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)

"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!

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

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

Link?

From that article

"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.

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.

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!

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

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!

But this is what Hammersmith and Fulham Council Admitted to doing

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.

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

How about this one

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

From the Daily mail

From the Liverpool Echo

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

From the Telegraph

This one from Fife in Scotland

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

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.

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.

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.

Really?

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.

For more details and updates this facebook group I am an admin of.