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.