'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.

Cory - to try to clarify what I mean as you ask. It worries all sws that there is a trong possibility that cp procedures do not in fact protect all children. There are always going to be cases that don't come to the attention of SSDs and hence children remain unprotected. In cases when cp procedures are put in place, there are also going to be cases where the decision is made not to remove children but to continue to work with the family in a supportive role (this is what happened in the baby Peter) case and several other cases where sadly the child died. It is like walking a tightrope and decision making in these cases is not left to an individual sw (quite rightly) and are the subject of a multi-disciplinary case conference. I have often thought that the wisdom of Solomon is needed in these cases. SWs struggle to protect children and act in their best interests against taking the step of removing from parents who may with help be able to improve their parenting.

SO what I actually meant was that the concern about children being left in these situations for the reasons stated above, has to be greater than the concern about children being "snatched from decent parents" which in the vast majority of cases I am absolutely certain does not happen. If anyone who thinks that actually witnessed what happens in care proceedings, and they were in any way rational, I am convinced their view would be changed. The only cases I can think of where there may have been some sort of miscarriage of justice are where medical evidence has been accepted by the courts and later found to be unsafe.

I accept that I may not have made myself clear in the post you refer to but one of the problems with these forums for me anyway is I can type as quick as I think (not bragging I used to be a typist when younger and the skill remains!) and sometimes my fingers run away with me.

OMG - more rubbish from JH. OK so he has given the link anbout the GCSC stuff several times but how in god's name does he deduce from this that "courts are not interested in getting independent assessments of parents and come down on the side of the local authority because it is only the LA that they listen to in those cases" - HOW is he making such a connection............words fail me.

Courts very very often agree to independent parenting assessments, otherwise myself and many of my colleagues would be out of work. But why am I bothering because I have argued this with JH so many times before and if he does finally accept that the court does commission independent assessments he then says that the sws appointed aren't independent because they are "known" to the local authorities - more nonsense. Will it never end.

JH must be so delighted about the GCSC failings because of course in his warped mind it props up his hypothesis that all social works are incompetent amateurs who just snatch babies from decent parents to get them adopted. He can try and wriggle his way out of that as he does but that is EXACTLY what he means.

Changing the subject I know but why not........

Is JH as an MP concerned about any other live issues in the media that may adversely affect his constituents...........e.g.

1. The MPs expenses fraud paid for by the taxpayer.

1. The fact that an innocent man was pushed over by police at the G20 protest (and it is on video) and later died but NO police officer has been charged.

1. There is evidence that some 12 NHS trusts in ther country are failing in terms of safety in their hospitals. (Observer 29.11.09)

1. Thousands of people are dying of cancer needlessly because they are not being referred for the necessary exploratory tests early enough. (Guardian 30.11.09)

NO thought not - he's far too busy with his quest to prove his nonsensical hypothesis.

I will not await the backlash from JH's supporters and more nonsense from him!

'Nananina I never suggested I wouldn't like to know you but that judging from your posts on here (which is all I have to judge you on) I would not want you as my social worker.'

You're not the only one!

I cite a court of appeal judgment that justifies my argument and nananina raises completely different issues.

There are lots of problems in England. Some relate to Child Protection.

These threads are about Child Protection.

Incidentally I received my letter from Sir Thomas Legg that confirms that there are no issues with my expenses.

I'm hoping most SWs are not like NanaNina.

'I'm hoping most SWs are not like NanaNina.'

And here I was hoping most people aren't like NanaNina

To be fair to Nana - she probably feels very defensive of her profession. SWs seems to come under endless critisism and most do their best within a crap system.

I heard Goldie on the radio this morning talking about how influencial his social worker had been in his life and how she had been there for him. And how grateful he was for that.
He made the point that SWs do small but significant things everyday, yet no-one ever gives them any credit.

Having spent so many years working with kids in care I admit that I can be very critical of Social services, but I try to remind myself that a lot of the problems are due to lack of funding and resourses. And also that policy decisions are taken by government not individual SWs.

Attachment issues arise starting in utero (mother's cortisol levels impact baby) through to around 3 years old. 0-6 months inadequacy of attachment has huge impact on synaptic development. but really we're talking about a window of about 3 years.

I have read with interest the court of appeal judgement that JH says "proves his point that courts don't appoint independent assessors and only listen to the la." The judgement gives detailed and coherent reasons why on the particular case in question, the judge decided against appointing an independent social worker. The reasons appear to me to by wholly understandable and appropriate and it was clear to see from the history of the case that an independent a/ment would no serve any useful purpose in assisting the judge any further in coming to a decision about the child's future. The court of appeal uhold thejudgement.

I was interested in the Mrs. Haines issue (assume she is one of JH's volunteers and the judge clearly had concerns about him as even though he isn't named, it is evident it is JH to whom he refers. I have been appointed several times as an ind sw in the Birmingham City County Courts and several cases in which I have been involved have been presided over by Judge Hamilton, who I have always found to be very fair, if a little direct.

I cannot see the sense in any birth parent caught up in care proceedings wishing to be represented by someone like Mrs. Haines who is not legally qualified. I think it a pity that this mother has put herself in this position which could only be a disadvantage for her in my view.

Litchick - yes you are right - I am trying to defend my profession - not necessarily for myself as I have the luxury of working part time and as an independent worker I can pick and choose when I work and what cases I take on. I am thinking more of my ex coleagues who are still working tirelessly at the coal face and suffering from the stresses of trying to walk the tightrope of child protection.

I am aware my posts are "ranty" and they get up people's noses sometimes but I feel passionately about social work and have fought all my working life for justice, and I am deeply frustrated at the injustice of JH with his nonsensical belief of a conspiracy theory of snatching children to get them adopted etc. FWIW I don't actually believe that some of his supporters really do support him. I can't see how they can because he doesn't present a rational sustained argument. I suspect their support for him is a pop at me really and this worries me far far less than feeling they really do support him.

I find it very strange that people who oppose me on these threads, do not comment on the content of my posts, which are detailed, and coherent and are rooted in experience and understanding of the system, but instead come up with sound bite type comments of a derogatory nature. It matters not to me at all but I think it says more about them than it does about me.

I don't feel the need to defend myself as I am very secure about who I am both personally and professionally and know that I have always treated all service users with respect and worked harmoniously with all with whom I have come into contact over 30 plus years. Ironically on another thread I was heavily criticised and again personal insults were made against me because I said that I was shocked at the way in which some adoptive parents were making unnecessarily insulting comments about their children's birth parents e.g. pondlife, scumbags, sefish feckless bitch etc. I have always treated birth parents with respect regardless of the injuries/neglect that their children have suffered at their hands. In my reports I always ensure thatI stress some of the factors that may have led the parents to behave in such a way, often factors that relate to their own childhood experiences for which they cannot be wholly to blame.

I'm sure no one has got this far as I know i tend to go on. I have never said that there arenot problems in SSDs and in cp and have itemised many of them on this thread.

I will always try to challenge injustice and this is the reason I keep posting. It is wholly unjust to subscribe to JH's nonsensical view that there is a conspiracy between social workers, guardians, psychologists, consultant psychiatrists, GPs, play therapists, and lawyers (as he now includes them)and judges, to snatch children from decent parents and get them adopted to meet adoption targets. However he tries to dress it up THAT is precisely what he believes.

The social workers on here Ceres and Wahwah and one or two other posters know this is nonsense but his supporters can't know it because they don't understand how the system works and no amount of explaining makes the slightest bit of difference.

NOW I will wait for the usual comments "Oh I'm glad you're not my social worker" "you are so aggressive" etc etc.

I have read your posts NanaNina. What you generally say is that people who are concerned about the present system either don't know what they are talking about, are unhinged, are liars, conspiracy theorists, or some other insult. Your aggression undermines any valid points you might make. I hope that people in vulnerable positions [eg having a sw visiting their home] will have someone visiting who is aware of the flaws in the system, is not sure that all the time they are completely right, and is not aggressive towards them. I have no feeling about John Hemmings except that he was there to help a woman who posted here a few years ago, a woman who had to move to overseas to avoid the SS taking her baby away at birth because they were accusing/predicting that she would have Munchausen's by proxy when her baby was born, despite all the evidence given by psychiatric professionals against this and despite MbP having been discredited. If she was still here her baby would have been adopted by now - luckily for her she lives happily somewhere else with her baby. Perhaps that is why people here feel that JH is really trying to help people. Hemmings has not said the system is a conspiracy, he has pointed out the flaws revealed to him by those he tries to help. He has not insulted you. But you repeatedly insult him. I agree that to be a SW is a very difficult job and that there must be many very good ones out there trying to protect children. You may have some good points to make here, but to make them without insults and the attitude of 'how dare anyone outside the SS make criticisms of it' would do much better justice to your argument.

isn't the point that SW must place the child's safety as an absolute priority. aren't we all up in arms when this doesn't happen (vis baby p, the climbie case etc). SW cannot win. I don't think for a moment that there is a conspiracy to snatch children from their parents. I think it's an absolutely thankless job and it's fantastic that there are people out there prepared to do it. fwiw.

the point about commenting on any specific case on here is that most mners haven't seen the evidence and therefore are in a very information limited place in terms of their judgement of how a case could or should have gone.

thank you for clarifying, NanaNina

I, as you have probably gathered, take a middle of the road approach: I feel uncomfortable at innocent members of any profession being tarred with the brush of its few incompetent members; otoh I would also feel extremely uncomfortable at any suggestion from within a profession that mistakes, whether of commission or omission, are not to be taken seriously.

Amputating the wrong leg (and yes, it does happen!) is potentially as serious as failing to operate the right leg- not least because it ties up the resources that should be used on dealing with the leg that needs to come off. And noone would find it reassuring if a doctor shrugged his shoulders and said, well it doesn't really matter about the healthy leg that came off, compared to the damage that could be done if we failed to operate when needed. You just wouldn't find it reassuring!

So I think any SW discussing these questions has a big responsibility to signal that they do not take over-intervention lightly.

It cuts both ways. The profession of SWs should not be hounded any more than any of the other caring professions. But then we should expect the same level of responsible language from an SW as from a medical professional.

To be fair, Po. JH has given the impression many times that he does feel the current system of removing children is part f a wider conspiracy vis a vis adoptions.

On many a thread he says the judges simply 'rubberstamp' the applications of social services.
He says lawyers don't fight for their clients and are served by the confidentiality ( which he calls 'secrecy') in the courts.

And recently on a thread about child migrants to Australia when posters were explaining the disgraceful situation where children were essentially stolen from their parents under false pretenses and sent away to be fored labour JH stated 'plus ca change'

If he equates the two siuations then, yes, I think he does think there is a conspiracy.

I may be completely wrong - but that is the over riding impression he gives.

I don't think for a moment there is a conspiracy either sophable. And what you say is absolutely true but very general, none of that means there are not serious flaws that need addressing. I remember the way you commented on that specific case at the time. Presumably you think she should come back as SS know best? They couldn't have made a mistake?

Cory - I think you're right about language and its importance.

One of my mian critisisms of SWs is that they have a lock down mentality. It's very hard to get them to discuss/concede.

Yet, I would bet most SWs have an endless list of things they would want changed in the system.

I know every lawyer could bore you to tears with suggested improvements. Ditto the judiciary. The difference is probably that we're more vocal than SS.

There is secrecy in the family courts Litchick, that is well known. And it does seem to me, from the people who post from the SS perspective here, that the few children who might be taken from their families wrongly, are necessary casualties to protect the greater majority of children at risk. A child taken from a family mistakenly is not seen as destroying that child and that family's lives.

As I said, NanaNina has some valid points to make, I just think they would be made better without insults and aggression.

I am worried that when people say 'you on MN can't comment you don't know the inside details' how will things ever change? If people on the inside don't think the system needs to change, and people on the outside are not allowed to comment, well, then things will go on as they are.

I am really not anti SS. I agree with sophable when she says they are doing a very difficult job and their interest is to protect children. I try to stay away from these threads. But I felt vey uncomfortable with the level of NN's aggression, seeing as she is representing her industry.

pofacedandproud Wed 02-Dec-09 09:45:12
"There is secrecy in the family courts Litchick, that is well known. And it does seem to me, from the people who post from the SS perspective here, that the few children who might be taken from their families wrongly, are necessary casualties to protect the greater majority of children at risk. A child taken from a family mistakenly is not seen as destroying that child and that family's lives."

Very true. And that is the bit I can't understand. The doctor who operates on the wrong leg doesn't shrug it off as a necessary casualty. Which is why I still respect the medical profession as a whole despite having been the victim of some pretty spectacular misdiagnosis (not however involving amputated legs).

Otoh I have very few RL experiences of SWs which have not been positive. I only get dubious when posters on MN present it to me as a profession which cannot handle criticism.

Quite, cory.

Pofaced - yes it is true that I have insulted JH though I deny ever calling anyone a "liar" - and yes JH doesn't insult me back - I find that almsot as strange as some of the things he does say! I have tried to explain in a long post above what is at the root of my perceived aggression (and yes I do accept that this is how my posts are perceived by some on here)and it is frustration.

I have no quarrel with anyone making comments about any organisation/system/whatever. We live in a democratic society and freedom of speech is the essence of democracy. The points I make about people criticising from unawareness of how the system works is solely related to child protection procedures and care proceedings in the courts. JH consistently posts about these matters and posts wholly inaccurate information and tries every which way to support his hypothesis that children are snatched from decent parents and adopted. I just feel that I can't stand by and let him give such inaccurate information, from a position of awareness of knowing how the system really works. This is NOT to say that I don't think there is room for improvements in the system OR that I always believe that I am right - far from it............ I am sure you are right to say that my aggression (which I see as passion) and derogatory comments to JH dilute the validity of any other points I make. Would that I did not feel so frustrated and passionate about challenging people who are giving a totally false picture of something as important as child abuse. This mode of expression is I have to say limited to this internet forum - I am not aggressive in RL though I am assertive when necessary and always always try to fight injustice.

I can't comment on the case you cite about the mother who fled overseas. Dare I say however that you will only have heard one side of the story presumably from the mother and JH............and how do you know that the mother and child are now "living happily"

I see that Litchick agrees that JH thinks there is a conspiracy going on and it has been obvious to me for sometime that that is his position. As LT says when I posted about the terrible situation of the child migrants being "stolen" from their parents and sent to Australia in previous decades (right up until the mid 60s) JH commented "plus ca change" - (no change)SO you tell me what he means by that if you don't think he thinks there is a conspiracy going on.

Litchick - you comment that sws have a "lock down mentality" and it is hard to get them to discuss/concede. I think this is unfair - can you explain more what you mean. Often we are accused of discussing too much and not taking enough action or not taking action at the right time. As for conceding, maybe if lawyers were being slagged off on these posts in the ways sws are you may feel differently. You say you are probably more vocal than sws - I think you are not so reviled by the media and the public - you are still respected and looked upon as professionals with credability. I am pleased that this is the case. I have worked with lawyers outside of l.a.s for the past 7 years since I began independent work and have always enjoyed exceptionally good relationships with them and there is a mutual feeling of belief in the other's competence even if we are not in agreement about the way forward. Many times of course we are not because as you will know it is the lawyer for the birth parents who requests an independent sw a/ment on which the court must make a decision. However I am routinely approached by defence solicitors asking if my name can be put forward to the court when they are requesting an ind sw a/ment. I am well known on the court circuits and therefore if a judge is minded to commission an ind a/ment I am usually appointed if my name is put forward. As you know it's a lonely place in court for an ind sw because the birth parents, other birth relatives who may be oparty to the proceedings, the l.a. and the guardian have lawyers acting for them, whereas the ind sw is on her own.

Anyway I think I've probably said enough and II will try (again) to ignore JH because his posts make me irrational!

Sophable - have only just noticed your post - the voice of reason you are!

what sophable said was what many others have said here NanaNina, including me. She just did not add any concerns about the current system - which makes her the voice of reason in your eyes.

Do you think any changes need to be made to the current system?

I don't think there is a conspiracy per se.
There was an error in calculating the adoption target. That drove far greater numbers of adoptions than the government thought were happening.

There is a tendency for the courts to look at things from a social engineering perspective rather than a child protection perspective.

Children should be removed from their parents because the children are at risk not because you can find better parents.

I think the court of appeal judgment I highlighted demonstrated that view. The court's view was that the mother did not have a right to have an independent assessment as it was up to the judges to decided what evidence they wanted for them to work out what they thought was best for the child.

Nana - what I mean by 'lockdown' is that during the run up to, and during the course of proceedings, most SWs will stonewall the parents and the children's solicitors.

I do undertstand it - it's an adversarial process and the SW will be cross examined in due course which I assume is a very unpleasant thing.

But many a time have I thought the threshold had been met vis a vis significant harm, but I was unhappy with the care plan...but the SWs would make it clear it was not up for discussion.
The care plan was their business iyswim, suggestions from parents, children, even the GAL were often ignored. I've evn known SWs argue tooth and nail with an expert over the care plan as if it was written in stone.
Agian, I think much is the fault of the adversarial system.

I think that nananina is being treated a bit harshly on this thread.

I think it's fair to say that most people don't actually know how the system of removing babies from their parents works because fortunately very few of us have to experience it. So a lot of what we "know" is what we read about in the press, and then it is a one-sided view as SS are not allowed to comment. And no, of course a parent under threat of having their child taken from them is not going to give the whole story..

And often we don't hear the ultimate outcome of cases even when SS have initially been perceived to be at fault, E.g. the baby that was removed and ordered to be returned to the mother as proper procedures hadn't been followed made it into the news as a failing on the part of SS, but the fact that the baby was subsequently removed from the parent was not reported so widely...

Similarly the case of the woman who went to Sweden, we only had her side of the story, and there was no way of knowing what evidence there was to suggest her baby might have been at risk. And given she left the country, we have no way of knowing whether her baby actually was at risk because she fled the system.

When reading JH's posts it is blindingly obvious that his view is that SS's agenda is all about damaging children and snatching babies to fulfill adoption targets.

I think that as much as we need to open our eyes to the fact that there are failings within SS, we also need to take a step back from these mad conspiracy theories about baby snatchers..