Baby joy for couple forced to flee the ss

[atlantis]

The mail are reporting that the couple forced to flee the UK after their first daughter was forcibly adopted and plans were in place to do the same to their new child have had a baby boy, good luck to them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251801/Pregnant-Briton-fled-Spain-prevent-social-services-taking-c hild-gives-birth-son.html

"but the child has settled with their new carer (the prospective adopter)"

Which is what I said, you countered with;

""No child is placed for adoption before the final hearing and there is no "back door" into adoption in the sneaky way that Atlantis thinks "probably happens" A child cannot be placed for adoption until after the final hearing and the making of a Placement Order, which means that the child can be placed for Adoption."

So I gave you a direct quote;;

""Many agencies meet the shortfall through other more profitable services, such as fostering or concurrent planning, where potential adopters foster children on a temporary basis while parents resolve difficulties at home, eventually adopting the children if problems remain."

So you come up with this;

"are placed with prospective adoptors rather than short term foster carers. This is NOT to be confused with Atlantis's outlandish claims that children are placed with adoptors when they are first removed and are somehow sneakily adopted."

And this;

"I didn't include it in my response to your assertions about back door adoption because I didn't think of it - it is a scheme that not many local authorities have taken up, though an excellent scheme for the benefit of the child rather than the adults...................so you haven't caught me out as you so like to try to do Atlantis and prove me wrong."

And this;

"It is you that consistently gets things wrong and it is small wonder as you are in no sense involved in SSDs or child protection. "

So firstly I was right a child can be placed with it's prospective adopter.

Secondly your attack on me just makes you look follish and childish especially when you have been proven wrong.

Thirdly you can not admit when you are wrong, as with a great many sw's, unfortunately which is why a lot of children are in the care system that should not be there.

Fourthly what's all this 'it's you who constantly gets things wrong and it is small wonder as you are in no sense involved in SSDs or child protection.' no thankfully I am not, but you alledgedly are and are constantly getting things wrong and showing the emotional maturity of a 10 year old when you do.

Is it any wonder that ss do not want their work opened up to scrutiny when they have sw's who do not know what they are talking about and acting like bullying 10 year olds in the school yard.

Concurrent planning means placing a child with prospective adoptors (meaning people who have been approved as adoptors but do not have a child placed) - however the child is placed under Fostering Regulations and as I have explained, every effort is made to reunite the child with the parents, soit is not the backdoor route to adoption that you think happens.

However I can see that it is extremely important for you Atlantis to be right in everything you say and if you want to think that you are right here and I am wrong and that makes you happy then so be it. It matters not to me, I am just trying to point out the reality of the situation.

Anyway I have had enough of this thread (in which others have lost interest) and engaging in what has degenerated into a point scoring exercise. I am merely trying to set the record straight (for the benefit of others) when you post such inaccurate information on these threads. If you think this means I am emotionally immature then so be it - it matters not to me.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Dilemma, imo its not quite as conspiratorial as you seem to believe.

I am a mental health social worker by background and in fact would consider myself to have some expertise in mental health. Children services social workers have far more expertise than I do in child development, abuse, child care legislation etc..

Although social work has a generic qualification, these days social workers do generally specialise (unless they choose to work in Emergency Duty Services where the role is generic).

Social workers rely to a large extent on other 'experts' and would never claim to be psychiatrists or lawyers or whatever your fantasy is.

The psychiatrists in my team are routinely asked to provide 'expert' opinions regarding the mental health of some parents known to ourselves and childrens services. They provide independent opinion based on an assessment of a parents mental health history and clinical presentation.

No one is saying the system is perfect-it clearly isn't. However if there is a conspiracy both you and folk like Atlantis and john hemming know more about it than the real life social workers on this and other threads

atlantis - I'm really not sure what you are claiming with respect to concurrent planning (I find your posts a bit impenetrable) but I know of cases where the fostered child is placed back with the birth family.

I too would like to know what you mean by saying the sw's get 12 months paid leave when they tgake a child out of the pool. I really would like to know.

Message withdrawn

This thread is getting nasty and personal now which is a shame. Can we not accept that most people involved in child protection work are there for the safety of children?

SWs are not infalliable as they are HUMAN and if they (and all the experts) are wrong in the case linked to in the OP then I wish the family all the luck in the world. If however there is a basis for the concerns then my only good wishes will go to the baby who may well need it....as I said way way back in this thread.

Personally as someone who writes reports for social services (on a more regular basis than I wish I had to) and who could be called upon if a case went into court I find it offensive that anyone could suggest any report I write would be influenced by what social services tell me I should say. My whole livlihood would be at stake if I did not give an honest opinion so I would not accept anyone or any service interfering. The same is true of doctors, psychologists etc etc.

While I agree that families should have access to their own support and experts I have to say that it's a fantasy to think all these people would put their jobs on the line to suit the whims of a social services department. That's just my humble opinion fwiw and I can understand NN's frustration when she reads this kind of thing in print.

Am going to hide this thread now as everyone is convinced they are right and others are wrong. I am gald that people do raise objections and concerns about the system of child protection - there needs to be debate but this thread seems to have descended into point scoring and that's a shame.

dilemma, I'm not diagnosing you as a fantasist. I didn't actually call you a fantasist if you re read my post. It is a turn of phrase that I used to imply that in my opinion the specific views that you expressed are not based in reality.

I do not diagnose anyone that I work with you'll be pleased to know as that is the role of a psychiatrist. But like you did with nananina you choose to make inferences about my practice on the basis of a single post that I wrote.

Its a bit pointless having any kind debate in that case.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

a fantasist is someone who deliberately makes things up. From what I read Staggerlee is saying that your perception is not the same as the one that people who work in the system see for themselves.

I am finding this thread difficult to engage in as it seems both "sides" will only speak to each other dramatically defending their position. Anyone with no agenda like myself or Imsonottelling are roundly (and rudely) ignored.

So again -

what does the comment about sw's getting paid time off about?

Also to JH-

What percentage of the people who come to you do you actually think that SS were right to remove the child?

Do you ever advise people that it would be in their best interests to work with SS if they want ot keep their child?

I'm beginning to see why your average MN'er doesn't get involved in these threads.

kewcumber "Do you ever advise people that it would be in their best interests to work with SS if they want ot keep their child?"

I always advise those people who go abroad to take their paperwork with them and show it to the local practitioners and work with them. Normally if that happens they will simply go home with their baby.

In England the situation varies. I do not advise people to break the law although I can understand when they do.

At times I will advise people to stick by a working agreement even if the working agreement is unnecessary.

NanaNina if your intention is to increase support for your profession then you really need to change the way you post.

thank you JH and how about my other question? Of course I'm presming that you don't think every situation where a child is taken into care is inequitable (for the child obviously not the parnts)

I don't do statistics on the cases we deal with. There are a few people who come to me saying that the LA were right to take the child into care, but have got things wrong since.

There are cases where people have come to me to complain, but I think the LA got it right.

My friend is in her 60's, she has custody of her grandson.

His parents are drug addicts, when her grandson was born, my friend was told 'she couldnt adopt him as she was too old'

Within hours of being born it was clear the child had problems, weeks later with the extent of the childs problems being clear (west syndrome and severe development delay etc) The same social worker asked her 'are you going to adopt him then ?'

So all of a sudden she wasnt too old ?

Another Grandmother in my town has custody of her asd granddaughter and nt grandson, she is a fit and active woman in her 50's and yet for some reason was deemed 'unable' to care for the youngest aged 6 months (the other two were 7 and 10 )

In my opinion, it's clear that in some cases baby 'snatching' does go on.

The latter examplehas other examples. This is exactly the sort of thing Gordon Brown was apologising for at 12.30 today.

As a social worker who directly works in the CP unit I find some of the "opinion" misconstrued and some what ignorant tbh.

Im leaving it at this, as simply it is evident that SW are evil and we are only in it to make the money by taking children out of the "pool".

I sit on the fency with regard to this a bit as I have personally come across an over zealous social worker. Having said that I have had personal dealing with many social workers and only found one who was a bit gung ho.

I am however extremely unhappy that atlantis hasn't clarified her remark "Isn't it 12 months paid leave a sw gets when they take a kid home from the child pool?".

Prefrring younger parents to older parents for very young children is endemic in the adoption system and nothing (AFAIK) to do with babies being "snatched". There is a general perception that younger childrne are better off with younger parents which is probably true but shoyuld be outweighed when keeping sibling groups together. Placing within the family is sometimes problmeatic if it isn;t possible to "protect" the children from the birth parents - though grandparetns may not be prepared to admit that to neighbours..

Once a child has special needs they become MUCH harder to place so an older parent would be considered. It's not sinister just the sad truth.

The problem is the failure of the checks and balances. That makes things harder for the better social workers as it creates a more tense and aggressive environment.

More about the issue

more on Spain

Well, John, this does not reflect well on your organisation's attitude toward protecting children. I had been unaware of that other poor child who was killed by their father while 'on the run', but I suspect this will have little impact on your work. What a shame.