The Minister sets “adoption targets”! Parents to fulfil those targets!
CAN THIS BE TRUE???
ADOPTION TARGETS DO VERY MUCH EXIST!!!
The following was a parliamentary question to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets have been set for local authorities by central Government regarding adoption; and when each target was introduced.
The Government have set a number of targets on adoption, in particular to increase the numbers of looked after children who are adopted from care.
The following target was included in the Department of Health publication “Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next Three Years (Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-2006)”:
“Maintain current levels of adoption placement stability (as measured by the proportion of placements for adoption ending with the making of an adoption order) so that quality is not compromised whilst increasing the use of adoption as follows:
By 2004-05 increase by 40 per cent. the number of looked after children who are adopted, and aim to exceed this by achieving, if possible, a 50 per cent. increase by 2006, up from 2,700 in 1999-2000. All councils will bring their practice up to the current level of the best performers.
By 2004-05 increase to 95 per cent. the proportion of looked after children placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision that adoption is in the child’s best interests, up from 81 per cent. in 2000-01, and maintain this level (95 per cent.) up to 2006, by locally applying the timescales in the National Adoption Standards, taking account of the individual child’s needs.”
The period during which this target operated came to an end in March 2006.
In addition, in 2004, the following Department for Education and Skills Public Service Agreement target was introduced:
“To narrow the gap in educational achievement between looked after children and their peers, and improve their educational support and the stability of their lives, so that by 2008, 80 per cent. of children under 16 who have been looked after for 2.5 or more years will have been living in the same placement for at least two years, or are placed for adoption.”
No individual targets have been set by central Government for local authorities, though some authorities have chosen to develop targets as part of the local area agreement/local public service agreement process. Individual local area agreements are published by the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA).
More recently, John Hemming MP asked the following question in parliament:-
Local Government: Standards
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which local authorities, classified by Government office region, have public service agreement (PSA) targets which include adoption targets; what the target for adoption is in each case; and how much money each local authority will receive if it achieves all of its PSA targets. 
Mr. Woolas: There are 61 reward targets in Local public service agreements and local area agreements which measure performance on adoption and/or stability of placements for looked-after children. Reward would be payable to Local authorities and their partners for achievement of these particular targets. Details on each target have been made available in the Library of the House.
BBC News January 26 2007 – Babies removed to meet targets – Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption targets, MPs have claimed.
24 MPs have already signed an early day motion deploring the taking of babies from their mothers not for their welfare but simply to enable social workers to meet their government adoption targets.
15.01.2007: Local Authorities Adoption Targets
IMPORTANT EXTRACT FROM THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SITE ABOVE.
Courts At least half of current adoptions are contested although the contest seldom goes in favour of the birth parents. This inevitably causes delays and, indeed, delays may not necessarily be a bad thing if the issues are very complex. Court-based delays may also be caused by lack of available court time, or the courts requiring further re-unification attempts.
Councils A lack of clear policies integrating adoption into the overall children’s plan. Budgetary constraints limiting the availability of post adoption services and allowances. There was also concern paradoxically that the needs of children may be overlooked in the struggle to meet targets. The more rural councils will struggle to run regular preparation courses to meet the assessment targets, even when co-operating with other agencies.
Social Care Interest
6. LAC(2001)33: Adoption
On 5 December, Jacqui Smith, Minister for Health, made the keynote address at the national adoption conference – ‘Delivering the National Adoption Standards for England’. The Minister announced:
- the implementation timetable for the National Adoption Standards,
- an adopter recruitment toolkit; and
- a consultation document on collecting information about adoptive placement stability.
The day provided an opportunity to discuss what needs to be done to implement the Standards and to share practical ideas how to make the Standards a reality. There was also a range of exhibits to disseminate projects funded by the Department through Section 64 grants.
WHY DO THEY DO IT?
“Surely”, I can hear you say “British Justice is the finest in the world, and I just cannot believe things are as bad as all that” and then you add “Social workers take up that profession because they want to help people, so how can I believe they turn into the sort of monsters you portray?” “Why on earth would they do the sort of things you say they do?
THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON:-
Once they have decided something they will rarely admit a mistake! No matter what evidence turns up in favour of the parent they have initially decided to be “unfit to parent” they will disregard it and only consider evidence that supports their original opinion.”Never admit you were wrong” is the unspoken rule and countless tragedies arise from it as a result.
If your child has a tragic accident,do not expect comfort or sympathy from social services! Expert instead a merciless attack and the removal of your other children!
Daily Mail November 23, 2006 – A DEVASTATED couple had a child taken away by social workers as their 20-month-old son lay dying in hospital. Tyler Black, who had fallen into the family pond 24 hours earlier, died the day after the other youngster was removed. The coroner attributed no blame and sympathised with the parents for what he described as a tragic accident with NO suspicious circumstances. The social workers however still refused to restore the surviving child to the grieving parents!
Often without consulting medical opinion, they conclude that a parent has inflicted an injury that could just as easily have been a routine accident, or worse still they have accused thousands of mothers of deliberately causing injuries to their children to gain attention for themselves!They believe that it is in the interests of these children to place them for long term foster care or adoption with families better equipped to fulfill the children’s material and/or intellectual needs! The result is that large numbers of largely healthy and happy children have been abruptly removed from their homes and transferred to the care of complete strangers!Join F
Mother wins fight to get her baby back
Scotsman.com by SHAN ROSS, 15 Jun 2006
Corellie Bonhomme now happily reunited with her daughter Fifi after the sheriff’s ruling.
A SHERIFF has condemned social workers who removed a newborn baby from her mother only minutes after the child’s umbilical cord was cut.
Commenting on the incident in the birthing suite, Sheriff Ross said: “Fifi was removed very soon after birth. It was not clear to me why that was necessary. She was in hospital in the secure care of the staff there. There was no evidence that Ms Bonhomme was intending to leave precipitately.”
He also questioned Dumfries and Galloway Council for basing the Child Protection Order on “extremely contentious” English proceedings. Sheriff Kenneth Ross
Mother: “I was in the throes of labour, quite dilated and about to deliver. My back was bent backwards, the head was sticking out and I was just about to push the rest of the body out. I raised my head and saw two men and two women walk into the birthing room.” – Corellie Bonhomme
Story in full: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=877002006 also your comments
In common with the majority of civil servants, social workers feel that “the State knows best”.They have gradually convinced themselves that huge numbers of single mothers or parents who have been abused while “in care” or by their partners, or who have learning difficulties, a low income or a lack of routine just do not have the requisite parenting skills! A dirty and untidy house, a disorganised way of life, or even simply a hostile attitude to social workers is usually enough for them to remove children from their parents.
“And what about Victoria Climbié?” I hear you cry, “and other children who have been brutalized or even killed by their parents?” Well, Victoria was not with parents, SHE WAS IN THE CARE OF SOCIAL SERVICES!! They allowed her to stay with with “carers”. Victoria was covered from head to foot with bruises, cigarette burns and had obviously broken bones. No medical qualifications were needed to prove the sort of brutality she had certainly endured. She was however callously left to die in agony; maybe because social workers consider that children who have been physically or sexually abused are not really as suitable for fostering or adoption as those from poor but happy homes.
These social workers prefer the easy risk free routes; so they tend to avoid the dangers of being assaulted by the brutal type of parent and pass on to easier targets! In any case the sort of mother who comes weeping into court to beg for the return of her children is not usually the type of person who would physically injure her child or allow others to hurt it.
Cruel parents who physically mistreat their children almost never come to the family court and would rarely oppose any plans for fostering or adoption if any were made.
“Surely” you say, “a conscientious social worker who found after all that there was no good reason to remove a child would then leave it where it was?” Well, have you ever heard local goverment officials admit that they have made a mistake? Not often I’m sure! And that is where the trouble begins… Not with the error but with the cover up and the determination not to lose face and to be proved right in the end.
The initial assessment must always be proved right whether favourable to parents or not and only evidence favourable to that initial conclusion is noted. Anything unfavourable to SS conclusions is usually discarded. The call by Tony Blair to increase adoption figures and the setting of adoption targets by local authorities has further exacerbated the situation, as social workers are motivated more by achieving adoption targets than by helping families to stay together. With these targets in view, social workers tend to come to a swift opinion of the parents they visit, and if that opinion is unfavourable, they try very hard to maintain that opinion against all opposition. To this end they collect all the evidence they can, to support that opinion, discarding any evidence that tends to criticise or undermine it.
Parents who resist are usually labelled “in denial”, “suffering from personality disorder” or even “paranoiacs!” The worst sin the parents can commit is to persist in asserting their innocence! The “social service thought police” supported by the family court judges usually insist on “confession” before any question of restoring the children or even arranging regular contact can be considered. The same process is seen in the family courts, if parents fight to retain their children. Social workers, keen above all to be vindicated, fight to win their case so that the welfare of the child is often lost in the overwhelming desire desire to WIN at all costs!
Social Workers always try to escape responsibility by saying “the courts decide so it’s not up to us”, but of course the judges rarely refuse care orders or adoption placements, when social services request them. They treat social workers like police whose word is always to be preferred to the parents’, if there is a conflict. Judges have publicly admitted that usually they “go along with social services” as the “safest option”, but probably it is really because they feel that to refuse would be taking a risk for which they could be crucified in the press, if disaster followed!
THESE COWARDLY FAMILY COURT JUDGES ARE THE REAL VILLAINS! Many family court judges should themselves be punished. THESE RENEGADE ESTABLISHMENT JUDGES SHOULD BE SENT TO PRISON for authorising the snatching of newborn babies at birth from mothers who have never harmed them but who chose “the wrong man” to father their babies!
A jury would in most cases come to conclusions and consequently verdicts quite opposite to those of the judges, as they would be for the most part very reluctant to remove children for such hazy concepts as “emotional abuse” or worse still “risk of future emotional abuse”, and there would of course be no risk of a comeback for a jury if a single mistake was made.
All over the world there are famines, random killings and genocides. Unfortunately in this country there are hundreds of cases of child abuse by parents, but also by fosterers, social workers and paedophiles working in children’s homes!
The only way to improve the present situation is to bring in some or most of the reforms suggested on this site and similarly on the “fassit” site.