs you quoted on is a case where the tribunal had to archive the case does make one wonder about lies by omission.

How does one miss the single most reported fact re to the Italian case you referred to ? The small tit bit that shows the tribunal couldn't find for the plaintiff OR the defendant.

Without the original doc in full I can't say for sure why, but suspect because they recognised they had no judiridiction over the case, due to terrirotiality NOT personality being a fundamental princpile of the law.

As to it being a deliberate omission or an accidental oversight... You sisd it here yourself, you understand Italian well enough. Certainly well enpugh to have read and analysed the Italian motivation of sentence in order to make comparisons with British judgments. Like many of us you wouldn't feel confident to translate it accuratly for public consumtion, which is perfectly reasonable, but it does raise questions as to why you posted the extract without giving it context.

I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. I think it is entirely possible that you were so distracted by the part posted here, (that you felt proved your point) that you poured over it to extract every little "win!" you could ...... and just skimmed and rejected to the sections that you didn't post.

But given that you are an MP that worries me just as much as deliberate omission of such an essential element. Becuase if you are so dog with a bone that you will only see what you want to see, rather tha being open to the bigger picture and prepared to evaluate in context... that does not bode well for so many other people's lives and livlihoods being in your hands.

This is a quote from the government's adoption czar. He is not a social worker and was once the Director General of the Prison Service of England and Wales

"He said adoption was at a historic low and had all but disappeared for babies, despite being a "vital tool in the child protection armoury", particularly for under-ones. " Only 70 babies were adopted last year compared with 4,000 in 1976. We need that figure to get back into the thousands so we need to quadruple it over the next few years – and quadruple it again ," he said."

www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jan/21/adoption-barnardos-chief-martin-narey

Has anyone asked what he bases this need on, given that he is not a social worker, but a czar . How does he arrive at a figure of it needing to be quadrupled and quadrupled again* ?

And the above quote is for babies not for older children in care.

I have a scanned copy of the italian legal document and have posted a translation of part of it. This has also appeared in the Italian media.

Incidentally Ale thanked me after all the press coverage.

'it is the latest in a long line of reports where parents complain to the press in circumstances where they know full well that social services are prevented from giving the other side of the story. It's the sort of thing the Mail loves. I always think parents in this situation would carry so much more credibility if they would agree to all the documents being released.'

Exactly. So, both sides of the story. Well done!

In this instance, on the other hand.... a few people were prevented to give their sides of the story because Mail and Telegraph had published a huge amount of 'bollocks' and they don't feel to 'recant' what they keep asserting.

I agree with some people saying here the system needs reforming. But as Claw2 stated, several times, there are plenty of British families who have been wronged and I've no doubt that the social services have acted in a horrible manner towards them as these parents claim.

It would be refreshing to hear the real stories and not some half-made-up story to support a political agenda.

Martin narey compares now to a time when single mothers were pressurised to give up their babies and prior to the abortion act.

Incidentally Ale thanked me after all the press coverage.

Yes, on December 4th, as I had stated in my post. Can you read my English?
If I'm not being clear, let me know.

This has also appeared in the Italian media.

Nope. It didn't appear in the Italian media. It was referred to in the Italian media. That is quite different.

I guess nobody had noticed this thread on mumsnet (check the comments too):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1933712-Italian-womans-father-sheds-more-light-on-the-situation

Has anyone asked what he bases this need on, given that he is not a social worker, but a czar . How does he arrive at a figure of it needing to be quadrupled and quadrupled again ?*

Probably this:

"68,110 children were in the care of local authorities on 31st March 2013, compared to 67,080 in 2012".

Placements

75% (50,900) of children looked after on 31st March 2013 were living with foster carers
9% (6,000) were living in secure units, children's homes or hostels
5% (3,260) were placed with their parents
5% (3,350) were placed for adoption
3% (2,190) were with another placement in the community
3% (2,140) were placed in residential schools or other residential settings

Adoptions from Care

3,980 children were adopted from care during the year ending 31st March 2013, compared to 3,470 in 2012.

It comes from here.

So with 58,000 children in foster care or children's homes etc, against under 4000 placements, you have to wonder why on earth councils would actually need to go to all the trouble JH imagines to take more children into care. Especially when they are harder to place such as mixed race children.

By the way, Martin Narey stopped being adoption czar almost three years ago.

nennypops, the number of children in care is irrelevant because Martin Narey's quote was about babies not all children in care

"He said adoption was at a historic low and had all but disappeared for babies , despite being a "vital tool in the child protection armoury", particularly for under-ones . " Only 70 babies were adopted last year compared with 4,000 in 1976. We need that figure to get back into the thousands so we need to quadruple it over the next few years – and quadruple it again ," he said."

The 4000 figure is what he says needs to be the figure for adoptions of babies not all children in care.

Martin Narey was appointed as adoption czar in July 2011 according to the Guardian

"Earlier this month, the government appointed a ministerial adviser on adoption whose opinion of current practices has led him to be accused of insulting social workers (by suggesting they are anti-adoption), wading under-qualified into a highly complex area and producing a reactionary, simplistic take on it."

www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/26/adoption-tsar-martin-narey-spotlight

Sorry, he does not say 4000, he says the number of adoptions of babies must get back into the thousands

Does anyone have the figures for the number of babies in care and what percentage of that number will Narey's figure of thousands be?

Yes, as claig says it is the baby issue. I see it as a positive thing so few babies are adopted compared to the 1960s when babies were routinely removed from unmarried mothers. I am not happy about the plan to take more babies. Taking more babies for adoption (which is the kind of child most parents who want to adopt are after) is not necessarily a good thing for anyone.

Interestingly whilst also supporting helpfully with publicity miscarriages of justice cases the Times newspaper has also been supporting the more adopted babies plan which I think is contradictory.

Claig the issue is still babies in care, not snatching babies to meet quotas.

Care proceedings can take a very long time this jeopardising a child's ability to form attachments to his carers.

Many care proceedings start immediately at birth. All that is being said is the adoption process should be speeded up for their benefit. No child should spend a year or more in care whilst fruitless assessments are carried out on hopeless parents.

I wonder if what is confusing people is that care proceedings are distinct from adoption proceedings.

Yes many care proceedings lead to adoption but they can also lead to family being helped and kept together.

"Claig the issue is still babies in care, not snatching babies to meet quotas."

I agree, but how many babies are taken into care every year?

Narey said
"Only 70 babies were adopted last year compared with 4,000 in 1976. We need that figure to get back into the thousands so we need to quadruple it over the next few years – and quadruple it again"

As I read it, this implies that thousands of babies need to be adopted every year.

How many thousands of babies are taken into care evey year?

" Many more children need to be taken into care at birth to stop them being damaged beyond repair by inadequate parents, the chief executive of the children's charity Barnardo's has told the Observer.

Martin Narey called for less effort to be directed at "fixing families that can't be fixed" and for social workers to be braver about removing children at risk ."

www.theguardian.com/society/2009/sep/06/children-babies-parents-care-barnardos

It sounds like Narey thinks that social services are not taking enough babies into care, and that he, who is not a social worker, but is a czar, believes that many more children need to be taken into care at birth .

Martin Narey, who is not a social worker, but is a czar, has "called for less effort to be directed at "fixing families that can't be fixed" "

Is he better qualified to determine which families can't be fixed than experienced social workers who have worked in the field for years, while he worked in the Prison Service and a charity?

Narey was Chief Executive of Barnardo's. The issue is if you are sure a parent will never be adequate however quickly should you make the irrevocable step towards adoption? I would say go very slowly with a few years of fostering first in case the parent improves or the father or grandparents become able to have the child. Others would say the quicker into adoption the better to get the baby bonding with its "new parents".

As I read it, this implies that thousands of babies need to be adopted every year.

It might be related to something I read about a few years ago. There were several peices in the media about something like .... how the outcomes for children removed from family of origin in the Danish (ish) system were so much better than those in Britian. If memorey serves, the system compared (think Danish, not sure) tend to give parents less chances to overcome their issues and are much more proactive at removing children from birth and adopting them out pretty quickly. Whereas (according to the thrust of the peices) the British system "over empahsies" the potential for parents to turn even dire situations around, and end up taking the children away only once they are a "damaged", hard to place toddler/young child.

There was a lot of comment at the time I think about how British SS shpuld look at the other country's system and take a leaf put of its book, by aiming to remove children far ypunger, far earlier and being less invested in turning around family envirments when the risk of a non turn around risked very poor outcomes for the kids.

Or something like that.

I don't know if it was ever properly analysed to see if the claims of the Danish (?) system stood up to closer examination or if the thrust of the argument influenced the British system in any meaningful way.

Carpe, there is a philosophy that believes that poverty and deprivation has a high probability of leading to crime etc in the future, and there are people who believe that broken Britain and broken families cannot easily be fixed and Martin Narey, himself, is reported to have

"called for less effort to be directed at "fixing families that can't be fixed" "

It may be that some people believe that the Danish model which you discussed above is a quicker, cheaper and more effective way of fixing Broken Britain and broken families .

Or... it could just mean some people believe what I was talking about....

...the thing about better outcomes for children when more proactive removal and quicker adoption is employed,

Mary2010' that's the worst of all worlds. The child bonds with the foster parents, has years of uncertainty, and then is more difficult to place as an older child who will probably have developed severe attachment problems. Certainly no -one should rush into adoption, but when there are older children already in care the balance has to shift.

This is a quote from Martin Narey which I think shows this deterministic philosophy of doom. I don't agree with it and I find it shocking and even disgusting.

"It saddens me that the probability is that had Baby P survived, given his own deprivation, he might have been unruly by the time he had reached the age of 13 or 14.

"At which point he'd have become feral, a parasite, a yob, helping to infest our streets"

www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/26/baby-p-barnardo-s

I would like to know how many babies are taken into care every year, I would like to know what percentage the thousands that Narey believes should be adopted make up of the babies taken into care every year, and I would like social workers to have more time to decide whether their families can be fixed or not

"At which point he'd have become feral, a parasite, a yob, helping to infest our streets"

Are those words, as in that is how he himself would describe Baby P as an unruly teenager?

Or is he highlighting how the gen. pub can be all "poor innocent angel" when a young child is being harmed by a very chaotic, dysfunctional and violent family dynamic....

.....only to then to turn around and vilify the older children from that kind of background when they aren't "cute" anymore ?

Almost as though they (gen pub) think it is evidence "own fault/self inflicted/fundamental/poor choices/lack of taking personal responsibility" flaw of the child itself. Rather than being a direct result of the upbringing they (the older children) had no choice other than to exisit in for all their young lives,

What with being a powerless children and all, with no say in how the family dynamic evolved or functioned.