Judge slams Social Services over forced adoptions

[edam]

this is apalling but sadly doesn't surprise me after all the other cases. 'Best interests of the child' my arse. And see the unbelievably smug comment at the end!

I do hope the father gets legal aid to see a judicial review.

Well in my experience they do give the defence all the info, but its what is put b4 the judge in court that is biased. All the 'bad' stuff that supports their case coupld with their own interpretaion of the facts and theoretical risks. Sometimes this is backed up with reports from 'experts' but as these 'experts' are paid by social services they are very unlikely to be biased in SS favour

FORCED ADOPTION SHOULD BE IlLEGAL

SECRECY IN THE FAMILY COURTS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

In today's day and age, it IS possible to protect peoples' identity and NOT have secrecy. It's already done in rape cases and in juvenile cases and in family courts in other countries.

END SS's PROTECTION OF SECRECY and expose all their doings to the public.

I thinki it's a shocking case, hopefully a rare one. Please don't let this descend into a rant about Social Services.

Why not?

Why is it ranting about SS to point out a judge's opinion of this case?

Or that the continued secrecy with which they are allowed to operate is wrong?

Why not?

Why is it ranting about SS to point out a judge's opinion of this case?

Or that the continued secrecy with which they are allowed to operate is wrong?

I'm not surprised at all. I wish I could say I was.

Most of you will know that I have experience of dealing with SS and forced adoptions - I hadn't come across this case as my remit is advocating for nursing infants rather than for forced adoptions across the board.

But I am so terribly, terribly sad for this father and his child.

ok - no-one's having a go at social workers personally.

no-one's saying SW's smell, or that they have bad dress sense or that they're all intrinsically evil.

But what i think a lot of us do agree on, is that there is something very, very wrong with a system where injustice like this can happen on an almost monthly basis. And not just to children, but to the elderly and adults with learning difficulties among other areas.

I know that there are people campaigning for change. I also know we're unlikely to see change happening in the next few years. But it won't stop us finding injustice like this abhorrent. And it won't stop us trying to halt the secrecy of the family courts.

But i doubt very much that this will descend into a rant about how all SW's are bad bad bad, because i've yet to meet anyone who held that view.

I'll rant about social services all I want I know from personal experience that this is not an isolated case and the public should be more aware of what really goes on

it's worth noting as well that we are only one of two European countries that allow forced adoptions (Portugal being the other one I think) Often the alternative is to alllow a family unit to live with a foster family in a specially rergistered home to help the family work together to overcome their problems. Obviously in the case of abuse /violence the abuser is not allowed in the equation initially & maybe never. But uit allows the rest of the family to stay together under 24/7 supervision with plenty of support. Now why couldn't that system work here for many (if not all) cases??

Cos it's expensive that's why!! And yes there HAVE been targets for adoption in England (not Scotland) they were brought in for the best intentions, to try & re-settle more older children currently languishing in care.

Babies are easy to adopt, older troubled youngsters aren't so the pressure to move on a case to "tick the box" must be incredible.

Individual SW's are often NOT to blame (although some are) it's the WHOLE system of the Family Courts network that needs reviewing.

Message withdrawn

Vis a vis the professionalism of SW's, doctors, teachers etc. who make almighty fuck ups, get struck off. SW's (unless they're junior scapegoats, as in the Victoria Climbie case) get made heads of dept. (as in the Rochdale case). In addition, the judgements about doctors, teachers etc. are made public - even where children are involved, and their privacy is protected.

Forgive me if I don't trust the integrity of the profession as much as I trust that of medicine, teaching, law et al.

"The councillor in charge of the campaign, Antony Lillis, said that the children had had the "least promising" start in life, and were more likely to "go on to achieve economic well-being" with their new adoptive parents."

I don't like the sound of that. I'm sure most children in the country would go on to achieve economic well-being if we confiscated them from poor parents and gave them to richer ones.

It's like attitudes have gone back half a century and no-one of any importance has noticed or cares.

that is a disgusting quote from Antony Lillis
do you have a link to it or to him? I'm going to email him and tell him what I think of it as an excuse for taking children from their parents

morocco, it's quoted in that telegraph link that milliec posted.

Having said that it is the telegraph, so he may have said other stuff as well which they have omitted. But even if that's the case, it's disturbing isn't it? Economic well-being should not be one of the factors in taking a child away from its parents.

I really want to say something moving and powerful but it's all a bit too close to home for me. I am grieving the loss of children taken from my family who are innocent victims of a grave injustice like this.

My heart goes out to this child and their birth family. It will quite literally feel like a life sentence to them. Who knows what effect this will have on the child in years to come? To know that their loving family was there for them, but for bureaucratic madness.

FWIW in our case the Judge was also furious with social services, but nothing he could do within the "children's timescales". I agree with urban dryad, I think change will come, it is already beginning at the top, and I applaud all who are doing what they can to instigate this. But it's the drip feed down the line into the more archaic institutions that is going to take the time.

Please do keep these issues active in your heads and in your hearts, around the secrecy of childcare proceedings, and of the accountability of social services. Change in these areas is the only hope for children and their families in these situations in the future.

I can't believe Finona didn't know about adoption targets and was willing to make sweeping statements about there not being any....

Neveradaygoesby, my sypathy is with you, I to lost a child to this kind of injustice so can understand a little of how you must be feeling. We were lucky and eventualy managed to win her back, but I know for far too many families this does not happen, and everytime I hear of another family torn apart like this it brings it all back.

I really hope that things will eventually change, but I know from my experiences that social services very rarely back down and admit their wrongdoings.

children are still being taken into care on dubious evidence says judge

Poor little girl in this case was forced to undergo repeated examinations of her genitalia just to feed the fevered imaginations of the professionals.

Funny how when parents of children with autism ask for investigations they are accused of 'submitting their children to unnecessary procedures' and even barred from leaving the country. But it's OK for the people in charge to do far worse.

in a case i am aware of (no particular details), parents were unaware of child a's particular disorder. on child a's first day of school, teachers realise instantly that child a has said condition, get in contact with ss to aid with child's sen and to get parents some support. instead child a is taken into emergency care, using the parents learning difficulties as an excuse.

the parents had not received any support whatsoever with the child since their h.v.

I'm not going to add much more to this. For those with obviously traumatic and heartbreaking experiences through dealings with social work, my contribution is not going to change anything.
What I would say to Katyis6etc, I don't think I made a sweeping statement. I said that there aren't adoption targets in Scotland and there aren't. My mistake for thinking England would be similar.

Finona I think you could possibly be forgiven for being surprised that England is different to Scotland in this respect. I don't know a lot about Scottish policies but I do know, for example, they are ahead in other areas such as their national suicide and mental health strategies, and from the outside it would seem they have a better system where adoption targets are concerned.

But to take you back to an earlier point you mentioned:

"Yes mistakes happen, and there are crap social workers, but there are also crap teachers, lawyers, cleaners, shop assistants, parents and every other job you can think of"

I think the point that is being made is that in every other job you can think of, there is usually an independent body that can exercise governance over that profession and hold them to account. This is distinctly lacking where social work is concerned (and therefore clearly down to MN ). The local authorities in these cases could be described as a law unto themselves. A Judge can make recommendations but it seems there is little being done on the ground to ensure they are put in place. I would gladly welcome being told I am wrong.

Bossybritches also makes very good points. Far more should and could be done to support families to stay together wherever possible. Extended families are often completely overlooked and unsupported if they do come forward to offer care. I just don't get it.

And also Maureen Spalek in today's Telegraph

"Mother in court over a birthday card

Next Wednesday, Maureen Spalek, a spirited and loving mother, will be in Runcorn magistrates? court to face a criminal charge of having sent a birthday card to her eight-year-old son ? having already been arrested and held in a prison cell for 24 hours for the same offence.

Mrs Spalek is charged with breaking a court order forbidding her to have any contact with her three children, even though she has an order from another judge explicitly permitting her to send them birthday and Christmas cards. Yet a few days after she sent her younger son the card, on April 15, she was visited by two police officers who threatened to beat down her door unless she gave them entry. She was then taken to one of Runcorn?s 30 police cells where she was held in very unpleasant conditions for 24 hours.

Mrs Spalek, the former wife of a naval officer, lost her children some years ago after one of her sons was taken to hospital with a broken leg from a bicycle accident. When she complained about the attitude of a doctor who was treating her son, social workers were called in. When she then, in turn, complained about the ?hostile? attitude they had shown to her, the affair escalated to the point where her three children were taken away, on the grounds that she had ?problems working with professionals? ? even though it was agreed in court that she was an ?excellent mother?, that the children were well-behaved and well-looked-after and that they had suffered no physical or emotional abuse. Two were adopted, one lives with their father.

One of the many serious issues not raised in the recent election campaign, because all three parties have agreed not to discuss it, is the growing scandal of the abduction by social workers of children from responsible and loving parents. In too many instances, this gives the impression of a tightly closed system, in which the social workers, who have in the recent past been set ?adoption targets? by central government, are aided and abetted by the police, by certain family court judges and even by those lawyers supposedly acting on behalf of the parents. I shall return to this very disturbing issue after Mrs Spalek's case this week. "
From www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7705599/General-Election-2010-The-Tory-gamble-that-failed-us- all.html

I hope Ms Spalek's children can get in touch with her when they turn 16. It seems a long time but most of the time we are in touch with our children is 16+. I wonder why Mr Spalek did not take on all 3 children and instead 2 were adopted. Are they full siblings?