Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

This promoting of the idea that SS want to steal babies makes me very uneasy...

Cindy I would warn you that the only 'evidence' on the web is largely perpetuated by JH, IJ, CB - all of whom have serious question marks over their heads, not only on how reliable they are for figures, but about their own veiws on what constitutes a 'healthy' family. I implore you to try to give this some thought as their websites and articles are extremely dubious.

There was another mother on this thread (I think) earlier who said she had a similar situation start, and instead of fleeing as JH had suggested decided to read up on the law and get savvy to fight. She won. This is the best advice I have read on here for anyone in this position.

I hope she is still watching and can PM you, or perhaps you could see if anyone out there can give you some help with the legalities to get you started? Do not give up and run away or stop being open to SS - this will only damage your case.

Nosewiper - adoption that isn't permanent is fostering. It exists and is the only solution for many children.

There are areas of adoption which may not be permanent - concurrent planning for example and adopters go into that with their eyes open knowing that their placement may not be permanent and still they arrange frequent contact with the child whether birth parent turns up or not, and persist with this because its in the best interests of the child. So there is evidence that adoptive parents can put their childs interests first however difficult they find it.

But this can't go on indefinitely - at some both parent and child need a degree of certainty to be left in peace to go on and build their lives so no I don't think any thinking human being can spend their childs whole life wondering if they will always be considered that childs parent or if they could be taken away. Effectively putting adoptive parents through the pain and uncertainty that you believe some birth parents are put through for all of their childs childhood. If you think any human would sign up for this and that not agreeing to it makes adopters not good enough then you hold adopters to a far higher standard than any other human I know.

But the real point is the damage that is done to any child having gone through traumatic change. Even in cases where a child is removed from an abusive parent they suffer. Removing a child from probably the only parents they can remember (given that we are talking predominantly about bases of babies here) and to return them to a parent, family, lifestyle, school and friends is incredibly difficult to do.

Imagine someone told you that your three year old wasn't actually genetically your's, that there had been a mistake at the hospital and two babies were switched. Unfortunately their baby died. You would obviously return your child to the birth parents because after all they had done nothing wrong and the child is after all, genetically theirs?

I would however (personally) consider meaningful contact with birth parents in this situation except that the advice that birth parents are given the advice to grab the child and flee the country and if that isn't possible then to whisper to the child repeatedly that they are being stolen by bad people (I'm paraphrasing but I'm sure someone can fill in the exact advice) - not so keen on that I'll admit.

I also think brith paretns would struggle to cope with the fact that most adoptive children consider their parents to be .. well, their parents. None the less actual contact does happen between birth and adoptive parents.

Kew but if you don't know much about the birth parents, how would you feel comfortable letting them see and maintain contact with your DC?

I feel that if I were to adopt a child, which I have considered many times and may do in the future, I would want to know everything possible about where the parents had been/done/worked/had histories of medically etc before entrusting them my child's ear.

Unless they are willing to be open about IT ALL, I would feel worried about allowing them access. Just in as much as I want all teachers to have CAB, expect my doctors to be qualified and wouldn't hang around with a heroin addict. I want to protect that child.

I. Haven't been able to post much this week. My eldest ds had a seizure over the weekend so things have been a bit... Erm...busy. But I want to thank those posters who have continued to engage with sense and calm. I am shirking at home tomorrow, so will try to see the program on catch up.

Yes of course where there is a continuing issue eg drugs or alcohol I would n't accept direct contact unless my child consented and was old enough to be properly prepared for the reality of their birth parent. And that would depend on the child.

I was reflecting more on the case as Nosey posits that it is discovered the child was removed from birth parents on evidence subsequently found to be flawed - she/he feels that in those cases that it would be better for the adoption to either be temporary or to facilitate contact with birth parents.

Thank you Maryz and Kew for your replies. There is much to consider there, and clearly any decision should be guided by the child, the older the child at the time of adoption etc, and individual circumstances are different.

I guess I'm wondering if it has to be a case of losing parents again, surely (as Larry I think was indicating) as in step families, there can be positive steps taken to honour the bonds in both, until a child can make their own decisions as to where they want to be. I'd like to think that is where I would hope to come from, if it were me.

Apologies if my ignorance shines through here, if it really is a no go-er, and a child is best left in their adoptive placement then all well and good. In that case, my empathy also returns to the birth family, and how we support them.

I also fully understand the need for permanency with respect to remaining in the uncertainty of foster care, and with respect to adoptive parents backing out if the going gets tough. However, do we really know all that much about a child's need for permanency if the adoption later turns out to have been erroneously made? It is rare?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it would be reassuring again to know this has been looked at closely, and we're not still basing adoption law on old evidence such as when children were routinely removed from unwed mothers, in an entirely different era.

Agreed, although I would still want to check they hadn't been treated for anything serious subsequent to the child being taken away. Seeing some posts from people who have had kids taken away has made me see how it could be easy to give up hope and turn to something else to dumb the pain. I think a medical record for the last 12 months would satisfy me, rightly or wrongly, if the child was found to have been removed wrongly.

x post loads there.

Oh god I almost wish Jh was allowed back under his real name! Is that "Nosey" he/she reference to me being possibly being one of his ilk? Yikes

I am nosewiperextraodinaire due to being just that, with an army of young allergy suffering noses to be wiped ALL THE TIME.

I have a valid interest as a family member to an adopted child (not my own) and sadly, due to circumstances, cannot reveal all.

And oh completely, yes, that advice about being stolen by bad people. Sheesh. There are no words.

no, purely a reference to the fact that I wasn't sure if you were male or female and it seemed a bit rude to make assumptions.

anyone can have a valid interest - it behoves us all to take an interest in child protection issues/policies.

Hi Lioninthesun,

Firstly I am new here purely because of my families present situation, secondly I am not a mother, but a great uncle to the children the SS are supposedly protecting. My user name came from a family pet that I soon realised could cause confusion, especially on a forum called mumsnet,lol.

Also I have not got my figures from the sources you mention, I would actually doubt some one who told my family to leave the country. I have got my figures from reading actual cases, some on here. And its to many.

I have faith that this will work out how it should,and my family will not be torn apart and broken and those lovely children will be with their caring loving parents. I am feeling bitter at the moment and you could of hit the nail on the head with the words win, it kind of disturbs me. The way the whole situation is dealt with from the beginning is grotesque. I do agree that a unexplained injury needs to be investigated, we are a lucky family in the sense that other family members can supervise 24-7. It has meant big upheaval,but we are dealing with it. My parents being the Great grandparents even involved. Its stressful and I don't think it should be made into a WIN LOSE situation from the beginning. Before any reports or family members have been met.

I do think this approach can come from the horrendous parenting that SS must come across and witness regularly as mentioned on the other post on this forum regarding this topic, but as I said there this is where SS have to be professional to the highest degree, its our children they are dealing with.

We will fight this and be strong as a family, but by god its difficult, so many emotions.

for many it's the least worst option.

Sadly very true.

Wishing you all the best Cindy3674. I m sadly familiar with the range of emotions and stress you mention (and probably explains my jumpiness at being misjudged!). At least your family is going through this at a time when (hopefully) there are many more people out there ready to listen to issues with CP process. It can be a lonely place, and you have to unfortunately be prepared to be judged by the worst, and if entirely innocent, can only keep faith that if spoken consistently and calmly, your truth will be heard.

Here is an interesting case discussing difference between adoption and fostering and what difficulties around contact might be.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed115290

Thanks Spero that looks interesting, will have a thorough read.

Popping back really to link to this organisation for any birth family reading these threads with concern for a child's case: family rights group

They seem to be one of the less "cranky" independent support services for birth families.

And actually on just looking through, think this is worth posting here:

13.01.2014
Charity blasts irresponsible advice from John Hemming MP to Panorama: ‘I Want My Baby Back’

John Hemming MP has allegedly said to BBC Panorama that he advises families, who can afford it, to flee England because they cannot expect a fair hearing when the Family Courts decide whether their children should be taken into care.

Cathy Ashley, Chief Executive of the Charity Family Rights Group commented:

“This is crass, ignorant and potentially dangerous advice. It could seriously backfire on any parent who follows it. It could put a child at risk in serious danger.

“There is plenty of evidence that the most important factor in safeguarding a child who is deemed at risk, is an open working relationship between the family and social workers. Lack of co-operation is likely to result in the local authority seeking to apply for a care order. Parents need to understand their rights, have access to specialist expert advice and the ability to constructively challenge social workers. John Hemming’s encouragement of them to flee is the antithesis of helpful advice to parents in such circumstances.

“Last year one in every 100 children in England was subject to a child protection inquiry. The great majority of these children remain with their parents, but the experience is frightening, and deeply upsetting for families who are understandably scared that their children will be taken from them.

“There are measures in the Children and Families Bill, including the speeding up of care proceedings, reduced judicial scrutiny of care plans and the placing of children with potential adopters without going to court, which are in serious danger of resulting in significant breaches of children and families’ human rights. MPs do need to wake up to this – a more responsible approach would be for John Hemming to persuade his colleagues in the coalition to back amendments which address these concerns.”

I have heard good things about Family Rights Group and have recommended them myself.

That's good Kew.

Still reading through their press releases.

Sorry for the copy & paste job but a bit stunned also by this one (have bolded the bits which are leaving me shocked):

26.03.2013
Family Rights Group Chief Executive, Cathy Ashley's article in the Huffington Post on UK Adoption Reform: The Dangers of Repeating Australia's Shame

In Australia last week, the prime minister Julie Gillard delivered an historic and exceptionally moving national apology to thousands of unwed mothers who were forced by government policies to give up their babies for adoption over several decades.

She acknowledged that the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, had denied mothers their fundamental right to love and care for their children, affected fathers and hurt siblings and their wider families.

She talked eloquently of the importance of a child's right to know and be cared for by its parents. She spoke of adoptees' struggle with their "identity, uncertainty and loss" and feelings of a "persistent tension between loyalty to one family and yearning for another".

Meanwhile the UK government is pushing ahead full steam with Clause 1 of the Children and Families Bill. If implemented it could result in some children being placed with potential adopters despite there having been no court proceedings, no court decision that the child should be permanently removed from their parents and no legal advice given to the parents.

Clause 1 of the bill requires that English local authorities, as soon as they consider adoption as even one of the possible options for a child they are looking after, must consider placing the child with people who may go on to adopt them. Even if there are suitable wider family members, such as a grandparent willing to care for their grandchild, social workers will no longer have to prioritise placing the child (or keeping the child) with their grandparents. Instead. they can put the child's name on the national adoption register to find suitable adopters and place the child with potential adoptive parents (who are temporarily approved as foster carers) anywhere in the country.

The government has given no coherent explanation for denying a child the right to live safely with relatives, who could provide the same continuity of care that foster for adoption aims to achieve. No rationale for squeezing out potential family carers when there are already 4,600 children waiting to be adopted.

Politicians, the public and those of us in child welfare are united that children who cannot live with their families need the opportunity to be raised in a permanent, loving environment without unnecessary delays. But the error the government is making is to address one challenge by creating other dreadful injustices and hurt.

There is plenty of evidence that with the right support many parents do make it within their children's timescales. Closures of domestic violence refuges, for example, or benefit cuts that force families into homeless, which Family Rights Group is observing from calls to our advice service, has the opposite impact. As has the government's decision to take £150m from the early intervention grant and give it to local authorities to spend on adoption reform.

In Australia mothers were betrayed by a system, in which they were deprived of care and support. As Julia Gillard told these mothers, you were "denied of knowledge of your rights so you could not give informed consent". Indeed in some cases supposed consent was given when the mother was still heavily medicated from the birth. Yet that's exactly what could happen under Clause 1. Some of those mothers and fathers who will be affected are young, some are care leavers, many have learning difficulties. Family Rights Group is attempting to address this issue of informed consent by pushing amendments to the bill so that a child could only be placed with a potential adopter if there has been a court decision or the parents have consented following legal advice and their consent has been independently witnessed.

It is important to remember that the Australian Senate Committee found that forced adoption by married couples, was perceived at the time to be in the children's best interests. It's an easy trap to fall into, to justify any extension of state power in family lives. But we must not fall into this same trap.

Julia Gillard pointed out that the history of forced adoption in Australia has "created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering". Let's not repeat their errors.

Nose, the reasons for 'concurrent planning' are trying to be in e best interests of the child. What often happens with 'twin track planning' is a child moves from birth family, maybe on to several different short term placements in foster care and then (hopefully) to adoptive family.

Each move represents a loss to that child and increases risk of trauma and attachment problems.

The argument to placing child immediately with potential adoptive family is that IF the courts then decide child can't return to birth family, he doesn't have to move again.

But it requires pretty resilient and robust potential adopters to offer a home to a child without knowing for sure that child will stay with them.

As ever in this field, there are no perfect solutions and no easy answers.

I have heard there are a lot of concerns about the Children and Families Bill, particularly the suggestion that adoption proceedings must be concluded within 26 weeks which if anything is going to increase the likelihood of miscarriages of justice. I'm afraid this is primarily yet another example of Gove's kneejerk method of dealing with his responsibilities - it's good to get the Baby Ps into permanent adoptive placements quickly, it will play well with the Daily Mail, therefore he doesn't want to hear about the potential problems.

However, other aspects of the Bill have changed substantially since it was first introduced and that article seems to have been written in the very early stages. Does anyone know whether any of the concerns it raises have been addressed as the Bill has gone through Parliament?

found it really hard to watch people saying goodbye - and our children were removed with very good and clear reason. I think its still sad that they say goodbye, even parents who can't cope love their children.

As an adopter, I find the use of a specific child's photo and name really worrying - we are all taught about how we must keep their identity secret, no facebook pictures etc - those children are now legally the children of the adopters, who will have adopted them in good faith.

Also know people who have adopted children with broken backs etc - really serious injuries - and of course the parents denied it. Now - I'm not saying that's the case with the people in this show, but they only showed 4 couples - it just worries me how many people may come away thinking that the majority of children are removed for miscarriages of justice - surely a huge amount of people who hurt their children would deny it too - just would have been good to see both sides.

I also found the stories very moving, especially the lady in spain, she clearly loved her children (although hubby's wierd confession thing was strange I agree). But for a politician to encourage people to skip the country is outrageous - 'beat your kids then run to the sun' is not a message I think should be promoted by the BBC - we have to remember that not all injuries are accidental....

rant over...

even parents who can't cope love their children - I think this important to remember and why many adoptions are contested. Even though you are totally incapable of putting childs safety first it doesn't actually mean you don't love them.

Apologies for coming to thread late. I found the programme confusing as the message seemed to be these children are unwell and have an undiagnosed health condition which makes them vulnerable to fractures.

I felt so sorry for the parents and it was hard to believe any of them would have been able to abuse their children. However also appreciate that abusers can be very convincing and deceiving.

However if the courts found these parents 'guilty' of child abuse why are they not in prison? and also surely if the children have a health condition they would continue to have fractures.