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.

My son was a contested adoption.His mother was given a 2nd chance after having 2 young children removed due to her habitual drug use. She fell pregnant and she was allowed to keep the baby as she had been a good girl and stayed clean during pregnancy.
What a mistake my lovely boy was found virtually dead with meningitis and she off this planet having taken heroin.
He is now deafblind CP epilepsy she contested the adoption, he should never have been allowed to go home with her!!!
THE CHILD MUST COME FIRST.

OP, I think it is extremely callous of you to post this thread under this topic.

I really, really REALLY hate this appalling 'SS steal babies' crap at the best of times, but to post it on this board? Despicable.

Really, it is disgraceful.
Not for a long time has a thread made me so cross.

What worries me about that summary of the programme, and OP's interpretation of the meaning of the term "forced adoption", is that there seems to be an assumption that every one of those alleged hundreds of parents who have gone abroad are innocent of any mistreatment of their children. If the emigration has been organised by IJ, we know from his website that there is a high chance that at least some of them involve families where at least one of the parents suspects the other of physical, mental and/or sexual abuse (or indeed knows them to to be guilty of it) but IJ has advised them to go abroad rather than report it to the police or social services. That means that the children are placed in even worse danger. Even if that is not the reason, it is highly likely that there are some cases where the reason some parents flee is precisely because they are guilty and think they are about to be found out.

And in relation to the innocent, going abroad is rarely the sensible option. For the reasons set out above, it unsurprisingly strengthens suspicions about the parents and could in itself be used in evidence against them. Where there is strong concern about the safety of the children, SS may well use Interpol to track the family down and seek to persuade local SS to take them into care. Further, if the reason that there is concern about the children is medical, e.g. a child who has fractures due to brittle bone disease, you're really not doing the child any favours taking them to somewhere where there is no automatic free health care and you don't understand the local language and health care system anyway.

I have just listened to this
What a disgusting and one sided broadcast. I have complained to the BBC
I know several social workers in child protection who have done fantastic work with parents, enabling the children to stay with them
The assumption that they are all innocent is barking
And they are all old men who are in these groups!!!

I know roadwalker! I'm a qualified social worker - I work with safeguarding adults but we were trained to work holistically with families and the fundamental belief is that where possible, you support families - none of the people I trained with went into the profession to 'steal babies' - I think that is a dangerous message from the media that ultimately harms children as it may stop people from asking for help.

I know! These social services conspiracy theorists could not be more wrong if they tried. Yet they won't accept the testimony of people who have worked inside these departments because we are all apparently a legion of baby snatchers who don't give a fuck about innocent birth parents
It makes me furious that people really believe that of social workers, who genuinely, in most cases, feel the absolute opposite, that is huge compassion for birth parents and a great desire to support them to succeed.

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html

*Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made public

Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named

Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
*

Bollocks
What about safety and protection of social workers doing their jobs? Do you understand that social workers are targeted by abusive families and are at risk of assault or even murder?

Having read all of Mapleduram's posts, I'd say they have a bit of an agenda ...

The thing is, because judgements are published, there has always been more publicity about these cases than the Mail would have people believe. I agree, I can't see what benefit there is in naming social workers, and I suspect that this will just result in a lot of applications to exempt them from these provisions because it will endanger them.

I think it will mean even more good social workers will steer clear of child protection now.

No-one could pay me enough to be a child protection social worker if I'm going ot be names in the Mail. Not for £1million.

As Sero says we get the system we deserve. Shortcomings in the systems primarily caused by the massive workload of social workers - what are people like IJ and JH petitioning for - name and shame the social workers. Not more funds to improve recruitment and training. Yeah because that'll encourage more of them to join the profession

sorry Spero

and then the Mail will be banging on about the shocking cases where children have died at the hands of their parents because social services did nothing - flog the social workers.

I have met social workers who weren't adequate and it was scary dealing with them but the checks and balances in the system worked pretty well overall. Not sure how it'll work with barely any social workers.

That's the thing isn't it kewcumber - people have this view that SW can click their fingers and a child is put into care - in reality no decision is made in isolation - cases are run past managers daily, I know for me, we are constantly discussing cases with colleagues to get other views, and of course the ultimate judgement is down to the courts.

So even if the SW was awful - they are not the final decision makers.

I love my job and I would hope that I am a reasonably good SW but I wouldn't go into child protection for all the money in the world - which is a shame because before qualifying I was quite interested in children's services.

The old truth is that "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." has been upheld.

It’s also possible that a child could be harmed by a forced adoption. It is possible to get these things wrong.

But as the family court proceedings are secret it is impossible for parents to complain publicly that a child has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Justice Mumby recently quoted:

“… We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the family justice system. This is something that has to be addressed with honesty and candour if the family justice system is not to suffer further loss of public confidence. Open and public debate in the media is essential.”

So, my point of view is that Justice Mumby has done the right thing by opening up the family courts to public scrutiny.

Here is his ruling:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/transparency-in-the-family-courts-jan2014.pdf

And here are his more detailed arguments:

www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/pfd-speech-society-editors-11112013.pdf

well it patently is currently possible for parents to complain that a child had been a miscarriage of justice - see Panormama programme and pretty much anyone who contacts JH.

What is impossible is for social services to release the details as to why they removed the child - so in effect the parents get to say what they like and social services have to sit on their hands and say nothing.

Many many cases are not secret now (see www.familylawweek.co.uk/) but I think the naming of expert witnesses and social workers is a massively retrograde step and will damage immensely the child protection system in this country. I cannot imagine who thinks that is a good idea except where they intend to pursue the social workers outside of court.

The facts are relevant not who the social workers are.

I look forward to seeing in black and white the real facts of the majority of cases which show the degree of abuse many children suffer. I look forward to the Daily Mail publishing all of there cases are "campaigning" (how exactly?) for more open reporting.

Actually it isn;t clear to me that social workers will be names - it says "public authorities and expert witnesses". That to me means which council and expert witnesses not specific social workers...

Mapleduram > Munby: " ... But as the family court proceedings are secret it is impossible for parents to complain publicly that ..."

Sunlight is antiseptic, secrecy is corrosive, no doubt about that. That is why England abolished secret courts in 1641. Secrecy has its benefits, but those benefits are outweighed by the harm.

That BBC radio programme was unfair and one-sided, very one-sided to the point of being outrageous. I have lodged a complaint with the BBC. Even the title of the radio programme "Forced Adoption and the Mums on the Run" was inflammatory for only bad reasons.

I truly hope they put on another Radio 4 'Face the Facts' programme that presents the other side of the story. Alleged facts are not really facts you can properly face when you hear only one side of the story. As is so common modernly. Silence on important matters is not effective or proper.

BBC: Let us have a follow-up programme to restore some of the BBC's reputation for truth. Please.

Kewcumber > That to me means which council and expert witnesses not specific social workers...

Social workers will only be expert witnesses if they write reports that come before the court (or testify under oath). Expert witnesses need to be named if plaintiffs are to be allowed to pursue in court allegations of bad faith (or incompetence).

I totally agree that social workers should be much better paid and have much better resources at their disposal. But secrecy, no, however convenient it is harmful because secrecy is a malfeasant's charter.

I know sw aren;t expert witnesses but it was reported as scoial workers to be named and I don;t think thats true - expert witnesses will be names as with the public authorities but I take that to mean the council involved not the social workers.

Way up thread (or maybe on another thread - there's been so many) before this guidance I said that transparency was inevitable.

Although I'm a bit confused about why expert witnesses need to be names in order to pursue in court allegations of bad faith. They are named in court so everyone in court know who they are - though quite how you "pursue" an expert witness who it transpires wasn't expert enough I'm not sure. I've no idea what the legal remedy would be.

Also I'm not entirely sure what is to be gained by the Daily Mail knowing who they are either but at least I have marginally more understanding of naming an expert witness than a social worker - mind you given the amount they get paid for it again I suspect there will be a reluctance for people to go into this kind of work.

A social worker is an expert witness if the social worker creates a written report that is made available to the court that contains opinion, not mere fact. (Example fact - Jane was in the shower when I arrived, Example opinion Jane seemed to be agitated and disoriented when I arrived).

Otherwise (with few exceptions) not an expert witness. The reason why a plaintiff has to know is because the plaintiff will need to name the hostile party who is alleged to have acted in bad faith such as in a legal action seeking money compensation.

Well if by "the plaintiff" you mean a parent (most likely) then surely they already know who the expert witnesses are - the cases aren't secret from the participants - only the public at present.

I can;t imagine that there's likely to be any legal cases - don;t the expert witnesses act for the court - I assume even in cases where they are subsequently deemed to be wrong eg Prof Meadows, surely it would be almost impossible to prove that they deliberately gave false evidence. Seems very unlikely to me anyway.

I have no idea even if their actions were considered to be negligent what case the parents would have - would be interesting to know.

But anyway - parents already know who the expert witnesses are - no change to that surely.

Why would an expert witness be a "hostile party" what a peculiar way to describe them.

roadwalker Wed 15-Jan-14 15:15:40 > 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?

At risk of being accused of devil's advocacy, I will take a shot at that.

What should happen is that the child is taken into the care of a public body.

The problem with unconsented adoption is that it is final. (I think unconsented is better than forced where the mother is unwilling or alleged to be unable to give consent).

In the same way that the death penalty is final. Which is that it cannot be undone if it is later discovered to have been wrongly applied. If we have a problem with the death penalty we have the same problem with unconsented adoption. If none then none.