Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

[EldonAve]

Social services remove young children from grandparents and arrange adoption by gay couple

"social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children."

Is 46 really too old?

I once represented a lovely, lovely woman who wanted to care for her grand daughter in similar circumstances but ultimately she just wasn't strong enough to protect the child from the mother.
The court eventually made an adoption order and the GM was heartt- broken. However it was the right decision because the Mother was fucking up everyone's lives.
TBH the Mother in thses circumstances could have resolved this by keeping away until she sorted herself out thus not hurting her children and not putting her own parents in an impossible position.

I agree with Chicklit. I have represented a number of nice grandparents where the problems in a family placement result from the continued actions of the parents from whom the children were removed for good reason. Undermining the placement, exposing the children to violence, drug-use etc. Unless the grandparents are strong enough or resourceful enough to stand up to the parents or to avoid their actions, it is simply not safe to leave a child in that placement. It becomes all the more difficult when the grandparents donot see the problems that the parents present, collude with them and refuse to cooperate with a protection plan. Unfortunately for the children there is then little choice but to remove to a protected placement.

Also, in answer to the posts regarding why the grandparents may be refused contact as a result of their contact with the press. It is fairly well recognised that direct contact after adoption is only feasible when there is an acceptance of the placement. If there is no acceptance the placement it is likley to be undermined, breakdown etc which is utterly devestating for the children. Placements usually take precedence. The grandparents could not have been clearer in this case that they do not approve of or support this placement.

sorry that should read Litchick!

The only reason this story is getting the press coverage it's getting is because of homophobic arseholes. That there are still people stupid enough to think that a smackhead with no sense of responsibility and her parents who prioritise her over her children are better carers than people who just happen not to be heterosexual is depressing but not surprising.

Hi,
Firstly I'd like to deal with some issues.
A will, will not guarantee your children go to your nominated person if you die. If you have a court order with residence you can nominate anyone you choose to look after your children but by law that does not mean they will legally be allowed to do this, if anyone has an objection, including the ss then the court will ask for a s37 report be done as to where the children would be better off, and that includes in a care home, adopted, or fostered.
In fact the way the law is set up it's more than likely thats where they would end up if they were classed as adoptable.
Please don't let any bleeding heart tell you it's cheeper to have kinship adoption, it's not. Kin can claim allowences from the ss for the children they are looking after just like anyone else can and this comes out of the ss budget, this makes it more expensive to keep children with the family than in care.
Also a majority of care homes are run by corporations ( some foreign) charities that get a vast amount of money from the government as so forth for this work and yes a few by friends and even family (conflict of interests) of social workers, councillors etc.
Up until recently Hazel blears, communities witch was saying that there were no paid adoption targets for the ss to steal children from loving families and adopt them out, this was a lie (surprise, surprise) if they reached the target set by the government (which they couldn't do without taking normal loved children into care ) they were paid, if they didn't they weren't, so the departments only had ringfenced budgets to work from. Essex county council were the biggest earners from this over a 3 yr period essex were paid 2,469,200.00 , closely followed by Kent County Council 2,156,583.00. Faced with the proof in the press hazel blears claimed she had gotten rid of the targets, but they are just hidden under another title (as usual with the labour government).
As for social workers trying to keep families together? Yeah !
It's the money go round ladies, its actually big business, charities (who shall remain nameless) want your cash to stop child abuse, or to help abused children, they then get handouts from the government for helping children/ research / care homes/ studies/ they also have 'experts' who attend meetings go to court, write reports, all charged at very high rates. Then the adoptive parents come along and they are charged a fee to register, fees to train to be parents/ fees for parenting seminars/ fees to jump through hoops etc, plus of course the people running these courses are charging the government/ local council fees also, and yes everyone including the children needs to be assessed by therapists and then the children need to attend therapy for a length of time (I wonder why) during and after the adoption.
Money talks and children are a commodity.
Not a conspiracy theory, google any site dealing with forced adoption and read up. Google any site offering a chance to be a foster carer or adoptive parent and read up.
There is only one way to keep your children safe from forced adoption and that is to emigrate.
Do you know anyone who deals with children can report anything you say or do with your child to the ss and that's encouraged because if they don't and something happens they can be fined or put in prison.
Here's the list;
Doctors, nurses, midwives, health visitor, nursery teacher, school teachers and helpers, dentist, optrician, council staff including anyone who comes into contact with your family, even dustmen, plumbers, electricians (if your house is a mess they can report you and this is called 'harm' ) (if you miss a dental checkup this is called harm).
No child is safe from this orwellian government, check out the safeguarding children agenda part of the every child matters framework and read just what they can accuse you of and what happens next, Emergency protection orders are taken out and you lose your child, not with proof, there doesn't have to be any, this is not a normal court of law, it's your word against the ss 'expert' if you run they get a court order bring you back and can commit you to prison for up to two years.This happens, it's happening now, the papers are only just starting to print these stories because Jack straw says the courts should be more 'open' after people have been campaigning for years for scrutiny and justice.
There is no way under the law to protect yourself and your children, one wrong word, something stupid any child or you might say and your children are gone.
Never approach social services for help like these grandparents did. Never speak to social service (the education department at your local council are social workers) without getting advice and if you ever get a letter through the door that starts..
dear mrs XXX we would like to speak with you about a matter concerning your child XXX.
Do not contact them pack what you can and leave the country and don't look back.

If the UK stops "forced adoption", perhaps there would be less "fighting" in court and less provocative points of view.

The law as it stands, says that after an adoption order has been made, the child ceases to be a member of the birth family. till the child is 18, older or forever, depending on if the adoptive parents tell the child they were adopted.

I personally would want to make up my own mind about any perspective adopter because the social workers and local authorities seem to be getting so many things wrong with a long history of getting things wrong.

If I as parent am not happy, I would oppose any adoption.

Great. Lets get rid of the ability to take children away from abusive parents. That's really in the interests of children isn't it! Of course if you are a good parent you would fight a forced adoption, and of course there are miscarriages of justice. But there are also many children who are removed from very abusive situations (as well as the ones that die because sadly they are not).

Social service, in fact children's services in general, are not awash with cash, and neither are most children's charities (in the UK we prefer to give to animal charities and medical reseach). So I have no idea where this big money with children as commodities theory comes from. Most SS childrens departments struggle to pay for the services they are required to provide, let alone those they would like to. Money is allocated to childrens services through a mixture of central allocations and local decisions (given that they are part of local government). Sometimes initiatives are brought in with cash attached, but pretty rarely (it is a big complaint across the public sector). There is no extra money for meeting an individual target - the adoption target was designed to get councils to put more effort into getting children out of tempory placements and children's homes and into permanent adoptive homes, because it was very clear that this would bring about huge benefits to the children (childen in care struggle in almost every way even with fantasic foster parents because of the disruption). It is one of lots and lots of targets - the inspection regime for children's services is huge (I used to work with a performance team who had to bring the information together for it, and it was a mammoth task, involving months of preparation).

I think that so long as safeguards are in place to protect the children involved, opening the courts so that people understand the working of family courts will be very helpful in helping people to understand that cases are rarely straight forward, and that there are often extremely good reasons for removing children from abusive or neglectful situations.

Another story with similarities
johnhemming.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-thompson-and-some-of-his-family.html

Surely there is a rational and sensible middle ground between "State rips children from entire family" and "Lets get rid of the ability to take children away from abusive parents"

As it is in most of the world, for example. If parents are abusive, care of the child is with other relatives. Still, within the same family.

Even where family is unable to care for the children, you cannot and should not forbid contact with loving and decent family members.

but Cote - the problem is that other family members are often ripped apart by the actions of the abusive parent. Sometimes they are simply unable to protect the child from the actions of the abusive parent.

I have personal experience of this - not going to go into details but needless to say it would have been so much better for the child involved (and am not going to say if that child was me or not) had there been little contact.

I agree with you that some contact should be maintained - but if that contact is going to involve someone badmouthing the adoptive placement of the child then it's really not in the child's interests for it to happen.

These grandparents were happy for adoption don't forget - it's only because the adoptive parents are two men that they have objected and why the likes of the DM have got involved. And I don't buy the "grandparents are too old and their health is a factor" explanation the papers AND the grandparents are pushing. Personally I am all for publicising made the decisions because SS might then be able to defend themselves. As it is they cannot and the rest of us can only speculate. If it was possible for the children to have been placed safely with the family it would have happened - it's a nightmare trying to find adoptive parents for older children - far, far easier to use the family - you have to therefore ask yourself why in this case SS have not done so. It will be nothing to do with their ages and health issues.

too old at 46? How old was cherie blair when she had her baby? Didn't see him being adopted, did you?

The age thing has to be a red herring, surely? So many people are having their own babies at that age these days!

I don't think the grandparents were happy about the adoption. They spent two years going through the courts before running out of money (and the emotional strength to continue, I should imagine).

Maybe adoption is in the best interests of these children - but to threaten their birth family with 'you will never see your grandchildren' again is draconian and likely to harm the children.

Objecting to the actions and decisions of social workers is not the same as harming the child. That is Orwellian thinking. 'Agree with the state or else you'll never see your relative again'. Smacks of the worst excesses of totalitarian regimes. And reminiscent of the days in this country when unmarried mothers were punished for transgressing by being stripped of their babies.

Given that such a worrying proportion of adoptions break down, clearly something is going very wrong. Maybe adoptive parents need more support

sorry, meant to add, more support generally but also in maintaining/handling relationships with birth families.

Exactly, edam.

Hecate Ellie firther sown said it wasn't age: what she didnt mention is that she's a SW in COP so she should kinda know!

if they refused to prevent their dd accessing the GP then yes that would class a splacing them at risk. In my experience prtty rightly so.

Cote you are right about a middle ground. I beleive family contact though can reduce the chances of an adoption working- for that reason we have fostercare as that middle ground.

Why does it reduce the chance of an adoption working? And what can be done about it?

I don't think SWs should try to apply a general rule to each individual family. Maybe bear it in mind, but not jump to the conclusion that family = disruptive. Key problem with SS seems to be that individual SWs bring their own prejudices to work and don't seem to be challenged, or to engage in any reflective practice as happens in the NHS. I'm sure there are plenty of good ones who do, but the bad ones who don't seem to go unchecked. (I'm not just talking about cases in the papers but cases I've heard about through my work/my sister's work.)

While on the whole I think the answer to these sort of messes may be to make the family courts more open - or at least to allow the people affected by their decisions to hear the reasoning behind these decisions and challenge it - having the family court procedures completely open to the public may do more harm than good. It probably wouldn't, for instance, be in the best interests of the children in this case for them to be identifiable to their neighbours and schoolfriends. While there are, obviously, times when the social workers get it wrong one way or the other (forced adoptions of loved and not-abused children on one hand, Baby P on the other), the bulk of the time they get it rightm but that's not newsworthy. Children adopted as parents are smackheads or maniacs who can;t look after them isn;t a story unless the children are very photogenic or the parents have some kind of minority political/religious belief or unusual hobby that can be used to condemn other non-conformists as unfit parents.

Gay adoption row on you tube link

nooka, you are right, the forced adoption target was brough in with good intention to get children who had been in care (abused children) out of the care system that abuses them further (lets not forget the figures for children in care, most will end up as teen pregnancies, on drugs, committing crime and in prison with mental health problem etc, all established facts) but that didn't happen because parents who adopt (mostly) want children with little baggage attached (parents who foster take all children)but the management saw the opportunity to 'raise' big money for the departments so the call went out to find 'adoptable' children.

Herts cc just released a press release that said we are 'happy' that we have just scrapped past the ofsted inspection even though ofsted have pointed out that the authority is taking children into care when they could be left with their families and come to NO harm just because they don't have the 'structure' in place to work with these families. This isn't a one off it's happening in every authority.

StewieGriffinsMom, your right forced adoption does happen in other countries also, but so does open adoption where the bio family and the adoptive family work together (this has been happening in the states for years and works extremely well, the children are happier and achieve a better outcome) there is also a great push in other countries for kinship adoption.

And lets look at the facts, this country had kinship adoption for many years only it wasn't called 'adoption' the families just took the children in, it was the norm, and up until labour got in 10 years ago we never had the problems in society we do now, so which system is working the state knows best under labour or the family knows best under other governments (were not talking general policies here just children and families)I am a grandmother (so you can guage my age ) and I don't remember being 'affraid to walk the streets of a night' I don't remember gun weilding, knife weilding children in my youth, even when it was happening on the other side of the atlantic.

Social services say they 'can't' defend themselves, this is because THEY have fought against opening up the courts to scrutiny and being held responsible for their actions, they claim it's because the children would be identified, lies, look through appeal cases where the case has been published by the court, the children are NOT identified, you can have full scrutiny without the names of family being identified, they do not want themselves being identified, they do not want their processes being shown to be lacking.

In a criminal court you are innocent until proven guilty, in the family court you are guilty because a social worker says you are and there is no way to prove yourself innocent, thats the way the system works.
I have seen it. I have been fighting against it for other families for years and you should see some of the cases I have seen where the social worker has lied, has blackmailed and bullied families and the judge goes with the social workers recommendations just because they are the 'professional'.

Look at the grandfather who was jailed for 2 years for speaking to his grandson who had been taken into care when the mother died and was then abused in care.

Look at Fran Lyon who it was claimed had MSBP ( a unproven mental illness that was discredited and then they changed the name to FII and still use it today) she had to flee the country, she was told by sweedish social services (one of the best in the world) who checked into the claims to sue the uk social services).

Look at the websters who's three children were taken into care and forcibly adopted and who's fourth child was also to be stolen (they did nothing wrong and now can not get their children back).

The list is endless what we are seeing in the press is the thin end of the wedge, parents and grandparents who are finally speaking out, so no sorry social service do not usually get it right, they just usually aren't exposed because of the secrecy laws and the press being unwilling to be sued if they print.

Did you mums know that if you post something on a website like " ohh, I just can't cope with little Johnny at the moment" the social workers who trawl these sites can apply to get your details and then start proceedings against you to take your children into care?

Why do you think the government are bringing in all the legislation to be able to trace emails, trace websites etc, so they don't have to go through the provider for details which is why most childrens sites offering help in the family courts are registered abroad.

A little advice, if anyone has cause to be involved with social services, tape everything, just don't tell them you are doing it.

some people are getting very angry about their belief that children are being removed on the 'say-so' of a social worker (and seem all too ready to believe that social workers lie to get children removed).

interesting that these same people appear to be unquestionningly acccepting the grandparents version of events (based purely on interviews given to the newspapers by the family).

And some people said the same things about the Fran Lyon story and about the websters, that there's no smoke without fire, social workers aren't wrong and they don't lie.
Hmmm?

nobody is saying that ss get it right all the time - they are actually human you know!

rather than rant about it why not try and do something about it? if you think it is so corrupt then try training to be a social worker and then you can effect change from the inside...........

the reality is that most people don't want to do this job.