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.

How long should they be in the care of that public body, presuming no new evidence about the birth parents comes to light?

forever Holly? that child has to stay in care for their whole childhood?
Have you ever looked at the outcomes for children in the care system?

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

In a lawsuit for damages you have a plaintiff who brings the action and a defendant against whom the action is brought. The plaintiff and the defendant each refer to the other as the hostile party. Even in out-of-court settlement negotiations before an action is formally initiated (when it is still only prospective plaintiff and prospective defendant).

MrsBW Sat 18-Jan-14 18:52:34 > How long should they be in the care of that public body, presuming no new evidence about the birth parents comes to light?

As long as it is necessary. Isn't that obvious?

New evidence is not limited evidence about the mother (and in some cases father), but it could be other evidence, such as new evidence about the child.

roadwalker > Have you ever looked at the outcomes for children in the care system?

No. If it need to be improved then it should be improved.

I don't see a problem with these people who wish to raise a child doing so. I do see a problem with formal adoption because it is irreversible. It it were not irreversible that would be different. Just like you can't bring a executed person back from the dead.

Isn't it obvious?? Only, perhaps, to someone with either an overly simplistic view of this, or someone who believes the rights of birth parents trump those of the children.

How long is necessary? How do you tell in which cases new evidence may come to light and in which it won't?

You're advocating all children remaining in care and none ever being adopted.

As Kew said previously; children don't come with a barcode you can scan to tell whether their parents harmed them or not.

Who do you think will volunteer to raise children if adoption were reversible?

I should have written "I do see a problem with unconsented formal adoption because it is irreversible".

Where there is no dispute so that the mother consents (and is competent to consent) there is no problem.

who's got the handy pocket wall again?

what if the mother consents and the father doesn't

what if a parent admits to harming the child but doesn't consent?

Holly - have you ever asked or read about what children want who are waiting to be adopted or have been adopted? Perhaps if you had, your romantic views would not be so naive.

I have to say that your words are actually upsetting me as an adoptive parent. I am not going to follow this thread or any of the other equally blinkered threads.

Absolutely - for the parents who contest the adoption - what you say puts their rights first and foremost but - and I think it was as far back as the Children's Act 1989 - it has been clear for quite a while now that the rights of children must come first - even if it contradicts the rights and wishes of the parents.

what if the parents partner harms the child but parent doesn't consent?

what if "someone" harmed the child but who knows which partner - they stay together and won;t consent. child is punished by being in care for life.

You do realise care for life means probably sevreal moves of foster carers, schools, friends?

Holly
Outcomes for children in care, who lived with paid carers who are not their parents, often several families throughout their childhoods, are poor. Outcomes for children who achieve permanence, stability, adoption, are much better.
I care about and value the rights of birth parents. I have had long and involved working relationships with birth parents who have children removed and adopted. However, children cannot, cannot, cannot be left to fester in the care system just in case parents can turn things around. Children have timescales, they are much shorter than adults', and that's just a fact. Children Come First.

I had a look at the family law website, after so many threads on here recently about "forced adoptions".

I read about five or six cases. I would recommend it to anyone who wonders how things work (although it is very sad reading I have to say). In all the ones I looked at I thought the Court very fair.

Parents always have the option to contest the adoption. They have legal representation, the right to request additional assessments and make their views known. If they can't convince the judge that they are fit to parent then adoption will be granted (not forced). Plus, there are so many steps prior to adoption orders being granted at which point parents could make the necessary changes. The notion of 'forced adoption' is so misleading.

Holly, it is clear to me that you are not at all concerned with the welfare of the child
Even if there were the best care system ever it is not the same as being raised in a family on a permanent basis
Do you believe children are a parents possession without any human rights of their own?

My DD's birth mother was brought up by the state - she and all 7 siblings lived in a children's home. Hand's up who is surprised that she didn't know how to form safe and secure adult relationships or be a stable parent? Hand's up who thinks that DD should have been brought up by her maternal grandparents (the other alternative often bandied around)?

Of course in an ideal world DD's BM would have received adequate support so that she had a better chance of living a normal adult life with a happy and stable family. But until that ideal works exists, we need to have a system that allows some children the opportunity to have the sort of childhood most of us take for granted. For a number of children - particularly those who are young when take m into care - I believe the best system is permanent , irreversible adoption .

MrsBW Sat 18-Jan-14 19:05:32 > Who do you think will volunteer to raise children if adoption were reversible?

I'm not sure you want the answer, but it is that those who put their own interests first would drop out because they aren't being offered what they want. Those who put the child's interests first would stay in because they want to help the child be raised well.

I note from the subject radio program that Belgium does not allow unconsented adoptions and the kids there seem to do just fine.

If adoptions were reversible, good luck with dealing with every abuser, paedophile or even every woman who would like to raise her child but just is totally incapable of doing it, who launches a court case to get their child back

You know who it would hurt the most to make adoptions reversible? The children

The children who need every reassurance that they're safe now. The children who struggle and suffer with every uncertainty and need every bit of security they can get

Adoption shouldn't be treated as any different as having your birth child. As in, there needs to be a threshold of significant harm/risk of significant harm in order to take a child from it's lawful (real, true, etc) adoptive parents, just as there is to take any child from it's parents. I don't see how two miscarriages of justice instead of one miscarriage of justice, makes a right

Holly you have ZERO idea of which you speak.
Foster carer shortage
Difference between foster care and adoption
Permanence
Attachment
Identity
^a few things you might like to google

Holly, you say that children in Belgium who have been in the care system all their childhood as their parents refused consent to adoption "seem to do just fine". Could you point us to your evidence for that?

Could you also clarify which jurisdiction you were talking about when you gave us your legal definitions? Only in England and Wales we haven't had plaintiffs for years, and we talk about the opposing party or opponents, not the hostile party.