Forced Adoption and the Mums on the Run - Radio 4 'Face the Facts'

[Mapleduram]

1230 Radio 4 15 Jan

Forced Adoption and the Mums on the Run
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pjf3z

Hundreds of parents have already fled the UK to avoid having their children forcibly adopted by social services. And more will follow, it's predicted , as the number of contested adoptions continues to rise. John Waite meets some of the "mums on the run" and some of the clandestine support networks that are helping them. Providing shelter, food, advice and money - all the things that are necessary for a new life abroad.

He also hears of growing international concern about the actions of British social workers, most notoriously in the case last month of an Italian woman who was forced into giving birth and having her child put up for adoption because she was deemed to be a risk to its safety.

One of the women on this program was on 'Woman's Hour' yesterday. It was a good segment, it wasn't all sensationalised. The mum has 7 children and ran because she wanted to be given another chance with number 7, but social services didn't want to give her a chance because she hadn't managed to parent the first 5 (they took number 6 away at birth). It wasn't one sided yesterday, they had other people on talking about what suport can be given to birth mums after their children are adopted etc, and also social services weren't castigated and they did say that well, many people would understand why SS wanted to take the baby away and there was a balance there, so I hope there's balance today as well.

Ah I've missed it already, never mind I'll listen back later

The programme concluded by pointing out that, yes, Social Services do not have a problem with forced adoption. However, Judges, advocates, politicians, Europe and parents do have a problem with forced adoption.

The arguments were balanced - but there is more oppostion to forced adotion than support.

What do you mean by "forced adoption"?

Because if you mean 'the principle that sometimes a child should be adopted without parental consent' then actually you will find far more support than opposition

One of Baby P's siblings was placed for adoption - was that a bad thing? Is forced adoption of that baby wrong?

The children in the Ian Watkins case? If they were adopted, do you think you would find many people who thought it was a terrible thing?

And the countless children in care who have been seriously physically abused, sexually abused, grossly nelgected, left with permanent brain damage because of alcohol and drugs etc.

You will find that whilst most people want change in the system and are horrified by genuine mistakes and miscarriages of justice, very few people think that children who have been seriously abused should stay in care rather than be adopted without parental consent. Most people agree with the concept of 'forced adoption' ie. adoption without parental consent

You should ask some of our Irish posters about how dire the Irish system is for children who have been abused and are denied a real permanent family, but are shunted around care their whole childhoods with little support

What do you mean by "forced adoption"?

Mapleduram, in that case what do you think should happen to children who are abused or neglected whose parents do not agree to adoption?

Or if a parent/s has caused serious harm or even death to a child, what should happen to subsequent siblings if parents do not agree to adoption?

They had Ian Josephs on the programme.

The same Ian Josephs who advises not to report sexual abuse of children as the children will then be snatched by SS to fulfill adoption targets.

The same Ian Josephs who states this on his website:

IF the "SS" threaten to take your children for adoption,make sure they never forget you .Hug them tight at "last contact" so they cannot easily be removed while you repeat to them that wicked people HAVE KIDNAPPED THEM and are stealing them for money ,and to say no to adoption when they try to give them a horrible new mummy and daddy !

THIS AT LEAST SHOULD HELP TO SABOTAGE ANY UNWANTED ADOPTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR KIDS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND GET IN TOUCH LATER .Not many "adopters" will want to take in a child who has been told to say "NO" to adoption in any case !

They did??!!

Christ, I'm not going to listen to it now
No way

But the term "forced adoption" doesn't actually just cover rare miscarriage of justice...the concept of adoption without parental consent covers ALL adoptions without consent, including the examples I gave above, and my own childrens adoptions, and the adoptions of most adoptive parents on this forum

I hate the term "forced adoption", I really do

My feelings towards Ian Josephs cannot be expressed in a way which will not get my post deleted

Yes Lilka - at the beginning. I wasn't able to listen to all of it and don't think he put forward his more extreme ideas - he was talking about how he gives financial help to people fleeing SS.

Well no, he can't sound like a responsible, decent person if he starts telling everyone exactly what he thinks...

I really hate the phrase 'Forced adoption' and I didn't really like this programme. The issue around the Italian woman who was sectioned has been horrendously reported on the whole for maximum sensationalism

Quite

Wondering if I can bear to 'listen again' before I email BBC asking had they bothered reading IJ's site before giving him airtime.

I thibk IH was on as well (well he would be, wouldn't he?) but missed his bit.

plenty of adoptions where the parents admit the abuse are contested. Are they not allowed?

How about cases where the parent won't admit to the abuse and won;t consent to an adoption but some of the children are old enough to talk about what they have suffered.
Are they not allowed?

How about cases where one or both birthparents can't be found or don;t turn up to court - the court has to waive birth parent consent in those cases too.
Are they not allowed?

In my experience the cases above are far more common.

Thank you Lilka, Mary Z et al for educating me on Ia Joseph's and his cohorts. Naively, I had never heard of him before or that MP. After the last couple of days - I have seen his name etc on the MN board and googled him. All I can say is OMG. Amazing someone can write such tripe and people believe it.

If you're going to look at his website, go to an optician and get some bomb-proof dark glasses first.

Haha

You might also need some bleach

And computer screen cleaner, because even your monitor will be tainted by all the bullshit

I still have my list of IJ quotes ready for copy and pasting should anyone else come to claim what a great guy he is

The issue is not those children who are found to be at risk of significant harm and are quite correctly removed from families and then put up for adoption. The issue is when children who are not at risk of significant harm and are adopted.

The most senior figure quoted on the programme was Sir James Mumby, President of the Family Division - Britain's most senior Judge handling child protection and adoption cases.

At 15:45 minutes into the programme he is quoted as saying:

“we have real concerns, shared by other judges about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption”

So, at the very highest level in the country, there is a concern about the issues the programme aired.

Maple - you're conflating issues in your last post. While the most senior judge in the UK may well have real concerns about why children are put forward for adoption, judges have the final say.

So even if there were SWs every week wrongfully putting forward hundreds of children for adoption, the courts can just turn down those applications.

Agree with others that 'forced adoption' is a very loaded term. Maybe we should call it something else, like 'adoption without parental consent'.

I don't have a problem with Munby's quote. I would be staggered if the chronic devaluing and low resourcing of social services was not affecting the quality of their work. I have dealt with some fantastic social workers, and also one (in particular) who was - and I know this makes me sound awful, and she wasn't a bad person - so unintelligent that my blood runs cold at the thought of her in child protection. When I was receiving children's reports (PAR reports?) I often thought they were really badly written and reasoned, and I imagine a family law judge must see quite a lot of those.

So improving the system would be a high priority for me. But I have absolutely no problem with the concept of 'forced adoption' and am thrilled to live in a country where abused, neglected and traumatised children can be given a second chance.

The issue is not those children who are found to be at risk of significant harm and are quite correctly removed from families and then put up for adoption. The issue is when children who are not at risk of significant harm and are adopted.

How are these different issues? Children don't come with a bar code so you can easily identify the ones who are obviously being abused to the ones who aren't really and the social workers are just pretending.

Like Devora I'm a bit confused about you point about Justice Munby - he is the person who decides so if he doesn't think SS have proved the case - it goes away.

I have personal experience of one social worker I thought was awful - very officious quite bullying and very dogmatic and four who I thought were on balance pretty good.

I would like to see a system that allows Judges to instruct social workers to get more training in certain areas. It would also be nice to see some more money out into training and retention of more social worker, more mature social workers hopefully resulting in a lowering of stress and work load.

I have also sadly (for the children) think we may well be approaching the point that cases might have to be more public such is the distrust of the public. That would be very interesting because I have seen a parent (a friend) very convincingly argue their innocence repeatedly until confronted with the evidence when she at least then did the decent thing and changed her plea. I was convinced - until I heard the details. Thankfully in her case her oldest child was old enough to be a very credible witness although she did try at one point to claim the child was mentally ill. If it had been an adoption case that would have been a "forced" adoption becasue despite admitting to the abuse, I don't doubt for a second that she wouldn't have voluntarily given up her control over her children