'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.

'Dittany - sorry you don't have the time or inclination to read my posts -maybe you don't have that level of concentration'

Plenty of people are reading and thoroughly comprehending your posts.

Yet you assume they are unintelligent or lack concentration when they don't agree or present you with another platform from which to spew vitriol and insults.

The tone of these posts is starting to smack of several skilled trolls of the past to me, unfortunately.

Hence, I find it personally prudent to adopt Mr Hemming's wise policy of patently ignoring them henceforth.

[Awaits hateful, abusive response (wink)]

'Most people know that all journalists are extremely economical with the truth [on their [own admission] '

Because she is a journalist there is not validity in what she says?

Now I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. Did you actually read the article NanaNina?

This is shameful.

I would feel very relieved if NN was a troll. I really worry that she isn't.

It's a rather disturbing prospect, isn't it, poface?

nananina 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.

Unlikely, because it is not true.

Just ignore, Mr Hemming, it is not worth engaging the troll.

I think that the prospect of being wrongfully accused of being a risk to your child and your child being taken away is horrific. I think that understandably amplified on a site dedicated to parents as mn is.

As in any field human error means that mistakes are made. The should be rectified but sometimes cannot be which is a tragedy.

However, I strongly object to the implication that there is an attitude of child snatching and collusion to have children removed from their families where there is no need. In fact the reality as I've stated is that the opposite is the case. Local authorities are unwilling to stump up the funds to pursue through the courts in many cases and children are left in danger as a consequence.

"In other words in nananina's experience the system is so perfect that a judge never returns the child in a final hearing." Or perhaps if the child needs to be returned to the parents this happens before it gets to a final hearing? I.e. at the point of requesting interim care orders etc or during the assessment periods?

Tbh I don't think that cries of troll and personal attacks are the way to go to have a discussion about this, and I do wonder whethr people would be so vitreolic if NanaNina didn't admit to being a social worker.

There are others on this thread who don't buy into the argument that babies are routinely snatched from parents who are not social workers, but that doesn't make us trolls.

Ultimately there are of course going to be situations when children are removed from the family home and it turns out that the apparent concerns were unjustified. But it's surely also worth remembering that there have to be concerns for it to get to the point of removal of a child in the first place. Someone, before it gets to sS, will have alerted them to the fact that they have concern for a child, or the soon-to-be-parent of a child.

'Tbh I don't think that cries of troll and personal attacks are the way to go to have a discussion about this, and I do wonder whethr people would be so vitreolic if NanaNina didn't admit to being a social worker.'

I would and you know it.

The tone of the posts is, to me at least, remniscent of several highly-skilled trolls of the past.

That is my opinion.

You're doing it again Wannabe, suggesting those of us who have concerns with the present system agree with argument that babies are routinely snatched from their parents. It is called a straw man argument. Setting up an argument that is entirely unreasonable to knock it down. NO ONE, not one person, has suggested social workers are routinely snatching children from their parents for no reason. Time and time again people have said here they have huge respect for SWs and for the difficult job they do. It is really tiring having to reiterate that over and over to get any other point across. NanaNina's aggression and insults have shocked me considering what she claims to do for a living. However I only wondered if she was a troll when she came up with the idea that journalists are never to be believed. In fact n no one is to be believed who has any idea that is contrary to her own. I would rather she be a troll than be real if that is really her position.

OK I'm not a troll - don't even know what it is. Dittany - you ask what I was doing in the situation I described - I was a social worker making a visit to this family because we had been alerted by the health visitor and neighbours that there was concern for the children. What in god's name did you think I was doing...........??

Come on JH - answer the question. WHAT would you have done in this situation, or your Dittany or any other members of my fan club? What would you have done/ what action do you think a sw should have taken? Can you not also respond to the issue I raised that there could just be a remote possibility that judges do not return children home at the final hearing because this would mean that they would be further harmeed or abused?

And I have never said the journalist was lying. I said that ALL journalists are economical with the truth (and I could add that they indulge in exaggeration to get a newsworthy story) the object of the excercise is to sell papers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naieve in my view. The journalist in question was reporting from hearing only one side of the story, just as many of you are.

Glad to see you are holding on in here Wannabee. Nice to know there are still some reasonable voices out there.

Ok if you aren't driven by something personal JH what did you mean by posting that the personal experience you had was over 3 years ago.

Dittany - thank you for the Cavendish link.

I must admit she makes a cogent argument for removing the confidentiality of the family courts. I still feel very unsure about it for the child, though.

I have to say though, she's wrong about SS 'losing' applications for an order. I've challenged them successfully plenty of times.

I am driven by the fact that I see large numbers of real miscarriages of justice with people chased all over the world by the English AUthorities. I see families destroyed unnecessarily by the system. At the same time Ofsted are telling local authorities not to do serious case reviews at times (which they are not supposed to do) and children are allowed to remain subject to horrendous abuse.

Because the checks and balances often fail it is a question of the individual judgment of practitioners. Some have good judgment others have bad judgment.

We need to get the checks and balances to work properly.

NanaNina as so many people have said here, over and over, but let me say once more, people here have the greatest respect for SWs and the difficult job they do. It really is a straw argument to say 'what do you think I should have done in these circumstances' and describe a situation where children are being badly neglected. Of course in that situation if there is evidence of severe neglect and harm action has to be taken. Of course SWs find themselves in incredibly difficult situations. Of course SWs feel they have to err on the side of caution to prevent anything terrible happening to children on their watch. Of course. But you know journalists do a difficult job too, very often. They report difficult, unpopular stories, at odds with what the government or with what organisations want to hear. A good journalist is actually searching for the truth is situations. Without good journalism this world would be a very, very, dangerous place, where governments could do anything they please without any redress. You simply cannot dismiss everyone who disagrees with you, from politicians to journalists to ordinary people, as having completely worthless opinions. I really hope you don't do that in day to day life in your work.

Oh for God's sake Dittany - social workers are involved in situations like the one I describe EVERY day of EVERY week. What do you actually think they do. I have not cited RL situations before because I don't like this kind of emotional content on internet forums but I have tried everything else, so I thought maybe I would try a different tack. I could go into far more detail about the incident I mentioned and 100s more like it. Maybe this is the nub of the problem here, that people don't actually realise the situations in which social workers involved in child protection get involved every working day. I think the fact that you had to ask what I was doing there says it all really. What do you think child protection investigations involve?

At least these days social workers go out to these investigations in pairs and sometimes a police officer from the cp unit will accompany them, which is what happened in the case I mentioned. No I don't like the idea of describibg RL situations on here, but the fact that you say it doesn't "ring true" I think says an awful lot. I think a lot of you people on here just don't realise the way in which in RL children are abused and neglected by their parents and partners of parents. Maybe if you did realise you would change your views.

And no of course parents involved in the level of domestic abuse I outlined do not let sws "tend to their children" but you have to try to calm them down and ensure that the children are taken to a place of safety while further investigations take place. BUT why am I bothering because you obviously are not going to listen to anything I say. You are still talking about social workers "going after" families who shouldn't be targetted. WHERE is your evidence for this assertion????

Jh still waiting for your response to what you would have done in the situation that I describe AND a response to my Q "Have you ever seen in the flesh an abused/neglected child and seen the fear in their face and the tension in their body" Well have you???

Your tired old posts about "checks and balances" are so wearying.

AND what did you mean about what happend to you personally was 3 years ago?

Did anyone listen to The Choice on Radio 4 yesterday?

Link is here

It was with that whistle blowing SW from Haringey who blew the whistle on their malpractice and was herself accused of child abuse in revenge.

I just can't imagine a doctor administering the wrong medicine in revenge for you making a formal complaint against him/ her. But it's the equivalent.

NanaNina Wed 02-Dec-09 16:52:34
"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."

So those of us who have been writing post after post asking that all members of a profession should not be tarred with the same brush have been totally wasting our time, have we? This isn't actually an approach you want to apply to other professions than your own, then?

Why is it unacceptable for MNers to say that SWs are bad, if is acceptable for you to say that all journalists are economical with the truth? Personally I would argue that either approach is unacceptable- but you clearly wouldn't.

I'm trying to get the link to work HB. But that is beyond belief. Absolutely terrifying.

nananina you're not doing yourself any favours with your gross generalisations about journos.