Parents Against Injustice
Parents Against Injustice
ADOPTION AND SCANDELS OF THE UK FAMILY COURTS
Adoption and family court scandals
minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.
to encourage additional adoptions.
more difficultto-place older children in care.
win the bonuses.
retribution.
happening to their family.
where judges are, day by day, taking people’s children away.”
even though they have not been harmed in any way.
their three-year-old daughter.
nothing wrong.”
fortnight last summer.
How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoptionBy SUE REIDLast updated at 23:10 31 January 2008
National disgrace: The number of babies taken from their mothers and put up for adoption is rising sharplyFor a mother, there can be no
greater horror than having a baby snatched away by the State at
birth.The women to whom it has happened say their lives are ruined for
ever – and goodness knows what longterm effect it has on the child.Most
never recover from this trauma.Imagine a baby growing in your body for
nine months, imagine going through the emotion of bringing it into the
world, only to have social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within
minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.Yet this
disturbing scenario is played out every day.The number of babies under
one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at
almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).In total, 75
children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week
before being handed over to new families.Some of these may have been
willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government’s policy
are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.Time and again,
the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.Of course, there
are people who are not fit to be parents and it is the duty of any
responsible State to protect their children.
But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of
forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too
often biased against basically decent families.I have been told of
routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by
doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.Meanwhile, millions of
pounds of taxpayers’ money has been given to councils to encourage them
to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.Under New Labour
policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of
children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year.The annual tally
has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales – four times higher
than in France, which has a similar-sized population.Blair promised
millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have
already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful
adoptions.Figures recently released by the Department for Local
Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils – Essex and
Kent – were offered more than £2million “bonuses” over three years to
encourage additional adoptions.Four others – Norfolk, Gloucestershire,
Cheshire and Hampshire – were promised an extra £1million.This sweeping
shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get
difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new
parents.But the reforms didn’t work. Encouraged by the promise of extra
cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were
most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more
difficultto-place older children in care.As a result, the number of
over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.Critics – including family
solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families – report
cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social
workers in order to win the bonuses.More chillingly, parents have been
told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some
time in the future, they might abuse them.One mother’s son was adopted
on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he
was older.In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions
are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the
smaller population.What’s more, the obsessive secrecy of the system
means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human
tragedy now unfolding across the country.For at the heart of this
adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted
behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children
involved.Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of
Britain’s legal system – the principle that people are innocent until
proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.From the moment a mother is
first accused of being incapable as a parent – a decision nearly always
made by a social worker or doctor – the system is pitted against
her.There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of
magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of
probability.Crucially, the courts’ culture of secrecy means that if a
social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving
evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no
retribution.Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5,
are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.From the time
a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are
adopted, the parents are breaking the law – a crime punishable by
imprisonment – if they tell anyone what is happening to their
family.Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a
friend can land them in jail.And many have found themselves sent to
prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case.As High
Court judge Mr Justice Munby told MPs last year: “It seems quite
indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access
by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by
day, taking people’s children away.”However, it is not only secretive
and
publicly unscrutinised family courts that are creating an injustice in
our adoption system.There is a more worrying factor involved. Look at
the official figures. Why are they so high? Is it really true that more
mothers are becoming potential killers or abusers?Or are the financial
bonuses offered to councils fuelling the astonishing rise in forced
adoptions?John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the
adoption system, said yesterday: “I have evidence that 1,000 children
are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though
they have not been harmed in any way.”The targets are dangerous and
lead to social workers being over-eager.”The system’s secrecy hides any
wrongdoing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems
looking after her baby, why doesn’t the State help her instead of
taking her child away?”The MP’s concerns are echoed by the Association
for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), a body which advises
new mothers.Spokeswoman Beverley Beech insists: “Babies are being
removed from their mothers by social workers using any excuse.”We
strongly suspect this is because newborns and toddlers are more easily
found homes than older children. They are a marketable commodity.”I
know of social workers making up stories about innocent mothers simply
to ensure their babies are put up for adoption.”Suitable babies are
even being earmarked when they are still in the womb.”One baby was
forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the
mother had even finished the birth process and produced the
placenta.”Her words may be emotive. But are they true? Six months ago,
I wrote an article about a young couple – who must remain anonymous
because of family court law – fighting for the return of their
three-year-old daughter.She was taken within weeks of birth and is
about to be adopted.Astonishingly, a judge has issued a Draconian order
gagging them from revealing anything, to anyone at all, which could
identify their daughter until her 18th birthday in 2022.Immediately
after the article was published, I heard from 35 families whose
children were forcibly removed.The letters and e-mails continue to
arrive – coming from a wide range of families across the social classes
(including from a castle in the heart of England).An e-mail from one
father said: “Please, please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son .
. . in court tomorrow for final disposals hearing before he is taken
for adoption … we have done nothing wrong.”Another father calling
himself “James” rang to say his wife’s baby was one of eight seized by
social workers from hospital maternity units in one small part of
North-East England during one fortnight last summer.A Welsh man
complained that his grandson of three weeks was earmarked for forcible
adoption by social workers.The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild
learning disorder, was told she might, just might, get post-natal
depression and neglect her son.To her great distress, her baby was put
in the care of Monmouthshire social services within minutes of
birth.The grandfather said: “Our entire extended family – which
includes two nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer – have
offered to help care for the baby.”I believe my grandson has been
targeted for adoption since he was in the womb.”A Worcestershire woman
told how her daughter’s baby was snatched away by three police officers
and two social workers who came to the door of her house.The girl has
now been adopted.The mother’s failure? She was said to be too young to
cope.Yet – a little over a year later – she had another baby, a boy,
whom she was allowed to keep, in the same home and with the same
partner.Why on earth did she have to lose her little girl?The
grandmother emotionally explained: “All the family came forward to
offer to help look after my granddaughter, and all of them were told
they were not good enough.”The social worker told us to forget her. He
said: ‘She is water under the bridge.’”We think they wanted her for
adoption from the beginning.”No wonder she, and thousands of other
parents, want a shake-up of the heart-breakingly cruel adoption system
which has ripped apart so many families – and which continues to do so.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-...
The shameful secrecy of the adoption system
Last updated at 21:40 01 February 2008
Sinister pattern: The number of babies under a month taken into care for adoption has increased considerably in a decade
It seems inconceivable that such things could happen in a modern civilised
country…two hours after giving birth, the young mother was lying in her
hospital bed when officials from Nottingham social services snatched
her baby away.
The damage that this must inflict on the mother, let alone the child, is almost impossible to conceive.
But what makes the case worse is that the social workers acted without legal authority.
For the moment, Mr Justice Munby has ordered the child reunited with its mother.
But the really disturbing aspect is that far from being an isolated incident, it seems to be part of a sinister pattern.
The number of babies under one month being taken into care for adoption is now four a day, a 300 per cent increase on a decade ago.
What is more disturbing is that social services have arguably been encouraged to
behave in this way by a financial incentive, introduced by Tony Blair
to increase the number of adoptions.
Instead of trying to place the more difficult older children with parents, local
authorities have been concentrating on babies, for whom it is far
easier to find adoptive parents.
Meanwhile, the number of seven-year-olds being adopted has halved.
Mr Blair’s perverse incentive is being quietly abolished, but the damage has been done.
This deeply worrying scenario is made worse by the cloak of secrecy surrounding the
family courts, where parents are unable to challenge – or even talk
about – their decisions, however perverse.
Last year, the same judge, Mr Munby, told MPs that “it seems quite indefensible
that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the
public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day,
taking people’s children away”.
Today, the judge could take that girl’s baby away again, and we wouldn’t be allowed to know anything about how that decision was reached.
If the mother tried to defend herself in public, she would go to prison.
Of course, vulnerable children must be protected, and social workers have impossible judgments to make. But officials must act within the law.
Judges must think more carefully before shattering that all-important bond between a newborn baby and its mother.
And the family courts, like the rest of the legal system, must be opened up to proper public scrutiny.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511604/The-shameful-secrecy...
Women try to stop babies being taken into care by fleeing to Spain
(Solarpix.com)
The Smiths’ baby son was born in Spain, where the parents had fled after their other child had been taken into care by social workers.
FAMILY JUSTICE NON EXISTANT
Add a Comment
© 2024 Created by Alison J Stevens.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Parents Against Injustice to add comments!
Join Parents Against Injustice