Chilling story about child (allegedly) wrongly taken into care.

[Callisto]

It is from the Mail I'm afraid, but there are quotes from the couples MP which seems to add weight to the story.

Article here.

Of course, money is in even shorter supply now and will be for quite some time. The estimated £500 million that it will take to implement the new rules on supervising the parents of HE children will take even more money away from children who really need it - always the most vulnerable. I agree that it is the councils who are ultimately responsible for SS, LEA etc but a no-blame culture pervades throughout so the crap SW's, just like the crap LEA officers, are not retrained or fired and the people who suffer have no way of demanding change or justice, not least through fear of the very people who are meant to help them.

This thread was pointed out to me. I met the family on Monday and will be helping them take their case to the European Court.

Someone said
"John Hemming has been campaigning for ages to try and open the family courts, but he has got absolutely nowhere. "
Actually we had some improvements in April which have made some progress. Important progress. MPs now have total access to family court proceedings documentation. Further progress has been promised by the government.

At some point there will be a massive public outcry and people will wake up to the fact that the Court of Appeal have been covering up problems in the system. It is the failure of the Court of Appeal that is part of the problems in Public Family Law.

People who have been hammered by the family courts in the past can speak out today, but they really need to talk to Justice for Family advisors about how to do this.

"The couple in question had their MP on side plus testimonials from various officials that the child had been wrongly taken. No prosecutions of any kind have been brought against either parent and yet their daughter is about to be put up for adoption and once that happens it is final."

This remains a problem. People who adopt from care should be aware that some of the children are wrongly taken.

Incidentally I don't personally monitor Mumsnet. I sometimes watch particular threads.

Hi John, thank you for commenting on this thread. I'm sure that the family concerned are extremely grateful for your involvement, but if the little girl is adopted will the parents have any recourse through European courts, or will the case going to the European courts mean that the adoption process will be put on hold?

(By the way, many apologies for my generalisation about your work and I'm very glad to hear that you feel real progress is being made in opening up the family courts).

I really don't think anyone would be mad enough to adopt this child. Hence I would be surprised if she gets adopted.

She is 7 1/2 years old.

I am not surprised that some idiots are trying to get her adopted.

So despite the family going to the European Courts the child is still up for adoption? That is remarkable and awful.

Has leave to appeal to HOL been denied?

I posted earlier in this thread about my own experience with an A & E doctor, and have since received an apology, but there but the grace of god, where I am in a situation with a health care professional who is not listening. Once an initial assessment has been done, it's difficult to get this rectified.

Glad you are in touch with the family, John.

Wasn't there a recent very depressing case where a higher court (appeal?) held the adoption had been faulty but it was too late, tough luck, nothing to be done about it now? That's one of the real injustices in the system, that adoption is final and there is no redress.

Except it's not final in reality, a staggeringly high proportion of adoptions 'break down' i.e. the kids are handed back. But SWs and courts regard wronged parents as monsters for suggesting they even have contact with their children, let alone altering the terms of the adoption.

Agree Edam

When an adoption breaks down it should be possible to replace with family, but a child should never be formally adopted out imvho without agreement of parents.

Ai am lucky that my only experiences of adoption have been positive- a lady who chose to have her daugyhter adopted as she couldnt care for her (went on to have twins and be an excellent mum a decade after, at least from what I could see) and FIL who was adopted by the family of one of the nurses at his childrens home. But the key factor in both cases was a willingness to enter the system indeed FIL was just left on the street by his 'Mother' aged 2)

Otherwise its just such a terrible, heartrending almighty mess

"Except it's not final in reality, a staggeringly high proportion of adoptions 'break down' i.e. the kids are handed back."

I hate that. I didn't believe that it could happen until I met a child who had been handed back! Her new 'mother' had already had 6 or 7 kids (I know that there were 7, with or without the adoptee I'm not sure though), adopted the 7yo and then decided after a year she didn't want her anymore. What gets me is how did she get the child in the first place? In this case, with so many children to look after already in the financial situation she was in (not good)?

Are SS so desperate to give older children 'homes' that they'll let people who would never normally be considered a chance? Thats what worries me, who is this little girl going to end up with? Poor thing is probably terrified! I hope they get this case relooked at properly

I don't understand how anyone could hand a child back.

When my ssiter left her nannying job my Mum and I cried buckets saying goodbye to the charge, goodness knows I could never say bye voluntarily to any child!

I think theya re desperate for carers for older children and those with SN. I imagine that finances can be sorted by SS making that less problematic (though isnt fostering long term the best way for that?) than other factors in placing a child who really does desperately need a home, but clearly something very serious was wrong with that palcement.

Edam's case is the Websters.

If you don't get permission to appeal then you cannot go to the House of Lords, but given that the House of Lords are not much use either it is good to get to Strasbourg faster.

You need to recognise that a proportion of children put through the adoption process have reactive attachment disorder. This can at times result in them attacking their adoptive parents. It tends to put the adoptive family in crisis. Reactive Attachment Disorder is caused by neglect either prior to being taken into care or in care.

One problem arises from foster carers caring for up to 3 babies. This makes it difficult to give the loving attention that a baby really does need.

There is a lot of good material about how neglect can be damaging in the long term. It does depend, of course, on what you mean by neglect. The mother-baby interaction is very important (fathers matter as well).

I know of a couple who couldn't have children themselves and adopted 4 brothers from ages 2 up to 8 all in one go. Within a year all 4 were back in care. Now why were these very well-intentioned but wholly inexperienced people allowed to take on 4 boys? I think that there was a general lack of support from SS, but this was coupled with very unrealistic expectations from the couple also. The boys wanted to stay with their adoptive parents but the parents couldn't cope with them, which is the bit that gets to me more than anything. In this case long-term fostering would seem to be the logical way forward, but does long-term fostering actually happen in reality?

The problem is that the government got their calculations wrong and drove an ever increasing number of children to be adopted.

In Scotland babies generally returned to their birth parents. In England they got (and still do get) adopted.

That is because the government did not look at the flows in and out of care, but instead looked at the numbers adopted in a year compared to the total number in care.

Bad maths.

Masses of human misery, however.

This government has a track record of getting their figures wrong on all sorts of things.

Has the adoption targets policy made things much worse? I've heard that more babies are taken into care since this was introduced as babies can be adopted out quickly and easily, so making the meeting of these targets much easier. Of course this would assume that SS are calculating in the extreme.

Callisto
yes, long term fostering does happen, it can lead to adoption or not. Personally I think it can be a very good solution as the carers get a lot of support, whereas adopters are on their own once it is finalised.
Re adoption targets - it is simply a myth that more children are being removed to meet targets. AFAIK (I don't work in adoption) the targets relate to children already in the care system. They would not work to remove more children and leave the numbers of children in care the same.

Please believe me that children are not removed to farm out to adopters to meet targets. That is disgusting, horrifying, and it doesn't happen.

Some directors of SS are cold and calculating - look at Shoesmith and the horrifying number of people in local government who stuck up for her.

If you want a serious career in local government, or the NHS, ending up as a chief exec, you have to perform to govt. targets - never mind how daft they might be, what unintended consequences they might have, how badly they mess with health or SS professionals actually looking after people.

The figures point to a growth in the numbers of young children taken into care whilst the adoption targets were in place. They were, however, scrapped formally on 1st April 2008 although it took over a year for Ofsted to learn to stop pressurising councils to increase adoptions.

"I really don't think anyone would be mad enough to adopt this child."

Please excuse me if there's an obvious answer to my question as I haven't read all of this thread yet, though I am very pleased the amount of response to it.

If the identities of these children and the reasons being used to justify their adoption are being concealed, how would potential carers know about the back story in order to make such a decision? because I can't exactly see social services falling over themselves to tell it to them.

potential adopters should be given all teh information available about the child including the child's journey in to care and teh back ground of the birth family.

John hemming states You need to recognise that a proportion of children put through the adoption process have reactive attachment disorder. This can at times result in them attacking their adoptive parents. It tends to put the adoptive family in crisis. Reactive Attachment Disorder is caused by neglect either prior to being taken into care or in care.

Only about 40% of people have a secure attachment the rest have some form of insecure attachment. It is important to recognise that the effects of neglect can start pre-birth.

One problem arises from foster carers caring for up to 3 babies. This makes it difficult to give the loving attention that a baby really does need. This could be misconsrued as parents of triplets manage to provide good enough care for the babies

There is a lot of good material about how neglect can be damaging in the long term. It does depend, of course, on what you mean by neglect. The mother-baby interaction is very important (fathers matter as well).

The interaction between the baby and main carer is vital and the human brain allows for recompense up to about of 3 years old.

I beleive that in alot of cases if we are truely child centred investment in therapeutic work with children in the care system and better quality adoption candidates who can look beyond their right to be aparent and who grasp the attachment and trauma issues, the system would better serve everyone.
As a society we all have a responsible to ensure children are protected from harm are given the right support to achieve a better a start in life

The point about a 7 1/2 year old is that she knows what the social workers have done is evil and it likely to tell any potential adoptive parents.

This case is on the spectacularly dreadful side of dreadful.

Think of what has happened to this child.

Totally missed that she's 7.5 years old She isn't a baby and her views should be taken into account. (Gillick competent?)

Would hope there is some supervised contact until the case can be heard. What's the fastest that the ECtHR have heard a case?

Thanks for clearing that up John, though personally I wouldn't underestimate the ability that same dreadful experience - or the social workers involved - to scare her or any other child of that age into silence until after the adoption has taken place