Big money to be made in the adoption trade

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
it is not generally appreciated how adoption and fostering, organised by social workers, have become big business – quite apart from the fees charged by those lawyers and experts who are part of this corrupt system. Adoption payments and access to a wide range of benefits can provide carers with hundreds, even thousands of pounds a week. Still to be found on the internet (see the Forced Adoption website) is an advertisement by Slough Family Placement Services headed “Balloons and family fun to promote fostering”. This promised that Slough’s town square would be “bustling with activities including face painting and balloon modelling”, complete with a “David Beckham lookalike” (“bring a camera”), to launch “a new fostering allowance of £400 a week”.
I have recently reported the harassment and repeated arrests of Mauren Spalek, the devoted Cheshire mother whose two younger children were taken from her in 2006, and who faces trial on June 29 on a criminal charge of sending her son a birthday card. Last week it emerged, from an official register, what the occupation is of the woman who adopted her stolen children. She is a social worker.
.
there is another article by Christopher in the Telegraph 12th June edition
.
'Forced adoption' is a hidden tragedy
Ever more bizarre become the contradictions thrown up by the system we have evolved in the name of protecting children. I have more than once reported the case of Maureen Spalek, the loving mother forcibly separated from her three children who faces criminal charges for sending her 12-year-old son a birthday card, despite a judge's ruling allowing her to do so.
Having already been arrested and imprisoned for 24 hours for this alleged offence, she was last week again in court, to hear that she must return for a third time on July 29. Despite an earlier court agreeing that she was an "excellent mother" who had done her children no harm, social workers had taken them away for adoption, and she has several times been arrested for trying to make contact with them, even when she had done nothing of the kind
.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
.
And from Dudley Liberal Democrats
.
FORCED ADOPTIONS SCANDAL

4.26.00pm BST (GMT +0100) Tue 29th Jun 2010

.
We were contacted at the end of April to assist a young Mother in trying to get her two young children reunited with her. They were taken from her by Dudley Social Services and put up for adoption because the eldest child was allegedly injured by the Mother's ex-partner although he was never charged with the offence and walked away scott free. There is no evidence that the Mother ever harmed her two children and she terminated the relationship with her ex-partner two years ago. Despite the fact that we took this case to the Court of Appeal in London we were unable to stop the forced adoption of these two children who should have been returned to their mother. We are now in the process of taking this case to the European Court of Human Rights.

We are now presently assisting another young Mother who has had her five young children taken away from her because her ex-partner abused her eldest child. He is serving a long prison sentence and so there is no likelihood of him having any contact with the family. However, Dudley Social Services are refusing to return her children to the Mother, again despite the fact that she has never harmed her children and they wish to be reunited with her, and are in the process of arranging for her youngest child to be adopted against the Mother's wishes.

We are now aware of at least six similar cases in Dudley and are aware that this this happening all over the UK.

If you have had your children or grandchildren taken away please contact us and we will see what we can do to help.

We would like to thank the many organisations who are helping people in these circumstances including Justice For Families; Forced Adoption.com and Parents Against Injustice who have been invaluable with information and advice. Also people like Christopher Booker at The Sunday Telegraph who along with people like Bob Geldof and Denise Robertson MBE are all keen to highlight this scandal.

Of course there are children who need to be taken away from parents and we wholeheartedly applaud social workers who intervene to protect these children.

However, it would appear that there are some social workers who are focusing too much on minor cases and who snatch children from loving parents to feed the adoption and fostering industry.
.
This is the LibDems if you know anything that will help them do take up their invitation.
 
Forced adoption is a truly dreadful scandal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ced-adoption-is-a-truly-dreadful-scandal.html

Social Work scandals just go on and on.....

Social workers are removing children from loving families without proper justification...
[It is] one of the most alarming scandals in Britain today – the secretive system that allows social workers to remove children from loving families without any proper justification, and to send them for adoption or fostering with no apparent concern for their interests.(My italics)
Acting on a tip-off from the RSPCA, Leeds social workers then intervened, and expressed surprise that the house was tidier than they expected. Nevertheless, they told the mother to bring her son's clothes to school, from where he was taken into foster care.
There's lots more, I am sorry to say.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Dudley along with other authorities in the Black Country clubbed together and hired a 'Professional Recruiter' (a recruiter of adoptive parents) who is based at Dudley .
The Ofsted Inspectors were impressed when they discovered this and make this clear in the latest report they have published (2007) and they were very thorough , meeting adopters , reading reports etc - in fact they even went to the trouble of meeting a (as in 1) birth parent , (I am not sure I have the stomach for this bile)

Protecting children from harm or neglect and helping them stay safe
The provision is satisfactory.
Recruiting is well managed and organised by the recruitment officer in Adoption in the Black
Country project (ABC). The post of recruitment officer is funded by all the local authorities in the ABC project but directly managed by Dudley. At the time of the last inspection ABC had
only recently started and since then has 'gone from strength to strength'. Annual reports show
an increase in the number of enquiries received and improvements in the number of applications
from these enquiries. The project runs and co-ordinates information evenings throughout the
Black Country. The impact of a professionally skilled recruitment officer is notable in the material
and approach to the work and provides valuable analysis for all the ABC authorities
.
Dudley have published a 2009-2010 report on their flourishing adoption service and have few worries about Birth Parents interfering in their plans, as they put it
There has been an increase in the numbers of birth parents seeking leave of the court to appeal the Placement Order or the final Adoption Hearing. Case law would indicate the likelihood of success once the child is well attached to new carers is negligible
:puke::puke::puke:
.
Sxreenshot of the 'birth parents have no chance para'

.
screenshot adoptions doubled in a year

.
screenshot doc
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
.
Telegraph

It's time to bring family law to book
Christopher Booker has written another article .
I do hope these families get justice next week.​
.


.
Two weeks ago I recounted four examples of what I described as one of the greatest scandals in Britain today – the seizing of children by social workers from loving families, on what appears to be the flimsiest and most questionable grounds. The children may then be handed on to foster carers, who can receive up to £400 a week for each child, or are put out for adoption, in a way which too often leads to intense distress for both the parents and the children involved
One case I referred to concerns a north London couple whose five children were seized in April by social workers from Haringey council and sent into foster care. The mother was then pregnant, and her baby was born last month. Shortly afterwards, according to her account, nine police officers and social workers burst into her hospital room at 3am and, as she lay breastfeeding, wrested her baby from her arms with considerable force. Discovering they had nowhere to put the baby, the authorities took it to another part of the hospital, where the mother was escorted four times a day to feed her child, until she was discharged four days later.
Having talked at length to the mother, I found this story so shocking that I put a series of questions to the council, to get their side of the story. The response of Haringey (which, since the national furore over its failure to prevent the battering to death of Baby P, has been somewhat sensitive on these issues) was to ask the High Court to rule that I should not be allowed to write about the case at all. In the end, the court did not go that far, but The Sunday Telegraph was reminded of the comprehensive restrictions on reporting such stories.
Also this week, the fate of another family hangs on another court hearing. This is the story of a couple who last January were rejoicing at the birth of their first child. Some weeks later, concerned that the baby's arm seemed floppy, they took it back to the hospital to seek medical advice. An X-ray confirmed a minor fracture. This proved to be the start of a nightmare, which led to them being arrested, handcuffed and driven off separately to a police station, where the mother was held for nine hours without food. The father was imprisoned overnight.
.
The link to the full article
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Our heartless, blind and secretive adoption system has made a nonsense of the central

.
Christopher Booker writing on the blog
.
He talks firstly of how Khyra was failed then...
The other episode last week was just the opposite. This was the shocking outcome of a story on which I have reported before, illustrating the ruthless determination of too many social workers to seize babies or children from responsible and loving parents on the flimsiest of evidence, or no evidence at all, to place them with foster carers or send them for adoption in a way which flouts the principle on which the whole system supposedly rests, namely that the interests of the child are paramount.

In this instance, the social workers pursued through the courts a doting mother, against whom there is not a shred of evidence that she harmed her child in any way. When they won their case, on highly questionable legal grounds, they left the court giving exultant “high fives” that they now had judicial authority to snatch the baby.

Having previously spent hours talking to the now utterly distraught mother and others about every detail of this story, I am convinced that a terrible act of injustice has been done, and that it represents just as much of a failure of the system as that which allowed the death of little Kyra Ishaq. At the last minute, however, I have been legally advised that, in the circumstances of this case, I cannot report it in any way...the article is here in full.
 
This section from the same article mentioned by Elaine seems highly significant to me:

At the last minute, however, I have been legally advised that, in the circumstances of this case, I cannot report it in any way.

In due course I am hoping that it will be possible to do so, because it is as alarming an instance as any I have covered of how utterly corrupted our system of child protection has become. The very fact that I am so far forbidden to bring this horrifying story to light in itself illustrates not the least shocking aspect of this system – the way it is able to shroud itself in legally enforced secrecy, so that so many outrageous and inhuman blunders can be hidden away from public view.
My bold type, of course. How refreshing to find Booker telling it as it really is and not pussyfooting about!
 
There's another aspect to this that puts children in danger.

Knowing that your children could be forcibly removed and adopted out simply because you as a parent tried to protect them from abuse, would you report an abuser? or would you simply tell the child/children to keep quiet and make sure the abuser had no further access ? leaving the abuser free to abuse again :pout:

Makes me wonder what social workers are trying to accomplish :puke:
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Shropshire’s forced adoption figures are revealed


.
from the .
Nearly 100 children have been forcibly taken away from their parents in Shropshire in the last four years, new figures today revealed.

The release of the information comes following a Freedom of Information request published on www.whatdotheyknow.com The figures, revealed by Shropshire Council, show that between April 1, 2006, and March 31 this year, 95 children were forcibly removed.

Forcible adoption or “placement orders” are orders authorising a local authority to place a child for adoption where there is no parental consent, or where consent is not required.

The consent of a parent or guardian may not be necessary in certain circumstances, such as if the parent or guardian cannot be found or they are incapable of giving their agreement, for example through mental illness. Consent may also not be required if a court is satisfied that the welfare of the child is in danger.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Ex-cllr spearheads campaign over "forced adoptions"


.
from the.
AN ex-Kingswinford and Wallheath councillor is spearheading a campaign involving hundreds of British families who claim their children have been the victims of “forced adoptions.”

Lynn Boleyn has received complaints from six families in the Dudley borough who claim their children have been taken from them despite a lack of evidence that they were at risk of harm or neglect.

So far three of the mothers have joined the nationwide Class Action campaign which is taking the fight to the European Court of Human Rights.

Miss Boleyn, former vice chairman of a select committee on Dudley Council’s children’s services, said she was “totally convinced” the mothers were capable of caring for their offspring.

The three cannot be named to protect the identity of their children, but include a 21-year-old Dudley mum whose two daughters, aged two and three, have been adopted; a 16-year-old Colley Gate teenager whose baby son is being put up for adoption; and a 31-year-old Halesowen mother, whose five daughters are with three different foster carers, the youngest of whom is up for adoption.

They see the Class Action campaign as their best hope of winning their children back and after years of battling against the system, are grateful for the support from the former Liberal Democrat councillor....continued...
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
.
statement from the.
Social Services need to explain their role to prevent families from fleeing
Social Services need to explain their role to prevent families from fleeing
Imagine this scenario if you can: You are parent to a young child. As a result of some relatively obscure event, you and your partner run into conflict with children’s care services who believe that you’ve ‘done something wrong’ with your child. They accuse you of failing to show emotional warmth; or of neglecting to nourish your child because you prefer to feed them the traditional food of your cultural background rather than deep fried chips.
Shocked and surprised at the intervention of the state in your family life, you argue that you love your child and only ever do the best for them. But children’s services insist that they must take your child away for their own safety.
Weeks down the line, your child has been removed from your care and your calls to the social worker are met with abuse and point blank refusals. The limited contact you have with your child are strained, impersonal, and under the eyes of a distrusting stranger. Your parenting skills all come under question, and you feel your worth as a parent drain away.
Sound like a horrible scenario in some parallel universe?
This, unfortunately, is the type of service that some members of the public receive from children’s services in the United Kingdom in 2010.
It may sound like an unlikely scenario, but the Victoria Climbié Foundation (VCF) has dozens of just such examples- where parents find themselves on the receiving end of mind bogglingly cruel treatment.
VCF was formed following the death of eight year old Victoria Climbie ten years ago. Her death was marked by the failure of social services to intervene even though there was enough suspicion that she was at risk. Over the past ten years, we’ve seen similar cases where the authorities have failed to intervene when they should.
But we’ve also seen too many of the reverse: cases where social services seem intent on adopting the harshest possible line towards parents, effectively ignoring the serious impact that their decisions can have on vulnerable families.
As it currently stands, social workers take the lead in planning the forward agenda. They have a massive influence on the direction of proceedings, and their word is often seen as golden by the courts.
Many parents, on the other hand, have simply never had to deal with questions about their child’s safety, and the whole process can be very overwhelming.
It must come as no surprise therefore, that so many parents choose to run away.
Over the past few months, VCF has intervened in cases where parents have fled the UK for the Republic of Ireland, Turkey, and Spain.
Each family told of their absolute terror at the idea of their child being taken away from them and placed into care.That’s why the Victoria Climbie Foundation is calling for a new approach to the way that families and parents are engaged by social workers and within the social services model.
As things stand, too many people simply believe that social services can just come in, take your kids and leave. It is clear that social services are simply not making clear their long term plan for families. It’s no surprise then that families decide to take drastic action and flee the country.
Children’s services have failed to properly explain their role to the public, and that’s what VCF has always been about – getting communities to understand how the system works.
That is why the recently announced governmental review into social services could not have come at a better time.
New Children’s Minister Tim Loughton has been longing to shake up children’s care services. Speaking at the memorial to mark the 10 year anniversary of Victoria’s death, he said:
‘Our top priority is making sure that social workers have the freedom and flexibility to spend more time with vulnerable children and families. We believe that this is at the very heart of the present problems we find in social work. People do not sign up to be social workers so that they can fill in forms on computers and sit behind a desk. Social workers are people people. They are trained to help human beings and that‘s what they should be doing.’
VCF believes that we ought to go even further. Social workers need to not only be freed from bureaucracy in their day to day work, but empowered to participate in proper family engagement, recognising that families can and do often improve when they are properly supported.
A proper and full engagement of families within the child protection system is more humane, can be better managed, and makes perfect sense to all involved. That is the direction in which we need to be heading.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
.
.

.
For once, after all the shocking stories I have reported on the secretive system that allows social workers to seize children from loving parents for no good reason, to send them for adoption, I can at last report a story where a family torn apart for nine years has been reunited.
When Winona Varney, now a pretty 16-year-old, recently fell into the arms of her mother Tracey at Truro railway station, they had not seen each other since she was seven. During that time, she and her 12-year-old sister Daniella have been living unhappily with an adoptive family, who repeatedly told them that their mother was a bad woman who did not love or want them. But when, in June, Winona managed to track her mother down, via Facebook, a short time later the two girls and their mother were again living under the same roof.....continued
.
Not dissimilar was the case of Tammy Coulter, taken away from her mother by Derbyshire social workers when she was only seven months old, after an accident left her with a bruised cheek. After time in foster care, she was put out for adoption by a judge who said that, thanks to delays by the social workers, she and her mother would by now be strangers. Only after 17 years did she find her mother again through the website Genes Reunited, and was able to return happily to her birth family.
In 2006, Tammy told a London audience, which included judges, lawyers and Harriet Harman MP: “Finding out you’ve been adopted is one of the worst feelings in the world, because you feel that all of your identity, everything you’ve known about yourself, is a lie.” She said she was speaking out “on behalf of children and parents who have also been through the secrecy of family courts and the injustices that have taken place, and the devastation of one decision that determines the future of a child”.
.
Winona is so angry about what has been done to them that she has opened a page on Facebook entitled
“Anti-Social Services Forced Adoption – We Can Help!”,
to join up with other children in the same plight. She pays tribute to the advice she was given by Ian Josephs, the businessman living in the South of France who, through his Forced Adoption website, has helped hundreds of families who have fallen into the clutches of this corrupt and secretive system.
.
There are 70+ comments on the article and this one may be useful
.

suffolkboy
2 hours ago
If I understand correctly a direct consequence of judgments earlier this year is that it should now be possible for an aggrieved person who has witnessed or suspects perjury in a Family Court, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or has any complaint about the behaviour of an expert witness (and possibly other professionals) to file a crime report at a police station or a complaint with the relevant professional body. Until this year, any attempt to make a report at a police station elicited an oral warning that, should the complainant insist on filing a written crime report, they would be arrested on suspicion of contempt of court for disclosing to the police the events in the courtroom. Most complainants were frightened off by this, but the threat is now lifted.

Once a crime report has been filed, the police have either to investigate it or be prepared to publish their reasons for deciding not to.

It seems bizarre that these steps have to be taken, but self-regulation and normal checks and balances in the UK without recourse to law seem to have disappeared.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Parents' child abuse 'nightmare' in family courts - BBC1 8.30pm 23/08

.
.
A couple suspected of hurting their three-month-old son and who spent nearly two years fighting to clear their names, have won the right to tell the full story of what happened to them after a landmark legal ruling.
It is every parent's nightmare. Your child is badly hurt and you are accused of doing it. But that nightmare became a reality for first-time parents Jake and Victoria Ward, from Cambridgeshire.
Victoria Ward said she would never forget hearing that tests had showed that their son William's lower right leg was broken - an extremely rare injury in a child not yet walking.
"This nightmare seemed like it was completely spiralling out of control. I think having a child with a fracture is bad enough, being accused of something is bad enough and then I think your next worst nightmare is that the accusations are going to grow and grow and grow."
The local authority Cambridgeshire County Council put William on the Child Protection Register when neither parent could explain how the injury occurred.
.

,

How can you celebrate knowing that someone has decided you didn't hurt your child when all along you've known that you didn't hurt your child?
Victoria Ward, William's mother
.
In fact, initial tests suggested the infant's arms had been injured too.
The Wards were suspected of abusing their son and when Cambridgeshire County Council applied for a care order, this signalled that their case would be heard in the closed world of the family courts.
Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules on what can be reported, often little is revealed about what happens once the court doors are closed.
The Wards were also investigated by the police and were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm and child cruelty. Jake and Victoria, who both worked for Cambridgeshire County Council, the same local authority that was also investigating them, were suspended from their jobs.
Because neither Jake or Victoria appeared not to fit the profile of child abusers, William was allowed to stay with his parents, but on one condition - he must never be left alone with them. His grandparents moved into the family home and supervised the Wards 24 hours a day.
.

.
 
I don't think it's mentioned in the programme, and certainly wasn't relevant at the time, but they home educate, so it's got some direct relevance to us all.
 
An interesting programme. I don't fault the hospital or social services for the initial response, because we've been critical of them for not acting properly in cases such as Ishaq and Baby P. However, good for Jake and Vix for taking on the secrecy of the family courts and winning, because that's the part of the system that really needs scrutiny and should have to justify its decisions.

The irony is that the new legislation mentioned at the end of the programme about allowing journalists into the family courts was contained in the later sections of the CSF Bill.
 
NSPCC needs more public scrutiny.

Perhaps this could herald the beginning of the voluntary sector coming under greater public scrutiny.

'CDC has completely abandoned its mandate of poverty reduction in favour of one of wealth creation. It is a travesty.'
Read more:

Certainly the thinking that the NSPCC has become more concerned with corporate growth strategies and revenue generation than prevention of cruelly to children is applicable.
 
Last edited:

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
.
.
Child protection: why did this woman lose her children?​
.
A new case in south London highlights the ongoing scandal in our social services, reports Christopher Booker.
Nine days ago six policemen, three psychiatric workers and three social workers from the local council arrived outside a house in south London, threatening to beat the door down unless they were given entry. Inside were a mother and her two terrified children, aged nine and 11. Once inside, they removed the mother to a psychiatric hospital under the Mental Health Act, and gave the children to her estranged husband, a solicitor, from whom she parted some years ago because she didn’t consider his promiscuous lifestyle compatible with bringing up two young daughters.
What had this mother done to be robbed of her children and incarcerated alongside psychotics who were drugged to the eyeballs? There is no accusation that she has in any way harmed her daughters, who have been frenziedly texting her asking why they can’t be allowed to come home.
.

It became clear to her that they thought she was suffering from a persecution complex. In May, she was called on her mobile by a psychiatrist who asked whether she heard voices. She calmly replied: “The only voice I hear is yours down this telephone.” Last week, she was interviewed in the mental hospital by another psychiatrist. After receiving nothing but sane replies, the baffled expert finally said: “I’ll have to ask the social workers what’s wrong with you.”[/QUOTE]
 
Top