Elsie Scully-Hicks

[Elephantgrey]

How can you understand how someone can harm such a tiny baby. My husband knew Matthew Scully-Hicks and said you would never imagine he would be the sort of person to do something like this. When we first heard about it we imagined that he had just snapped but seeing the news report he inflicted so many injuries on her since the day she arrived. It's just heartbreaking.

Navigating bear traps can be exactly how it feels on here sometimes

Don't worry the worst anyone can do is rant at you.

Its, obviously any system will have mistakes, and you have clearly witnessed some through one family member. However, to call adopters 'vultures' is entirely reprehensible and monstrously insensitive.

Children are placed for adoption for good reason, and there are major checks and balances around those decisions. My DD (adopted) has older siblings who have had to go into long term foster care and I wouldn't wish their early life experiences on my worst enemy.

Battleax very good point cheers!?

No idea where the ? came from

Would it be stating the obvious to remind those who are concerned about same sex adoption that the overwhelming, vast majority of children in care are there because their hetrosexual parents abused, neglected or otherwise let them down?

TheFirstMrsDV unfortunately it shouldn’t have to be said, but I think it was very much needed!

Itstaken
I am 100% in agreement that there is not enough help for birth parents.
Its getting worse.
Another potential fall out from massive cuts is that there is less and less support for parents of disabled children. This WILL lead to family breakdown and more disabled children in care. They won't be freed for adoption and will probably have to go into residential care

But I have watched a relative get thousands and thousands of pounds worth of intervention over two years before her child was removed.
Two years is a very, very long time for a young child.

We have to remember that for every struggling parent in need of help, support, lengthy intervention, there is at least one child waiting for their parent to be able to care for them adequately.

How do we balance that out?

In relationship the childcare is split exactly 50/50 and always has been.

Double - this is one area where adoptive parenting isn't the same as birth child parenting, at least in the early years. Vulnerable children need to form a secure bond with one, primary care-giver. This is usually the mother (though adoption leave policies in different companies often mean that the father is the one who stays at home the longest to perform this role). 50/50 care is not ideal for a small child who has already lost at least two families before being placed with their adoptive family (their birth parents and at least one foster family)

I know your point was mostly about men being able to look after children perfectly well, but just to clarify that 50/50 parenting for adopted children early in their placement is not recommended

Olenna its been a while since we adopted and one of was expected to give up work. Fairly recently there was a new adopter on MN who was told she was being precious about who spoke to her DC. On the face of it she did seem OTT but she explained about 'funnelling' (I think it was called that) and her anxiety made sense.

I am not sure I agree its the best thing but I could see what the thinking was behind it. They expected the OP to be pretty much the only person to interact in any significant way with the child.

I don't know if you or any of the other adopters have heard of that?

Rainatnight, I think my position is quite clear. As a counsellor, and family member of an SW, I hear things that most adopters wouldn't ever be privy to. I think I made myself clear with the 'vultures' comment too, which was that I was referring specifically to the adopters who take on children who have been 'made available' through 'risk of future emotional harm' and that they go on to refuse contact with natural parents, and never dare to ask the SW what steps they took to keep the family together. It seems to me that some adopters are happy to have any child that comes their way for any reason. As I said, I have witnessed a rejection in my family, the child rejected a family member of mine. It's ugly. Let me tell you something, if you as an adopter, find out that your child was 'MADE' available (repeated psych assessments etc.) and your child rejects you for that, then my use of language will be the least of your worries. I would also go on to say that SW in family also fostered, I have seen abused and neglected children, I have worked with abused or neglected children, and the adopters who take those children in and give them a family I hold in the absolute highest esteem. However, the ones who ask no questions, and take children made available for 'future risk', without a second look back at the devastated natural parents, I will continue to call them vultures.

itstaken, I think you may be confused - it’s not the adopters who remove the children from their birth families, it’s SWs and judges. Save your bile for them. If a child has been removed all the adopters in the world asking insightful and probing questions is not going to result in child being returned to birth family.

MrsDV, yes, funnelling is current recommendation. Care giving absolutely only to be done by parents, contact with others restricted.

Future risk:
You walk into a bar, in the corner there is a couple, clearly working class, he has work boots on, and she has a leopard print hoodie, eeesh, you don't like the look of them. You find out that the girl is 26, at 14 years old she ran away from home a few times, and self harmed up until she was 17. Clearly she had a bad relationship with her Mum, and she is unstable right? Look at her partner, 27 years old, grew up with a single Mum, smokes joint from age 15 to 23, was arrested for criminal damage twice, and common assault twice. But aged 19, he was offered a mechanics course, so he went on that and tried to turn things around, he reduced the amount of dope he smoked, but didn't give up completely. I'm sure if you got the woman to see a psych, that if you do that twice and get a good report, that if you put her in with a lesser qualified psych, who you offer a nice bounty to, that she could well be diagnosed with BPD, which would make her dangerous right. As for the lad, he might relapse into violence?

You take a deep breath, walk outside, and call the police. 'What's the emergency', you reply ' you have to help me, there is a risk that in the future I will be emotionally harmed', and explain the parents past. The emergency services operates has a unit dispatched to you immediately, and has the couple sentenced to 18 years imprisonment (the same amount of time people lose with their children) but actually, it's decided that they will be IPP, so they have an undetermined sentence (might not even finish at 18 years).

Now, if you cannot see why THAT would be wrong, then you are the sort of person I call a vulture.

As for historical evidence, a woman I counselled (had she not have shown me the paperwork, I would not have believed her) was said to be a risk of unstable relationships because of an incident of DV between her parents in Oct 83. Which is an interesting accusation because she was only born in April 83. Now THAT is the sort of evidence being used against parents who are fighting 'future risk' accusations.

I would like to add, and I am thinking about my 'foster cousins' as I write this. I whole heatedly wish every adopter who took on a child that NEEDED a loving home the absolute best, I truly hope that the natural parents back the eff off and leave you to do what they couldn't/wouldn't because that would be the right thing for them to do. However, for those who are happy that a child is made available at any cost, because they aren't the ones paying out. I don't need to wish you any misery, that will come when the child learns why it was adopted.

And it’s still not adopters removing the children from their birth families. You are blaming the wrong people.

Itstaken
You being a counsellor and having a relative as a SW doesn't exactly give you insight into the adoption process.

No child would be removed from a parent because they witnessed DV as a child.
Your 'client' may well have shown you the paperwork.
What she didn't do was tell you the whole story.
If you are a counsellor and you don't understand how difficult it is for birth parents to admit the part they played in their child's removal you really shouldn't be practicing

I have know a lot of 'counsellors' and I wouldn't have trusted at least half of them to read out a recipe let alone guide anyone through difficult aspects of their lives.

I could put a sign over my door tomorrow with counsellor written on it and it wouldn't be illegal. Its not a protected title. Anyone can claim it.

Oh and BTW do you really think its ethical to be sharing your client's personal story on this forum?

I don't. Good job you are not governed by a professional body because you could be struck off for that.

FirstMrs. Counselling is the job I do now as I am semi retired, and a post chemo patient, I don't have the energy for much else, that is not to say I am not, qualified and registered with a governing body, I am, I hold a Doctorate thank you. I changed dates to make what I was saying anonymous, Nobody could possibly be identified by what I am saying.

Fatberg I am well aware that it's not adopters who remove children. However, like people who want cheap pedigree puppies, they are happy to have the breeder bring the puppies to them, and buy one without seeing the Mother, when deep inside they know that the Mother is on her 7th litter, with a gut that drags on the floor, sleeping on newspaper. Does not not at least make the people who buy those puppies complicit at worst, or at best blindly ignorant.

The first couple of years of children who were taken post baby-p will now be around 8 years old, so what has started is now a countdown back from a decade into reunions and truths being exposed, if facebook doesn't make that happen sooner than people would like.

This remind me of when I was a young girl, working in a dress shop in the Laines. The manager didn't tell me it was closing down, but she kept holding sales, and not replacing any stock, and there I was knowing the axe was going to fall, but having no idea when. For all those who adopted abused/neglected children, I guess things will be different. It interests me greatly that as somebody who has counselled many adopted children, that my thoughts and opinions are met with such resistance on Mumsnet, it's almost as though some adopters are trying so desperately to convince themselves that they are parenting children who couldn't possibly have been procured through questionable assessments that they want to hear nothing but themselves and their compatriots telling them how wonderful and righteous they are. In contrast to those adopters are the parents who are parenting abused/neglected children, they don't need to worry about what I am saying, or feel picked on for it, they can be confident in doing the right thing can't they!

This is a disturbing read.

I'm a vulture. Right. OK.

it's almost as though some adopters are trying so desperately to convince themselves that they are parenting children who couldn't possibly have been procured through questionable assessment

Really? That’s what you think? Not that you might be wrong?

Holy crap, what a hideous thing to say to someone.

However, like people who want cheap pedigree puppies, they are happy to have the breeder bring the puppies to them, and buy one without seeing the Mother, when deep inside they know that the Mother is on her 7th litter, with a gut that drags on the floor, sleeping on newspaper. Does not not at least make the people who buy those puppies complicit at worst, or at best blindly ignorant

Not only is the language you use extremely inflammatory and offensive, the idea that potential adopters are the same as people who would willingly use a puppy farm is awful. Adopters who are prepared to take the commitment of helping a child to recover from the worst kinds of abuse and be the ones to step up and parent with love and support are fucking heroes! They’re the complete and utter opposite of vultures (again inflammatory and offensive).

If it weren’t for adopters who took these chances what would happen to these children? My brother was one such child, suffered such complex and extreme abuse he had numerous fractures by 6 months and has been left with epilepsy. My parents knew all this, and brought him home to complete our family. They are not vultures, nor are other adopters. Adopters (obviously with exceptions as with any family) are heroic, selfless and bloody wonderful people. Just stop it. Please.