'I gave back my adopted baby'

[LetThereBeRock]

I've just read this article from the Guardian about a mother who gave back her adopted son because she didn't/couldn't bond with him.

I'm planning on adopting in the near future and I'm curious to know what others think of her story.

Apologies if this has been discussed already.

Why is it anyone who expresses concerns with the current system is in cahoots with mad conspiracy theorists about baby snatchers? As I said, if those outside the system are not allowed to comment because they don't understand, and those inside the system don't think there is anything wrong, then mistakes will keep getting made.

You all assume that SS was not wrong about the woman who fled. what if they were wrong? what if she had to flee as the only way to keep her baby towards whom she had no motivations than love and care? Not once has there been any admission that mistakes might get made, and that needs addressing.

My view is that Key Performance Indicators (not just BV163, but other ones) have driven the management of Childrens Services Departments. The evidence is there in the statistics.

BV163 has particularly driven a shift in practise to an overwhelming proportion of adoptions compared to (for example) Scotland.

Many practitioners agree with me about the problems caused by KPIs. Obviously the thesis about wrongful adoptions is more contentious, but there are quite a few MPs who agree with me on the basis of their own experience of casework.

Litchick is right in that the adversarial system makes things worse. There is an obsession with winning on the part of the LA as opposed to doing what is best for the child.

This is evidenced by the way families are chased around the world (I had a case involving the Phillipines recently).

po no-one has said that anyone who has expressed concerns is in cahoots with mad baby snatchers. It is entirely possible to acknowledge that there are failings within the system without buying into the conspiracy that SS snatch babies for their adoption targets.

Baby P is a prime example of how SS have failed. And yet if baby P had been removed at birth many of the same people criticising SS for leaving him with his parents would be saying how SS weren't giving his parents a chance, how SS had moved in too quickly to satisfy their agenda without consideration for the family concerned etc etc.

The thing is, in order to prevent the baby p's of this world it is sometimes necessary to remove a child before the harm has actually been done. Or should we always wait until a child is being abused before action is taken?

As for the woman who left the country no, of course we don't know that SS was right. But we don't know that they were wrong either, because we don't know what evidence they had to give them cause for concern about the baby's welfare.

... a year or so ago SS were pilloried here for removing a baby just after birth from a young mother. The newspapers picked it up and SS were widely condemned. A judge subseqently overturned the decision and the baby was returned to Mum and Dad. Less newsworthy was the decision to remove the baby again some weeks later after it had been thrown by one parent at another during a row. Sometimes the initial decisions are right........

WannaBe, a fair few of us do keep repeating that we have a generally positive view of SWs (reinforced in my case by positive RL experiences), but that it is Nana's defensive tone in some of her postings which make us more worried.

Speaking as someone who has been suspected of child abuse, on totally unjustifiable grounds, I cannot accept that this is anything less than damaging to a family, or that the sufferings of the professional, if criticised, are more important than the sufferings of a child terrified of losing their family. I am not into wild conspiracy theories about baby snatchers. Otoh my dd is still self-harming 6 years later. She cannot access the help that is now abundantly on offer, because she does not trust adults outside the family. She is too frightened of opening up and admitting that she has a problem, because she is afraid of the consequences.

This is not the fault of SWs, as I have mentioned before, but of medical professionals, but I think it is evidence of how much damage mistakes do.

If the doctors we saw after the event had taken the same defensive attitude of their profession, then we would never have got any help. The damage is bad enough, but could have been a lot worse if subsequent medical professionals had been entrenched in feeling sorry for themselves or their profession.

Ad I said, I dont want SWs to be witch hunted on this forum. But neither do I want to see them, or any other professional, speaking the voice of martyrdom. I want to be reassured that professionals are just that- professionals.

Cory I think it's all about middle ground tbh.

On the one hand I can see that nana's posts come across as agressive and I can see that if someone has had bad experience with SS this would put their back up. Having said that, while I am not in total defence of all social workers I think it must be horrendous to have to work in a profession that is never acknowledged but only ever criticised. Yes they make mistakes, and those mistakes have had some horrific consequences, and clearly something needs to be done to try to rectify that. But surely we also have to acknowledge that not all social workers are incompetent, and that many do in fact have the best interests of the child at heart.

In your analagy where the doctor amputated the wrong leg we would call for an enquiry and for those at fault to be brought to account, but we wouldn't slate the entire medical profession for the mistakes of a few individuals, so why should ss be any different?

Of course not everyone who thinks that there are serious issues in SS is a baby snatcher conspiracy theorist, but JH clearly is, and there haven't been many on this thread who have distanced themselves from that element of what he has said.

social workers were criticised in the BabyP case because there were many times throughout their access to him where there were clear examples of abuse and injury and yet nothing was done. Baby P had 60 contacts with health and social professionals There has to be a middle ground between removing a child where there is no evidence of harm, and removing a child where there is repeated evidence of injury and harm.

incomplete post sorry.

social workers were criticised in the BabyP case because there were many times throughout their access to him where there were clear examples of abuse and injury and yet nothing was done. Baby P had 60 contacts with health and social professionals over 8 months . There has to be a middle ground between removing a child where there is no evidence of harm, and removing a child where there is repeated evidence of injury and harm.

I don't agree with your portrayal of JH at all.

"In your analagy where the doctor amputated the wrong leg we would call for an enquiry and for those at fault to be brought to account, but we wouldn't slate the entire medical profession for the mistakes of a few individuals, so why should ss be any different?"

Because doctors are more accountable for their mistakes. Imagine, in a sitation where a child's life had been lost, clearly due to medical negligence, a senior medical figure claiming that there had been good practice!

NanaNina and others terrify me, with their dogmatic defensiveness

I think we're basically saying the same thing, wannabe. We'd want more individual accountability and less wholesale judgment.

The problem is that individual accountability has to come mainly from within a profession; that is where you get the people who see what is going on. If a profession closes its doors and protects its own members, then mistakes will carry on being made.

This is, why when somebody who represents the profession on an online forum takes such a very defensive attitude, it makes me wonder if this defensiveness is part of the cultural language of their profession- and if so, if that could get in the way of accountability. I would feel exactly the same about a medical professional writing in this very emotiona, martyr-like language: worried that this might get into the way of their duty to uphold accountability within their own profession.

well put cory, agree.

Praise be to you Wannabe - you have the gift of saying what I want to say but in a rational and measured way. Would that I could do that........but I will try. You also unlike so many others on here highlight the dilemma for the sw of being "damned if they do, and damned if they don't" a no-win situation that adds to their already present stress. Interestingly the numbers of applications for care proceedings has risen by almost 50% since the baby Peter debacle as social workers are no longer prepared to take risks that a child will be safe if the fanmily are supported to be better parents. Who can blame them? Maybe you had better advise them Pofaced as you seem to have a handle on how best to proceed in this cases.

Cory - you mention again chidren who are wrongfully adopted (sorry not your exact words I know) and use the analogy of a medic who amputates the wrong leg. You go on to say that he doesn't "shrug it off" as a casualty or somesuch. Sorry I'm not too good at IT and if I go back to your post I will lose this post, so I know I am not quoting you precisely and I don't know how to do that cut and paste thing that posters do. Now to me yu are inferring that if a child is "wrongfully" removed and and adopted then the social workers in fact "shrug it off" in the way that doctors wouldn't. I am really struggling with this because in over 30 years of practice I have never seen a child "wrongfully" removed and adopted. Do you KNOW of these cases other than what yu have read about in the press, or heard on these kind of forums? Do you have evidence that this has happened? If you do I really would like to hear about it and I promise I will read every word.

IF you do know of one (or more) of these cases, do you know that the sws "shrugged it off" as just one of those things.

I am sorry to hear of your family's experiences and it sounds as though you did at least get some acknowledgement from the medics that they had got it wrong. However this is not always the case is it. My sister's lung cancer was diagnosed too late and she subsequently died because the GP woul dnot take her concerns seriously. I do not however then think all GPs are incompetent - I just accept that this was a mistake. However I note in the news recently that hundreds of lives are being lost because GPs are not recognising the early signs of cancer and referring people for the necessary diagnostic tests. I have also read about cases (admittedly only hearing one side) where aggrieved patients have been fighting for years to get some compnesation from the medics and often say that they never even had an apology. However I will admit that I can't really comment because I only know one side of the story.

I,m not trying to put you on the spot but I think there are so many things being said on this thread that cannot be evidenced or proved, but are little more than "hearsay"and are then taken as fact.

JH'S latest insult to sws is contained in his sentence "there is an obsession with winning on the part of la's rather than what is doing best for the child." Further proof in my mind of him trying to support his conspiracy theory. AND so insulting to social workers who struggle every day in cp trying to do what is best for the child, having sleepless nights and suffering stress in the process. It is also an insult to the range of professionals, lawyers and indeed the judge in care proceedings, who all work extremely hard to keep the best interests of the child at the heart of the proceedings.

I am now aware that NOTHING is going to change JHs mindset and I still firmly believe that he is trying to deal with something personal through his hypothesis about conspiracy in child protection and adoption. The sad thing is that this kind of irrational behaviour does nothing to actually help people who perceive they have been unfairly treated to move on to some form of resignation or even acceptance.

Gosh your tone is bizarre NanaNina - I never said I had a better handle on these cases. I said there has to be a middle ground between removing a child with no evidence of harm and removing a child where this is repeated evidence of harm. I really do worry about the families you have contact with when even the slightest statement of doubt is met with such aggressive defensiveness.

"in over 30 years of practice I have never seen a child "wrongfully" removed and adopted"

but, do you acknowledge that, in some cases that you have been involved in, children may have been wrongfully removed? And in all probability, that even you have made some mistakes?

No I don't acknowledge that in some cases in which I have been involved a child may have been wrongfully removed. If I did I would say so. I know of cases where we have lingered too long in continuing to support families and hoped for some change in their parenting but in the end have had to admit that the only way to protect the child is to
make application to the court for a Care Order.

Look let's just take a look at what has to happen in these cases of serious concern about a child.

1. Where there is serious concern about a child's safety and welfare an in-depth assessment has to be made and all attempts have to be made to support the family to keep the child in the care of the parents. There are multi-disciplinary case conferences involving all those connected with the family, where views are shared and decisions made. The birth parents attend the case conferences too and are kept aware at eveystage of the concerns.

1. This stage can last for months (sometimes years) as in the case of baby Peter. There is believe it or not an unwillingness with sws to have to accept that the only way to protect a child is to apply to remove him from his parents. I have never met a sw who thinks differently.

1. Sometimes the support is enough to get the parents back on track but in other cases, it has to be faced that the child is not SAFE with the parents. That is the bottom line.

1. In an emergency situation (say a child left alone or injuries found) then before a sw can remove a child without the parent's permission, they have to appply for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) from a Magistrate in court. Magistrates will make themselves available at short notice because it is an emergency situation. They will always want to hear from the parents at this sstage before they decide whether to make the EPO. This is important because if an EPO is made, that means the child can be removed from the care of the parents. EPOs susually last for 7 days.

1. After that period and if it is agreed by all professionals involved that the child will not be safe at home, then the sw must apply to the court for an Interim Care Order. They must present evidence at court as to their reasons for removing the child from the parents. The parents are legally represented at this stage. The court decides whether to make the Interim Care Order (ICO) or whether to return the child home.

1. There is then a lengthy period during which further in-depth assessments are carried out on the parents by social workers, psychologists, consultant psychiatrists (on occasions) Guardian-ad-litems (independent social workers appointed by the court) and sometimes other professionals, eg. play therapists etc.

1. Sometimes the parents during this period are offered the opportunity for a residential assessment so that they can care for their child but the child is not at risk because there is close supervision.

1. During this time the child remains in foster care and by law every effort has to be made for the parents to maintain regular and frequent contact with their child.

1. Defence solictors (solicitors acting for parents) will sometimes request the court to appoint an independent social worker (in addition to the independent guardian)to carry out parenting assessment on the parents. Judges make the decision based on the facts of the case whether to agree to appoint a ind sw. If they agree then all of the parties to the proceedings (all those involved in the case) have to agree on the specific person appointed. (I am often appointed by the court to carry out an ind parenting a/ment) totally independent of anyone else involved.

1. Finally a date is set for the final hearing. All of the reports from the professionals are sent to the court and there is a 4/5 day hearing. Everyone who has compiled a report has to make a recommendation as to what should happen to the child. Everyone has to give evidence in court and be cross-examined by any of the lawyers or barristers. The parents are legally represented and their lawyers can cross examine a sw (or anyone else) for 3/4 hours. I have often been cross examined for this length of time. I have no objection to this as it is fair that if people are making judgements they should be called upon to convince the judge that their judgements are sound and evidence based (or not) as the case may be.

10. At the end of the final hearing the Judge makes a decision on the child's future and produces a very lengthy written jusgement giving his reasons in great detail aand with great clarity in my view. At this stage the judge can return the child home (I have never known this to happen) or can make a Care Order (which gives the l.a. the parental responsibility for the child) or a Placement Order so that the child can be adopted. The l.a. have to produce a care plan to say exactly how they intend to care for the child for the remainder of his life if he is not returned to his parents.

11. If the child is not returned home then the parents via their lawyer can appeal against the decision of the judge and this is dealt with in the court of appeal by 3 judges.

NNow to suggest a child has been "wrongfully removed" is in my view to suggest that fubdamental mistakes have been made at every stage of the process and that at the end of it all the judge has somehow been hoodwinked bby social workers and others who like removing children from parents to get them adopted. I'm sorry but it is rather sa ludicrous suggestion really. Judges are NOT buffoons who will as JH "rubber stamp" all these assessments - far from it. Every social worker knows that if they have not done enough in the early stages to keep the child at home, the Judge will throw out the case. Likewise if something has not been properly evidenced he will "have your guts for garters".

Of course I can't say that mistakes aren't made but I think they are made in terms of not taking action swiftly enough, NOT in care proceedings for the reasons stated above. I think there may have been some cases where medical evidence was given (and believed) in cases of Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy and I think there may have been some miscarriages of justice in those cases but I don't have the details.

Yes parents will feel outraged that their children have been removed and will do their utmost to proclaim their innocence. I am not criticising this - it is understandable but the child HAS to be protected.

Sorry for long post.

And as for me making mistakes - yes I've made many especially in my early years as a social worker but never in terms of "wrongfully" removing a child. I have been guilty of trying too hard and too long and being taken in by parents when I was inexperienced. I can't count the numbers of times that foster carers have been so frustrated with me (and other sws) because we have tried yet again to give a parent a second/third chance with a child, only for the child to be returned to the system with his trust in adults ever more eroded.

nananina 10. At the end of the final hearing the Judge makes a decision on the child's future ... At this stage the judge can return the child home (I have never known this to happen)

In other words in nananina's experience the system is so perfect that a judge never returns the child in a final hearing.

Alternatively the checks and balances don't work and the system is so skewed that parents cannot win at final hearings. Note the view of the court of appeal that parents have no right to an independent assessment even by someone as independent as nananina.

I know a family law barrister who specialises in this area very well. She regularly is extremely upset not to angry at how NOT ENOUGH children are removed from their families and the resultant horrific abuse and cites resource as the main reason for this: i.e. local authorities and the social services don't have the money or the time to really protect the children that need it by removing them from the dangerous environment they live in.

Of course in a world of unlimited resource, or maybe just a common sense world, pregnant women and their partner who were identified as a potential risk would be worked with in a deep seated way and I know that for example there is a great work being done in this area through the Anna Freud Centre. However, it seems to me that the main problem with Social Services in this country is that they are underfunded and not prioritised and that there is a deficit in intervention rather than a surfeit.

god that post has many words missing, but hope you get my drift.

It is quite obvious that some children are not removed who are at risk - not all children of heroin addicts and severe alcoholics are removed for example. But that is not the same as saying mistakes never happen where the child should not have been removed - it might be comparatively rare - but nonetheless catastrophic.

OR JH could there possibly be the remotest chance that the child isn't returned home because the child is so traumatised by being abused/neglected that it would be totally unsafe for him to return home. It isn't about winning - children are aren't prizes - it is about making sure that children have the right to a childhood free of abuse or neglect which has a lifelong effect on them. How about reading some of the threads about the difficulties of adults who weren't removed from the care of abusing parents and the difficulties they are having in trying to live normal lives. NO of course you won't be interested in that - you are far too busy trying to support your ridiculous hypothesis, which in reality is insupportable.

I asked you once before and yu didn't respond whether you had ever actually seen (in the flesh) a child who has been abused or neglected. Have you ever seen a little boy of 3 crouched behind a bed with his baby sister clinging to him, in a cold dark room with urine soaked clothing on and scared out of their lives, as their mother and her boyfriend screamed abuse at each other and smashed the flat up. Well have you?? No I thought not. AND tell me what do you think shouldhappen in that particular case. No more random comments or statistics, what do you think should happen in that case?

Are you ever going to admit that you (or someone close to you) has been personally affected by removal of a child and adoption, and this is what drives you in your quest to try to prove your hypothesis.

Sophable - you are absolutely right in what you say is the main concern in SSDs and the reasons you put forward are also spot on.

Nana, you would likely have much more credibility if you weren't so incredibly defensive, emotional, irrational and downright dogged in all your posts.

You appear very unreasonable, tbh.

Dittany - sorry you don't have the time or inclination to read my posts -maybe you don't have that level of concentration. As for the article you linked - well who is Camilla Cavendish - she is a journalist, so why do you think that there is any validity in what she says. Some people believe everything they read in a newspaper. Most people know that all journalists are extremely economical with the truth (on their own admission) their brief is to write good copy that people will want to read.

I have found numerous fundamental flaws in the article you linked but I won't post them as you won't have the time or inclination to read them.