Are Social Services out of control

[Sticks]

I don't no how many of you have been following what has been happening in Nottingham (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7232269.stm) about the baby that was first unlawfully removed then taken away, and the case of Fran Lyon (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511633&in_page_id=1770) (Link 2) (http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/01/15/county-ends-pursuit-61634-20349820/)

Another reported case (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512768&in_page_id=1770)

According to further reading around of this it seems that Social Services are snatching babies from the delivery ward on the most spurious of details and are using the family courts to get away with it.

Daily Mail Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511609&in_page_id=1770)

Guardian Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/15/children.familyandrelationships)

The contention is that they are doing this to meet targets on the number of children placed for adoption, but instead of trying to place older children, they are harvesting babies which are easier to place.

This is a government ministers response (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nadopt103.xml)

Has anyone else had a run in?

From what i read it seems that anyone who has a baby can have it removed just so quotas are filled.

:shocked:

[Sticks]

bump

Surely this must be worrying, if the facts are as they are reported with respect to officials abusing their powers and being rubber stamped by ultra secret family courts.

:sad:

[Sunny_01]

I have heard of many instances of this sticks from former colleagues who have moved from children and families social work because of it.

I think that the laws are in place for a reason, but I think these laws are often abused. Social services have become a super power and do as and what they please with peoples lives.

[Sticks]

So did they target all teens who fell pregnant?

[Sticks]

From the Press Gazette (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=40205&encCode=841083806BC7707163JTBS737226611)

Scary :sad:

[Sunny_01]

I dont think it is the case that they target teen mums specifically though. Remember that yes children are often removed without there being what you or I might see as a valid reason BUT something has brought these families to the attention of social services in the first place.

[Sticks]

Related to an earlier link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513220&in_page_id=1770)

[Sticks]

Latest on the Nottingham Baby case

from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7251315.stm)

From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515774&in_page_id=1770)

The pair need to be reunited asap. The mother was only allowed access of three hours a day for only five days a week!.

Were they allowing her to breast feed if she wanted to? I suspect not even though that is government advice since that is where the baby get's most of it's antibodies to fight infection.

It seems in this case the mother was not given a chance and even the advisor appointed for her was not even independent.

It seems anything goes to provide babies for adoption so they can keep their quotas up. Meanwhile older children languis in the care system, totally forgotten. :mad:


BTW does anyone on TiBB live in Nottingham? Maybe you can take this up with local councillors as to why your council tax is being used to pay for the unlawful practices of the Nottingham Social Services department.

[Jake!]

One word: YES!

[natjake2504]

I dont have much faith in them as you hear so many storys of bad things that are happening to poor kids and elderly everyday.

[Sunny_01]

I thought you might find this site interesting Sticks:

http://www.childrenincare.com/

[Sticks]

The latest on the Nottingham case is that social services back in March stopped all access between the mother and child, and thanks to the secret family courts they don't have to give reasons. Probably as they want to make their targets by adopting it out.

:mad:

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/7315078.stm)

[LadyPortia]

I have been observing the SS for 14 years now.

Yes, I had experience with them, not pleasant at all.

I am a professional and I pity anyone who does not know how this system operates in secret family courts.

Some say it is adoption targets, but it is more than that.

Children are Big Business and create vast amounts of money.££££££££££

An adoption process for 1 child creates thousands of pounds for social workers, Guardians, solicitors, barristers, judges, adoption agencies, care workers,psychologists, psychiatrists, expert witnesses, etc.

Now, that is a lot of people making money out of 1 baby.

It is easy to come to attention of SS.

Someone can make an allegation, and SS become involved.

They do not have to find truth/facts to get you into secret court and remove children.

Hearsay is enough, so if you want to get back at someone- make an anon call and watch their family destroyed.

There are thousands in this boat now, but you will never hear anything much as courts are secret and media not allowed to breathe a word to Joe Public.

Once in court you are Gagged.

Nottingham case came into media as there just happened to be a reporter in the wrong court on the day.:blush2:

51% of people who come forward for help re domestic violence have their children adopted or fostered.

That is how easy it is.

Have a look at forced-adoption.com and witness the truth.

The social workers are trained SS using the same mental torture games that Hitler and Co used.

Best interest of the Child was Hitler's slogan.

They believed in removing all children at birth and giving them to suitable carers.

This was to break the mother child bond thus causing fragmentation to the child and making it easier to control.

Oh there is an agenda.

But most people are asleep.

[Harry!]

Yep, Defo in Portsmouth.

[LadyPortia]

The LA are rewarded with big bonuses, so each child is just££

You can see the cash register eyes immediately.

Also, so many NEEDY adults looking for someone to love them, also keep the industry ticking beautifully.

Cute, white babies and they want them straight from the womb.

In case you believe propaganda that these are druggie babies....oh No, adopters do want them.

I overheard social workers the other day saying that Mrs W wants a baby from good stock, middle class, cute and to match her features, so she can boast to her friends how it even looks like her.

Honestly, these people are only fooling themselves.

Look at story of Baby Alex, and how the adopter gave her back when she was too much trouble.

Enough said for now.

[xxhuskyxx]

Agree 100%.

Social Services are unaccountable for their actions in the family courts.
Nobody else is allowed that priviledge.

[mobaldy2005]

The deeper this topic is looked into the scarier the situation becomes, my friends the stories you might have read is only the tip of the iceberg we are not allowed to speak out about the whole ******ED up system (sorry for swearing) we know that in time the barbaric and out right in-human situations innocent families find themselve's in will soon be exposed
When this happens it will knock the socks of you because you are not aware of how bad and perverse the SS really are

Thank you so much TIBB for highlighting this.

Jerry (Owner of childrenincare.com)

[mel41267]

my baby was taken at just 36 hours old by social services, my husband and i ran to scotland where i gave birth to no avail as they still got her anyway, she is my 5th child who we love dearly and did from the moment she was born , now you will say ss got involved for some reason , and yes they did, it was our fault we neglected our kids for a period of time whn after 21 years of marriage we went through a rough patch, argued the home became untidy ect,,but once ss got involved we realised the problem and started to put it right , now ss had already taken my 11 yr old daughter into relative foster care, but before this i was pregnant and going through marrital problems and my mum was gravely ill in hospital ,i didn`t realise i was pregnant as i had no symptoms except in hindsight later, they took my 11 yr old in august 07 my mum passed away late july 07, they came with the paperwork saying they were going to court to get an interim care order on the day of my mums funeral,,,nice of them,,,,it wasn`t until late october 07 i realised i might be pregnant, by this time we were well on track to rectifying our problems and our social worker at the time was alright ,until she found out i was pregnant then she turned nasty in her attitude yet before this she was writing good reports about us, in dec 07 i had my pregnancy confirmed by my gp , shortly after this they held a pre-birth conference where i was told they would take my baby into foster care at birth, now i have no criminal convictions and i had not harmed my baby in any way or any of my children previously,but they took this course of action , in february i gave birth to my daughter, she was stolen by ss in scotland , at the pre-birth conference every person at this showed not one ounce of any feeling even though they were discussing taking a womens baby away from her ,not even though they could see my obvious distress the sw on our case after that meeting said she felt wholeheartedly sorry for me , i never saw any, however she has since been suspended from work ,and none of her reports were put into my 11 yr olds final hearing last week, which they got a care order, they are dropping our contact with her from 3 days a week to 1 day A MONTH with 2 telephone calls A MONTH, i didn`t even get to tell my daughter of this the sw scum told her at which was 15 minutes before our contact session that day, she was so distraught the contact session worker hasd to pick her up from the floor and put her coat on and help her to the car to get to our contact, the only good thing was that she got to be with me for an hour after being told the most traumatic news as she desperately wanted to come home to us,the session worker was in tears for my daughter in the session as my daughter couldn`t stop crying for almost the full hour, now after this i don`t know what else we can do to try to get our baby back home ,her court hearing is in september and you cannot imagine the heartbreak, pain and depressive thoughts i have on a 24 hour basis for my children especially to have a baby taken from you is beyond words ,i feel like my whole world is empty that a dark cloud has descended over me and nothing can make it any better, it is terrible knowing my baby is out there with someone else, she is bonding with someone who isn`t her mum and there is nothing i can do, i currently get 5 2 hour contact sessions with her a week although ss only wanted me thave 3 per week, if it had not been for my solicitor arguing the point of me wanting to breastfeed and the human rights act for breastfeeding they would have got their way,

you would not think this happens in this country unless it happened to you, believe me i would not want anyone to find it out by it happening to them ,it is the worst thing in the world and shouldn`t happen, the area of the uk i live in has one of the worst reputations for taking newborn babies and although i know we have done wrong in the past i know that we do not deserve this action being taken against us, worse still is that if we don`t win our case in september they will have her forcibly adopted which is totally against what i would want, they are supposed to do everything they can to support families and to try to reunite them , they have not helped us be a family, the sw stood beside the solicitor acting for social services and the pair of them were smirking to themselves and they didn`t put in the good reports that the previous sw had written about us so they kept evidence out of court ,or tried to but i put it in without realising it hadn`t been ,

i only hope that this country will wake up to what is going on and soon because no-ones baby is safe if ss think that they can swoop for the smallest of reason, i would not wish this on my worst enemy

mel

[mel41267]

the worst of my plight is that not only do i not get the precious time of my babies life but her 2 sisters and 2 brothers are also missing her and they have done nothing wrong but are being punished as we are, she is nearly 8 weeks old and they have only seen her once for an hour in this time, it is heartbreaking for me knowing how much emotional trauma this is causing them also , largely attributed to by ss

mel

[mel41267]

another issue in this is that i get a 2 hour contact session which takes place in an office , with a social worker watching over me even when i get to breastfeed my baby

i hope these people get what they deserve for the pain they have caused to the whole of my family, i only hopev its soon

mel

[xxhuskyxx]

I witnessed the SS's escorted by 3 burly Police Officers take the less than 24hr old baby away from the previous mothers breast, telling her it was for the best and in the same breath, saying they would bottle feed her!!

When reminded about the Munby and EU Statute on this matter, they ran for there Legal Dept.

It did not matter to the Police that they attempted to illegally take the baby without the correct paperwork.. In addition this mother of 5 had to wash, bathe and breast feed her baby in full view of every passing stranger who cared to walk by. The nursing staff had insisted that her door be wedged open.

Where was her human rights?
Where is the babys human rights?
Where is the legal established facts in order to take a new born baby?

No where as they dont exist in the family courts in our country.

I had a conversation with a friend about animal versus humans rights recently. When he commented that they wouldnt treat an animal in such a way - I quickly responded stating "Yes but animals dont have MSBP"
Sick but so true.

If our pleas seem inappropriate for your forum - I apologise,

But if I may, can I ask you to ask yourself one thing?

How can Social Service Workers medically diagnose an illness called -
Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy thousands of times a year in order to gain access to adoptable children?

This medical condition was invented by a now very rich professor who was struck off the GMC.
Yet SS's can and still every day - state such ideas as facts without any medical input and these allegations are mainly unchallenged by a legal technicality..

It is a serious matter that you all will hear much more of as this is happening more and more in order to generate revenue - Sorry to state it but Children are a Commodity.

Thankyou for your time....
On a personal note -
Im a huge BB fan x lol x :laugh2:

[Sunny_01]

I was very sad to read your story, I admire that you admit that you had problems and that things were possibly not great at home, you accept initial responsibility, you have taken steps to change the way things were at home and yet your children are not being returned to you.

I wish you well with your fight to have your children returned to you, I hope that you are one of the lucky ones who are able to reunite their families.

[Sticks]

xxhuskyxx what you have to realise is that councils get paid, or did get paid for meeting adoption targets. This was to deal with older children stuck in care, but it turns out easier to remove babies and place them for adoption so if you are a cash strapped council, this is what you do.

Babies are little more than a commodity


Meanwhile

surprise surprise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7378031.stm)

[Sticks]

I am bumping this up to alert people who are able to listen to Radio Five live this morning at 10:00, the Victoria Derbyshire show

There she will be discussing this particular case (http://www.fabulousmag.co.uk/features/feature_baby_issue_040.php)

The young mother affected and her mother are friends of mine on facebook.

I also co-moderate the Don't Take her Baby (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=642840893&ref=name#/group.php?gid=7165854201&ref=mf) on facebook.

In this particular case after the mother fled to Ireland, her case was assessed by the social services there, and two representatives from Somerset social services met with them to urge them to remove the mother's baby at birth.

The social services in Ireland came to the conclusion there was no risk to the baby. If people are saying that the SS know more than us, and they are 100% right to remove children at birth as one person seemed to indicate to me, then why would social services in another western country come to a different conclusion to their UK counterparts?

This also happened with Fran Lyon in Sweden.

Getting back to the reason for this bump, unfortunately I am at work so I will not get to hear the programme go out, I just hope I will be able to catch it on the listen again facility on the BBC website.

[NettoSuperstar!]

I know someone who knows someone who works in that field and theyve noticed that these things happen quite a lot although that could be down to adoption targets originally intended to get kids out of care and a knee jerk reaction to deaths of some kids under SS supervision in the community, frightening though and needs looking at!

But I dont think its as deep as some people are suggesting on here and as sunny said they have come to the attention of social services for a reason and we arent always made aware of that info!

I'd also like to point out that I know many parents with mental health issues with SS involved and they have no intention of removing those kids.

lastly I think there should be more transparency in these cases. Other countries dont have this secrecy. The media do take a bone and run with it mind, they DONT always care what the truth is!

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by xxhuskyxx
I witnessed the SS's escorted by 3 burly Police Officers take the less than 24hr old baby away from the previous mothers breast, telling her it was for the best and in the same breath, saying they would bottle feed her!!

When reminded about the Munby and EU Statute on this matter, they ran for there Legal Dept.

It did not matter to the Police that they attempted to illegally take the baby without the correct paperwork.. In addition this mother of 5 had to wash, bathe and breast feed her baby in full view of every passing stranger who cared to walk by. The nursing staff had insisted that her door be wedged open.

Where was her human rights?
Where is the babys human rights?
Where is the legal established facts in order to take a new born baby?

No where as they dont exist in the family courts in our country.

I had a conversation with a friend about animal versus humans rights recently. When he commented that they wouldnt treat an animal in such a way - I quickly responded stating "Yes but animals dont have MSBP"
Sick but so true.

If our pleas seem inappropriate for your forum - I apologise,

But if I may, can I ask you to ask yourself one thing?

How can Social Service Workers medically diagnose an illness called -
Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy thousands of times a year in order to gain access to adoptable children?

This medical condition was invented by a now very rich professor who was struck off the GMC.
Yet SS's can and still every day - state such ideas as facts without any medical input and these allegations are mainly unchallenged by a legal technicality..

It is a serious matter that you all will hear much more of as this is happening more and more in order to generate revenue - Sorry to state it but Children are a Commodity.

Thankyou for your time....
On a personal note -
Im a huge BB fan x lol x :laugh2:

Munchausens or M by proxy is not diagnosed by SS its diagnosed by psychiatrists/doctors who work for the NHS. I very much doubt there is some interdisciplinary conspiracy to diagnose people without good reason, in order to "sell" kids!! Cmon now. This is a diagnosis given where people continually fake or induce illness on themselves or others to get hospital treament and would not be given lightly!

[Sunny_01]

I have mental health issues and my children were never brought to the attention of SS. I suppose it is all down to those around you who help care for you.

The shoe on the other foot though a friend of mine is a foster parent and today a baby who is 11 weeks old will be coming to her, this baby has a shattered pelvis, a broken arm and upon admission to hospital had a bruised tongue from either force feeding or sexual abuse. Now this is a case where social workers in my opinion are getting it right. Not every social worker is driven by targets, they all join the profession with a view to helping people.

I know there are some cases that raise questions but IMO these are not the majority

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
I have mental health issues and my children were never brought to the attention of SS. I suppose it is all down to those around you who help care for you.

The shoe on the other foot though a friend of mine is a foster parent and today a baby who is 11 weeks old will be coming to her, this baby has a shattered pelvis, a broken arm and upon admission to hospital had a bruised tongue from either force feeding or sexual abuse. Now this is a case where social workers in my opinion are getting it right. Not every social worker is driven by targets, they all join the profession with a view to helping people.

I know there are some cases that raise questions but IMO these are not the majority

Oh yeh I should have said not all with mental health issues do have SS involved aswell (many) ta for that:thumbs: and yes Ive met lots of social workers and its a profession that people go into to help people exactly!

[Sunny_01]

No worries Netto no offence taken lol

As for the munchausens debate, many social workers push for this to be diagnosed, just the fact that they refer to it in documentation give it some bearing! wrong I know but true, it kind of means that they can play god, thankfully not many do.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
No worries Netto no offence taken lol

As for the munchausens debate, many social workers push for this to be diagnosed, just the fact that they refer to it in documentation give it some bearing! wrong I know but true, it kind of means that they can play god, thankfully not many do.

well yeh Im sure its isolated cases and there is supposed to be quite thorough examinations to fullfill the criteria and other explanations eliminated and what not. Tho I have heard that some areas dont always push for supporting the mother/parents but more likely to go for adoption so Im sure it does go on, thats why there shouldnt be all this secrecy going on they need to be more open

[Sunny_01]

I agree if the systems they used were more open and transparent then people would not worry about conspiracy theories surrounding targets and wrongful removal of children.

I am sure many social workers would love to respond to the often attacks on their profession but are bound by the same secrets that keep them in and out of courts.

[NettoSuperstar!]

yeh theyre damned when they do and damned when they dont and a whole profession gets stick when summat goes wrong!

[Sunny_01]

Yep agreed, they work really hard, I wonder when someone is going to come on here and praise them. Should I start the ball rolling.

As a teenager I had an amazing social worker who tolerated my terrible behaviour, who cared for me when others walked away and who went over and above her professional role to help me become a decent adult.

My social worker was a guest at my wedding when I was 21 and is a kind of surrogate gran to my girls as she was such a big part of my life whilst growing up.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by Sunny_01
Yep agreed, they work really hard, I wonder when someone is going to come on here and praise them. Should I start the ball rolling.

As a teenager I had an amazing social worker who tolerated my terrible behaviour, who cared for me when others walked away and who went over and above her professional role to help me become a decent adult.

My social worker was a guest at my wedding when I was 21 and is a kind of surrogate gran to my girls as she was such a big part of my life whilst growing up.

Yayyy big up the social workers!:thumbs: here here lol

[NettoSuperstar!]

Ive never met a social worker who isnt dedicated and lovely and caring!

[Sticks]

You may get the "good social worker", however, from my research of cases, including speaking to people who have had problems, it seems that social services departments have a tendency to be Intitutionally lazy.

Saving the Baby P's and the Shannon Matthews of this world take up a lot of effort, where as removing a child at birth, even when there is no real proof of a problem, as in the Fran Lyon case, is a lot cheaper in man hours, plus the family courts are little more than rubber stamps.

As an aside, I found this on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7775107.stm)


Nine teenage artists who have been in care are hosting an exhibition of artwork exploring their experiences.

[NettoSuperstar!]

OMG "institutionally lazy"? this is your own personal (and totally unbiased) research right? I might agree there are failings sometimes but "Institutionally lazy" haha! Have you had any personal dealings with SWs or any idea of the heavy workloads they have?

and as for these cases you keep bringing up, we dont really know what "proof" there is, you seem to be getting one side of the story only!

[NettoSuperstar!]

Everyone wants a perfect system but noones willing to pay for it! If you want a better more efficient social services and NHS for that matter we have to pay more taxes. Ive worked for both and as far as I can see the main failings come down to underfunding, understaffing and heavy workloads!

Everyone wants a scapegoat for the likes of Baby P but in part we're all to blame!

[Sunny_01]

Originally posted by Sticks
You may get the "good social worker", however, from my research of cases, including speaking to people who have had problems, it seems that social services departments have a tendency to be Intitutionally lazy.

Saving the Baby P's and the Shannon Matthews of this world take up a lot of effort, where as removing a child at birth, even when there is no real proof of a problem, as in the Fran Lyon case, is a lot cheaper in man hours, plus the family courts are little more than rubber stamps.

As an aside, I found this on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7775107.stm)


Nine teenage artists who have been in care are hosting an exhibition of artwork exploring their experiences.


I find it abhorent that you can say that Sticks, institutionally lazy, you want to tell that to 99% of hard working social workers who work extraordinarily long hours, who never just give up, who care more than most?

I can only suggest that your research has been limited to looking for negative stories about social workers, maybe you could try getting a little balance going Sticks.

[Sticks]

I did say there were /are good social workers, when I use the term institutionally lazy I am referring to the system which seems to be broken, not individual overworked social workers at the sharp end.

We are getting cases like Baby P and Shannon Matthews. In the latter case Shannon was removed from the at risk registrar to achieve targets!!

At the same time of these tragedies we have the Fran Lyon case and the Baby G case in Nottingham. In the Nottingham case the Social Services acted outside the law.

Individual social workers may be putting in a lot of hard work, but somewhere at management level decisions are being made with the aim of saving money and cutting resources, leading to overworked social workers and a lack of support. This will ultimately lead to things being missed or not followed up and in some cases taking the easiest and cheapest action. As I mentioned with the Shannon Matthews case, removing her from the At Risk Registrar, just to achieve a target, comes across to me as institutionally lazy

With the issue of forced adoptions, there was a clear financial incentive because a scheme set up by the central government to try and find homes for older children in care was subverted by local social services management. Instead of putting the older children up for adoption they went after babies and softer targets, which is also being institutionally lazy.

Even with out the incentives, it has been reported that if a family are in trouble, it is cheaper to take the children into care and adopt them out, instead of trying to help the family. Such a management decision, based on cost, if the reports are accurate, smacks of taking the easiest route and being institutionally lazy.

I am friends on facebook of a grandmother, whose daughter was targeted unjustly by her local social services. Thankfully the baby is now with her grandmother in Ireland. When her daughter was due to give birth after she fled to Ireland, her local social services sent representatives to the social services in Ireland to argue for removing her baby at birth. The Social Services in Ireland were a little more humane and had no concerns. I am not getting all of this from the media. I have also been in contact with Fran Lyon, the most notorious case from this part of the world.

To quote from Hamlet, "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark", If we are getting the dichotomy of Baby P on one hand and the case of my friend on facebook on the other, are we not talking about two sides of the same coin. In the management of Social Services in local authorities, it does seem like this "Institutional laziness" has taken hold

There is now a government review of social services , I would hope it would deal with both sides here and lead to better practice by social services management and policies of the various local authorities.

[NettoSuperstar!]

I dont think this has anything to do with institutional laziness and cutting costs! There are not enough funds coming from the govt and I repeat we expect them to perform miracles with what they do have when we refuse to pay more taxes to enable a better service. I dont think there is sufficient evidence to say that the social services on the whole are unlawfully pushing for adoptions without GOOD reason just to meet targets, infact I think the idea is insane. And your arguments seem to come from the one side (media, people who have had their children taken off them)

[NettoSuperstar!]

"To quote from Hamlet, "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark", If we are getting the dichotomy of Baby P on one hand and the case of my friend on facebook on the other, are we not talking about two sides of the same coin. In the management of Social Services in local authorities, it does seem like this "Institutional laziness" has taken hold"

This makes no sense

"There is now a government review of social services , I would hope it would deal with both sides here and lead to better practice by social services management and policies of the various local authorities."

Social Services are continually trying to learn from mistakes and improve practice. But without the funding and the staffing, mistakes will be made. Im interested to see what theyre findings on the Baby P situation is, my guess is too many different people going in there and no continuity of contact with the mother, who no doubt was very good at pulling the wool over everyones eyes and should take 99% of the blame along with those animals that lived with her!

[Sticks]

Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
I dont think there is sufficient evidence to say that the social services on the whole are unlawfully pushing for adoptions without GOOD reason just to meet targets, infact I think the idea is insane. And your arguments seem to come from the one side (media, people who have had their children taken off them)

I would refer you to the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming who has a file on this.

As for forced adoptions - see this article from the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584940/Cash-prize-for-council-that-hit-adoption-targets.html)


A council has admitted receiving Government money under a controversial "adoption target" scheme that rewards the removal of children from their parents.

Hammersmith and Fulham council, in west London, was paid £500,000 as a reward for placing more than 100 children for adoption in three years. The council is the first to acknowledge publicly a payout under the target scheme. It said that its social workers had "pulled out all the stops" and "cut down on the amount of bureaucracy" to boost the numbers.

They exceeded their goal of 101 adoptions, securing 106 by this month's deadline. In almost every case, the birth parents fought to keep their children but were defeated in the family courts.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Of course they going to fight the decision theyve not adopted them out voluntarily! Im sure mistakes get made but to suggest social services are doing this to get cash is crazy.

"The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) said it was "dangerous" to suggest children were being taken into care unnecessarily.

Chief executive David Holmes said: "Children come into care for many reasons including parental abuse and neglect. The rise in the numbers of young children coming into care may be explained by a variety of factors including a rise in parental substance misuse."

He pointed out that the decision to take a child into care was scrutinised by an independent children's guardian and the courts. Adoption is scrutinised by the guardian, the courts and an adoption panel.

Mr Holmes added: "If birth parents believe they have had their child taken into care unfairly, they should lodge a formal complaint with their local authority. I believe that this is rare. I certainly do not believe children are systematically being taken into care to meet adoption targets."

Adoption targets were brought in to prevent children in care from waiting months or even years before finding an adoptive family"

BBC NEWS

[Sticks]

Link?

[NettoSuperstar!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297573.stm

[Sticks]

From that article


Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption targets, MPs have claimed.

The MPs fear a rise in the number of young children being taken into care in England and Wales is linked to pressure on councils to increase adoption rates.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has tabled a Commons motion on the issue, said it was a "national scandal".

The government said the courts decided on care cases but there had to be evidence a child was being harmed.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said there were "no targets relating to the numbers of children coming into care".

But Mr Hemming argued that social services departments are under pressure to meet targets set by government on children in care being adopted.

In an Early Day Motion, with cross-party support from 12 MPs, he warns of "increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted".

In 2000, ministers set a target of a 50% increase in the number of children in local authority being adopted by March 2006.

According to the latest available figures, the number of "looked after" children being adopted had gone up from 2,700 in 2000 to 3,700 in 2004, an increase of 37.7%.

The biggest rise was in the one to four-year-old age range.

'Scandal'

These figures would be "laudable" if it meant children were being rescued from a life in care, said Mr Hemming.

But he said he had evidence from people who had contacted him, prevented from publication by contempt of court laws, that children were being separated from parents without proper grounds.

And he called on the government to reveal "how many of the children that are adopted would otherwise have remained with their birth parents".

Mr Hemming pointed to figures showing an increase in the number of children aged under one being taken into care.

"A thousand kids a year are being taken off their birth parents just to satisfy targets. It is a national scandal," said the Lib Dem MP.

[NettoSuperstar!]

"Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption targets, MPs have claimed." (YES theyve claimed that but they have no proof)

"The government said the courts decided on care cases but there had to be evidence a child was being harmed." (Evidence needed in a court of law)


...and then they balance it out by saying that it is mad to make such claims and there are other explanations (such as the rise in substance abuse)

and these kids are taken into care for reasons. An independant court then listens to those reasons before making a decision

I'll just add a couple of theories of my own as we all are- There have been significant advances in psychological profiling of abusers and also SWs are probably more likely to push for adoption where there are signs of abuse due to high profile cases where children have died and warning signs were not given due attention.

[lily.]

Having read through this thread, and having no personal experience with SW departments, I only have one thing to say.

If it were less cloak & dagger, then everyone would have access to all the facts, and would be able to intervene if they felt someone was being unfairly treated.

So, I'm in agreement with the open/transparent comment posted by Netto & Sunny.

Other than that, I'm reluctant to take a position in this thread, because I feel I'm not aware of all the facts.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Yeh they should be more open apart from maybe giving out names and such like. But to suggest that management or social work teams would take a baby away from the mother for no good reason other than meeting targets and getting cash incentives is barmy. And the courts that they go to to plead the case and produce EVIDENCE are independant from social services!

[pinkmichk]

have been reading this thread and just wanted to say that it may seem like there is nowt but bad SW who cant do their jobs but fact of it is we only hear the doom and gloom stories now a days when was the last time there was a news story that was positive about them

[GiRTh]

I think Social Services have one of the hardest jobs in the world. If they get it wrong then childrens lives are at risk. How many of us could work under such pressure?

I'd like to know more of the facts before passing judgment on the quality of their service.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by GiRTh
I think Social Services have one of the hardest jobs in the world. If they get it wrong then childrens lives are at risk. How many of us could work under such pressure?

I'd like to know more of the facts before passing judgment on the quality of their service.

Yeh exactly theyre dealing with childrens lives I dont think many would take that lightly or think in terms of targets and pound signs!

[Sticks]

Originally posted by NettoSuperstar!
But to suggest that management or social work teams would take a baby away from the mother for no good reason other than meeting targets and getting cash incentives is barmy.


But this is what Hammersmith and Fulham Council Admitted to doing (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584940/Cash-prize-for-council-that-hit-adoption-targets.html)

As for the Family Courts, they are little more than rubber stamps according to John Hemming MP who has specialised in this field.

Plus we have the case in Nottingham with Baby G where the social services seized the baby unlawfully, and a High Court judge ordered them to return the child. It was by fluke that was heard in the high court, rather than the family court, otherwise we would never have heard about this case.

[NettoSuperstar!]

From the article:-

"A council has admitted receiving Government money under a controversial "adoption target" scheme that rewards the removal of children from their parents."

The targets are for the placement of children ALREADY in care in adoptive families, not for removing them from parents (irresponsible and innacurate journalism hmm not seen that before!). If there are cash incentives which noone else seems to say there is, but anyway, it is for children who are already in care and deemed to be at risk.

they say that to acheive their targets they "cut down on the amount of bureaucracy" to boost the numbers."

Not removed children willy nilly from parents with no evidence of risk.

"The Government responded by scrapping the targets from this month, so the payout to Hammersmith and Fulham will be one of the last."

So just incase, the govt have scrapped targets so there can be no question that this is going on.

"Sometimes pregnant women are identified for forced adoption because they are drug addicts or have neglected previous children. In other cases, social workers cite mental health problems in the woman's past, or concerns about their likely skill as a parent."

Children at significant risk of neglect, abuse and problems in later life.

"There is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Government targets and the removal of children, and it is impossible for this or any other local authority to inappropriately have children adopted to meet targets."

Im sure and Ive said it before, mistakes get made like some of the cases you've mentioned but I do not believe this is widespread or linked to meeting targets/cash

[Sticks]

How about this one

Same story, one from a national and one from a local

From the Daily mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127400/Mother-banned-baby-hospital-finds-tiny-mark-ear.html)

From the Liverpool Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/01/24/mother-banned-from-being-with-baby-over-tiny-mark-on-ear-100252-22766945/)

[Sticks]

Astonishingly this is from the Irish SS, although I suspect driven by Essex SS.

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/5459740/British-baby-siezed-in-Ireland-after-parents-flee-social-workers-over-custody-row.html)



On the advice of an MP, the heavily-pregnant woman and her partner gathered belongings into their car and left the UK for Ireland last week after British social workers told them their child would be taken into care within hours of birth.

However, within 24 hours of the birth of their daughter on Thursday, weighing 7 lbs 10 ozs at Wexford General Hospital, the baby was instead seized by Irish social workers in the town. Tomorrow her parents must begin what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle in Ireland for their right to bring up the child. It is understood that social workers may seek to have her adopted.

The couple have already had their first two daughters taken into care in Britain, and later adopted against their wishes, following an incident in which one of the girls was found to have been hurt. Although the parents were later cleared of any offence, their children were never returned and they have remained under the scrutiny of social services.

[Sticks]

This one from Fife in Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225878/Couple-flee-save-baby-social-workers-girl-17-told-clever-look-child.html)

Maybe someone could find out if councils have to meet adoption targets.

[NettoSuperstar!]

This one from Fife in Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225878/Couple-flee-save-baby-social-workers-girl-17-told-clever-look-child.html)

Maybe someone could find out if councils have to meet adoption targets.

They have targets to find homes for kids ALREADY in care

[Sticks]

They have targets to find homes for kids ALREADY in care

Well that's what the targets should have been about, and related to older children, however older children are not as popular and as easy to place as babies, so that is why they go for legal baby snatching so they can be seen to be making their targets.

[WOMBAI]

Can't help but be sceptical of such claims - there has to be more to it than that!

I have taken my son to a A&E as a result of several childhood accidents he has had over the years - including several cycling injuries he has received. I have never been questioned or experienced any kind of doubt over his injuries - so find such stories difficult to believe.

[Sticks]

I have been following this for some time, and if you are on Facebook, have a visit of the Don't Tak Her Baby group page to see some of the other stories. That group was originally started over the Fran Lyon case, where the mother was diagnosed by a doctor who never saw her as likely to suffer Mucnhausen Syndrome by Proxy. On the basis of that Northumberland Social services birth plan was to remove the baby 20 minutes after birth, Fran would not be allowed to breast feed in case she drank poison to harm the baby, (In a hospital???) and the baby fast tracked to be adopted out.

Fran ended up fleeing to Sweden leaving family and friends and a degree course she had been working on.

Swedish Social Services on investigation said there wa no cause for concern and from what I last heard they were highly critical of Northumberland Social Services.

[Sticks]

Can't help but be sceptical of such claims - there has to be more to it than that!


Really? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8344410.stm)

Against a background of prejudice and out-of-date assessments, six out of 10 parents with learning disabilities are having their children removed for adoption, research by Bristol University suggests.

In Birmingham, where children's services were described as "not fit for purpose" in a government report, social workers have told the BBC the system is loaded against the learning disabled who are more likely to lose their children than keep them.

A whistleblower in Birmingham City Council's social services department said: "We frequently remove children from young mothers who continue to have children.

"We frequently go back and remove one child after the other, but we'll find there's been very little or no work done with that mother from having a first child removed to giving birth to the second child."

Anna Marriott, a researcher at the Nora Fry institute based at Bristol University, said the system discriminated against the learning disabled.

She told the BBC: "Rather than looking for any actual evidence of problems with parents coping, (social workers) just assume the parent won't be able to cope.

"And rather than looking to put a support plan in place, they'll look to initiate child protection proceedings."

[AndyJK]

With an army of social workers there are bound to be rogues who will make unethical decisions, as highlighted in these links, to reach targets and increase their salaries. It might well be isolated cases but even so it's wrong to have a target scheme in place because its likely to be abused.

I'm not surprised or horrified anything this government does anymore. Our society has become very Orwellian. Maybe people will have the good sense to boot Labour out at the next general election. Who knows. The question is would the Tories do any better.

[Sticks]

For more details and updates (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=7165854201&ref=mf) this facebook group I am an admin of.