'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.

Ok - my response to people who are criticising my concerns about JH. I'm sorry Blueshoes but he "doesn't make perfect sense" at all and with respect you aren't really in a position to make this assertion are you because on your own admission you have nothing to do with childrens services in the UK. I have tried patiently in the past to explain to you how the system works and it has fallen on stoney ground so I don't intend to try again. i would not consdier I could make a comment about a doctor/nurse/teacher/scientist etc and whether they made "perfect sense" because I don't have the information and knowledge about their work.

FWIW I think that JH is driven by some sort of personal experience of social work intervention and adoption. He sort of alludes to this in one recent post about what happened in his case was over 3 years ago. Something like that anyway. His posts have all the hallmark of someone who is seeking to extract revenge from a system that in his view has let him down in some way
or take some sort of action of which he is in disagreement. It is not uncommon for people in these situations to become obsessed with trying to wreak their revenge and they become blinkered to anything other than their desparate need to prove the system is fundamentally flawed and unfair.

I beleive that this drives JH. This may well be his way of trying to cope with whatever is was that affected him and he is now on a crusade to help other families who feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice. His hypothesis is simple "social workers are mostly intent on snatching children from innocent parents and getting them adopted to achieve adoption targets" - all of his posts attempt to support this hypothesis which in reality is insupportable.

He is so intent on proving his hypothesis that he is unable to engage in any rational debate or even argue his point in a logical manner. He claims to be a scientist but is unable to understand quite uncomplicated research (Michael Rutter's work on the Romanian orphans)and distorts it to fit his hypothesis. When challenged he has no defence, and cannot ever evidence anything that he claims. Instead he makes random posts with comments made completely out of context or quotes some statistics that don't ddo anything to prove anything. He posts about attachment disorder (that he calls RAD) and he has the whole concept entirely round his neck - it is very clear that he fails to understand this theory at it's most basic level.

He is adamant that there are continuous miscarriages of justice and complains (as do others) about the secrecy of the courts. Why then does he not challenge the judges who are involved in all these miscarriages of justice instead of posting on MN. And how does an MP have so much time to post on here. I don't see other MPs on MN. And is he concerned about any of the other 1001 issues that affect his constituents other than child prtoection and adoption.

I have in the past raised many issues with him adn asked for clarification, evidence, whatever but they are either ignored or a response comes in the form of another random comment about something or other. The fact is that he cannot support his hypothesis but it doesn't stop him continuing to try. It would be a bit like trying to prove for eample that all doctors are incompetent and wnat nothing more than to empty all their hospitals of patients. Impossible to do.

So OK we know what he objects to but he doesn't tell us what he thinks SHOULD happen where a child is being ill treated. He is totally opposed to adoption which he calls "forced adoption" - so even JH must agree that some children are mistreated and can't be kept safe at home - so WHAT would he want to happen in these cases and IF the child couldn't be retutrned home, HOW would he propose that child is given the right to a permanent stable home which is every child's birthright. OK JH/Blueshoes and others let's have some answers. I await with baited breath.

H

nananina "Why then does he not challenge the judges who are involved in all these miscarriages of justice instead of posting on MN."
I do. In various courts including the European Court of Human Rights. I wrote a resolution for PACE to establish an inquiry which has now been established. All of this is happening. (eg RP v The United Kingdom)

nananina "And how does an MP have so much time to post on here. I don't see other MPs on MN."
I engage with a number of online fora. There are perhaps 5-6 MPs who do. I think this is a useful process for communication.

nananina "And is he concerned about any of the other 1001 issues that affect his constituents other than child prtoection and adoption. "
There is a report in Today's observer about another issue I am looking at.

nananina "He is totally opposed to adoption which he calls "forced adoption"
This like many things is a straw man argument. I have often said that there is a role for adoption."

nananina "I have in the past raised many issues with him adn asked for clarification, evidence, whatever but they are either ignored or a response comes in the form of another random comment about something or other. "
This is the most worrying aspect of your post. I have responded specifically with evidence to justify my arguments. You, however, are unable to engage with this. This worries me in that you say you are providing reports as an independent social worker.

"His hypothesis is simple "social workers are mostly intent on snatching children from innocent parents and getting them adopted to achieve adoption targets" - all of his posts attempt to support this hypothesis which in reality is insupportable."

Is that really your hypothesis JH? Only I hadn't had you down as being that stupid and simplistic and am just wondering if I missed something that Nananina has observed. Can you confirm if that is your hypothesis, or is that just Nananina's way of discrediting your arguments, by making you out to be a nutter?

Oh dear, nana, just read what you wrote. I fear you have completely lost the plot.

My crime is to agree with johnhemming. It is possible for you to hold a perfectly valid view but for there to be other equally valid but nonetheless different perspectives from yours. Sadly, in your black-and-white world, there can be no rational discussion of perspectives other than yours, only personal attack.

Your posts speak for themselves.

My hypothesis is in part that the focus of the child protection system in England was moved away from child protection towards adoption in part as a result of the (now scrapped) adoption targets.

This gives a concentration on babies where the judgments are all about what might happen in the future rather than older children at risk.

Nananina's statement is a misrepresentation of this.

Well thanks HerB for asking this question of JH. Sadly his response as usual lacks any kind of clarity or sense. I think he has tried to re-word his hypothesis to make it look more palatable, but it is another muddled statement that is illogical. He is now trying as he has done in the past so many times to assert that there is a tangible DIFFERENCE between child protection and adoption. In fact they are part of the same process - if cp investigations are carried out and after lengthy assessments by a variety of professionals and a long court hearing with the final decision being made by a judge, the child is unable to be returned to the care of the parents, then arrangements have to be made for the care of the child for the rest of his life. Children can't sit around waiting for their parents to recover from their drink/drug abuse, domestic violence, mental health problems or whatever. They only have once hildhood. SO what next - if the child is young enough then the care plan will be for adoption to give the child the right to a permanent stable home for the remainder of his life. JH can't get hold of the fact that in this sense cp and adoption are intrinsically linked. He continues to assert and this is clear in his response to you BeaH that children are NOT protected by placed for adoption to meet the adoption targets. Any social worker or lawyer in the land will know this is patent nonsense but it doesn't stop JH peddling this view.

The second line of his post "this gives a concentration of babies where the judgeements are all about what might happen in the future rather than the older child at riks" is also patent nonsense. I have really stopped trying to fathom the way his illogical mind works and his flawed thinking, but I suspect he is referring here (as he has done so many times in the past) to the fact that the grounds for instituting care proceedings are that "the child is suffering from significant harm or likely to suffer from significant harm in the future" - the wording is there to cover cases where it is apparent that a child is not safe in the care of his parents but has not yet been harmed. It may be that the parents have abused/neglected other children and they have been removed and there has been no change in the circumstances so there is serious concern that the next child will be abused/neglected in the same way. What do you do - leave the child there in the hope that all will be well - and THEN the hue and cry will be "why didn't somebody DO something" There are many other reasons why proceedings are brought under the premise of "likely harm". Proceedings can also be brought for "older children" who are at risk of likely harm so again JH is trying to make a distinction here between babies and older children that doesn't exist.

I have never said JH is a "nutter" - I consider that a derogatory term though I have suggested he might be unhinged which I suppose is equally derogatory, but I have become so frustrated with the nonsense that he posts that I am driven to make derogatory comments about him.

Have to say that I am amazed he has not commented on my suggestion as to what is driving this determination he has to wreak revenge on social workers and the system. He has neither confirmed nor denied that my suspicions are correct, but tbh I am past caring about him and am trying very hard to ignore his ridiculous inaccurate and distorted posts.

Message withdrawn

TBH it would be nice to see more MPs out there in the community, which is what MNet is afterall.

I do wish, though, that they might, just might listen occasionally, rather than crusade. They might get an inkling what it is voters want.

I would have thought Nananina would have shared my concern that England has a bad track record for a developed company in terms of protecting children from death as a consequence of child abuse and/or neglect.

I wish to see the system changed because it is failing. Is that not sufficient motivation.

Dilemma - I don't have to answer to you for how I spend my time but just so you know.......I retired from social work some 7 years ago and have worked independently since then but increasingly on a very part time basis as I am getting older and have other calls on my time (grand children and other family committments). And I'm glad I don't know you in RL for what it's worth or some other posters on here. It's interesting that the only other people on these threads who know that JH talks nonsense are other social workers.

JH I see you are still dodging the issue of what is driving you in your quest - are my suspicions right or not? Oh don't bother I won't get a sensible answer, just more nonsense.

nana, johnhemming has already responded in the last sentence of the post just below yours.

Read it. Don't just ignore and rant.

Well blueshoes you are soooooooo wise so you will have to point out to me the particular post in which JH addresses the issue I raised about what is driving his quest to discredit social workers, the courts and the entire system. As far as I can see he has not addressed this issue and I would have thought he would want to, but then why am I expecting logic from him.................and please don't issue instructions to me - it's not necessary.

I wish to see the system changed because it is failing. Is that not sufficient motivation.

(That is the comment that blueshoes was referring to that I made at 16:08:56).

"This gives a concentration on babies where the judgments are all about what might happen in the future". But can't the same be said for those cases where it is perceived a baby is at risk and should be removed before that risk becomes reality? you know, "what might happen in the future,"?

And no I am not a social worker.

And I do believe that something has to change within SS, however I do not buy into the hysterical conspiracies that SS are out to snatch babies to fulfill their adoption targets.

There are miscarriages of justice in every walk of life, but let's be honest, if someone fleas the country such as Fran Lyon or Kerry Robertson then it cannot be classed as a miscarriage of justice as there is no way of knowing whether the baby was ok left with the parent is there?

I would consider babies left with abusive parents to be more of a miscarriage of justice tbh, and this is IMO where things need to be changed.

Wannabe - you've got uit so right.

I'm sceptical about those who chose to focus their time and attention on the small number of cases where the parents claim there has been a miscarriage of justice.

I much prefer to use my efforts being an advocate for the thousands of children in care for who the system must be improved.

HEAR HEAR Wannabe - you make good sense. I have tried to explain in the 2nd para of my post of 30th Nov what is meant by JH's comment outlined in your post today. He is referring in a roundabout way to the words "likelihood of significant harm" in the legal process. It is exactly as you say, "likelihood of significant harm" is meant to cover cases where a baby is at risk and needs to be removed before that risk becomes a reality. To argue against this is tantamount to saying "well we are so worried about this case, but let's not do anything because the baby/child hasn't actually been harmed yet" - and then if nothing is done and the baby is sadly injured or even killed, then the cry goes up "why didn't somebody DO something" - you just can't win. Never was the saying "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" more apt.

I have given examples of cases when "the likelihood of significant harm" is used in care proceedings but each case is of course different.

You are SO right that the real concern is babies being left with abusive parents is far more of a miscarriage of justice and where things do need to change. JH cites the poor report that Birmingham City SSD got recently to support his notion that children are snatched from innocent parents and adopted. There was absolutely NO concerns in the reports about the failings of Birmingham City Council in this respect. The concerns were about staff shortages, high turnover of staff, agency workers, inexperienced social workers with high case loads, poor management systems. In fact the essence of the report was concern that children would not be sufficiently protected.

Poor baby! Makes me want to cuddle my wee man.

The problem is that if the wrong children are taken into care this results in both children being left to die of abuse and also children being adopted whose parents are in fact adequate or even good parents.

The "Who Cares" report may be found on the council website. The URL should be this following, but I am not sure this will work.
www.birmingham.gov.uk/democracy/Pages/GetDoc.aspx?DocumentID%3DEv3iVutpfWU%253d%26MimeType%3Dapplica tion%2Fpdf%26DocName%3DWho+Cares-Protecting+Children+and+Improving+their+Care+13.10.09V3.pdf

Quoting from the report:
2.7.2 On Child Care Planning and Practice the findings were stark:
? 53% Unacceptably Poor Practice
? 39% Acceptable
? 7% Good

2.7.5 The findings on Case Files and Recording were no better:
? 54% Unacceptably Poor Practice
? 39% Acceptable
? 7% Good

This includes taking children into care unnecessarily and also having children unnecessarily kept in care.

I don't think children being left in abusive homes is a worse thing than a child from a loving home being taken into care, any more than a guilty person walking free is worse than an innocent person going to prison.

It's a little dispiriting to see people (especially social workers) thinking you have to come down on the side of one or the other. We can strive to avoid both and give both priorities the same weight.

Nobody has said that one is worse than the other and no social worker on here has "come down on one side or the other." What has been said is that there is far more probability and concern that a child may be left in an unsafe home, because of factors like shortage of social workers, sws having to spend too much time in front of a computer etc than visiting family homes, than there is of a child being "snatched from decent parents" which JH and people on this thread seem to believe is happening.

You say "we can strive to avoid both and give both priorities the same weight" - THAT is what social workers involved in child protection do every day of every year, working with huge caseloads and a totally under resourced organisation and all the attendant stresses that accompany child protection work.

NanaNina Mon 30-Nov-09 21:18:47
Nobody has said that one is worse than the other and no social worker on here has "come down on one side or the other."

But did you not say:

"NanaNina Mon 30-Nov-09 17:26:38"

You are SO right that the real concern is babies being left with abusive parents is far more of a miscarriage of justice and where things do need to change."

The grammar is not very clear in this second paragraph, but I, and probably others with me, understood that to mean that if a baby is left with abusive parents that is more of a miscarriage of justice than if a baby is removed from non-abusive parents. Which to me sounds like a policeman saying, if an innocent person gets sent to prison that's less of a miscarriage of justice than if a guilty person is left to go free.

If this is not what you intended, please clarify.

I refer you to my posting on this thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/869604-Head-of-the-General-Social-Care-Council-sacked-catalogue-of? pg=2

Which demonstrates that the courts are not that interested in getting independent assessments of parents. Hence they come down on the side of the local authority because it is only the LA that they listen to in those cases.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn