Having no shame whatsoever, UKIP has now decided to weigh in on child welfare matters by moving a debate in the House of Commons on Forced Adoption. What follows is a comical attempt at appealing to the public’s heart strings by echoing already well known sentiments about the state of the child welfare system in the UK.
The debate, which took place yesterday, was scheduled by UKIP’s Douglas Carswell MP, who begins by showing his support for Forced Adoption. He then launches into a scathing attack of the family courts, calling for more openness and transparency.
None of what Carswell says is new. Other MPs in the debate are good enough to advise him on nuances he misses completely in his tirade, which is clearly given with the general public in mind. From using the term Forced Adoption (a term which is not generally accepted within the family court sector) to referring to the courts as a ‘cartel’, Carswell does his best to sound like ‘one of us’. Except he’s not. He’s a politician out for for votes, and he’ll use children being forcibly adopted, to get them.
Not that the rest of the politicians in this debate fare any better. Edward Timpson does his best to defend his government’s impact on the system, and appears to be in complete denial about the deepening crises inside the child welfare sector. Only Lucy Allan, who experienced the Family Court herself first hand and nearly lost her son as a result, was able to give a more balanced view.
The debate though is a must read, for the basic refresher course it offers in some of the main issues affecting the system and a reminder at least, that our politicians are not fit for purpose.
No publicity is bad publicity, the more public awareness the better. I would sell my soul to UKIP if it got my Grandson home.
LikeLike
They don’t care about you, or your grandson, Mike. It’s all talk for votes. They don’t care about anyone x
LikeLike
I know Natasha, but at least it raises the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i wrote a comment but it will not accept my email
LikeLike
Sorry Maggie, not sure why that would be?
LikeLike
I’m very disappointed, having met Mr Carswell, who gave the impression he was fighting against the system that many people find themselves in and are appalled to find their child put up for adoption against their wishes. If parents don’t want their kids they would be pleased to have them adopted and would consent. Those that don’t consent want their kids!
Since more than half of all adoptions break down (disruption) it has a pretty poor record for finding any kind of real permanence and security for a child. Kinship care and foster care offer an alternative which allows parents and extended family, contact with their children which has been thoroughly researched and proven to be better for the child’s mental health if they find themselves in care.
Shameful that families are still being denied contact with their children by social workers without going through the courts to alter the original court orders. It’s also shameful that children who are put up for adoption lose their family, sometimes for ever, despite the adoption breaking down at a later date, teenage years predominately, as that happens in most cases.
I have already written at lenght about forced adoption here on Natasha’s blog so I will just mention, for new people, that forced adoption is not for the child’s benefit but to satisfy a need in the adoptive mother, who often doesn’t bond with the child in any case (adoptive fathers are better at bonding) and the UK are alone in the EU who forcibly adopt. It’s odd that we have to abide by other European dictates but not their children’s policies!
The EU stance is that parents who have their child taken into care, should have the opportunity for reunification with their children. If a child is forcibly adopted in the UK that can never happen!
The original UKIP stance was to remind people that social services intervention was rather excessive at 1 in 6 in any street. Social Services should change their name, not to Children’s Services but to Social Engineering, that’s so much more apt!
LikeLike
Half of Adoptions DO NOT break down. When the FJC debate transcript is out it states accurate figures.
LikeLike
Amber, I have given the links below about adoption disruption and I belive there was a reference that 2/3rds of adoptions (England) are OK but what of the 1/3 left? What of those in Scotland & Wales & Northern Ireland? The true percentage is higher that they state.
It would appear I have been too generous with my praise of foster homes since nearly all the adoptive parents expressed concerns at how the children were treated by them prior to being adopted. Foster homes are not checked by Ofsted so maybe they should be!
LikeLike
If I am correct it was 3% or 5% which breakdown. I am working with academics regarding social work training. There is also research & work being done to help prevent repeat removals.
I know of an adopted adult whose mother didn’t want him. He and his children met birth family and told me, ‘They were chavs.’ There was no regret, no desperation to get close to siblings and clearly the adopters who he calls his parents spoilt him.
I also met children who were adopted, one was a sibling living with other parents, the other two live further away. Both set of adoptive parents meet and siblings are all happy.
The system does need reform so there are honest, proper reports done and parents get support & training done pre-birth.
The foster system needs a re-haul- I am working on aspects.
The media should have all Judgements attached to their articles as many journalists are bias campaigners. Certain campaigners make matters worse for families.
Legal Aid cuts have been the greatest injustice as certain MKF have used this to their personal advantage by grossly over- charging vulnerable people and not always doing a professional job.
LikeLike
How disapointing Natacha that you attack Carswell for bringing up forced adoption in parliament simply because he is from UKIP.I suppose if “Jeremy” had brought up the same subject you would have been cheering him from the rafters !
Surely whether the person highlighting injustices is Communist,Fascist,or something in between is immaterial .
There is a lot of talk about whether the children would be better off with a family different from their own but that is a rotten reason for removing them.I daresay a child would be better off with Richars Branson,or Bill Gates than with a gypsy family living in a delapidated caravan but that is no reason to take that child away if it is happy.
The UK is the ONLY country in the world where substantial numbers of pregnant mothers flee their home country to avoid forced adoption of their babies at birth ;mostly for “risk of future emotional harm” They do this by taking refuge mostly in Ireland ,France,Spain,and N.Cyprus because of the extensive support networks created there to help them.
Asylum seekers (uk pregnant mums) actually fleeing Britain? Surely something must be very very wrong?
LikeLike
Ian, it was clearly stated at the FJC debate that the UK is NOT the only country where pregnant mothers flee. Other countries simply are poor data collectors.
The system needs to change. Proper legal aid would help families for a start.
LikeLike
Amber ,no no no ! At the debate Dr Claire Fenton Glyn claimed that one unknown mother was said to have left Sweden ! Hardly a comparison with the once trickle and now flood of pregnant mothers that flee to the other countries in Europe where there is hardly any forced adoption.Adoption without consent ?Yes because that includes abandoned children whose parents cannot be found; For them adoption is a good thing .
Forced adoption = adoption forced on parents despite frantic struggles in court when they try to keep the children they love from forced adoption by strangers ! On the whole abusive parents rarely contest adoptions and they avoid courts like the plague!Pregnant caring mothers flee the UK in ever increasing numbers to safer countries like France ,Spain,Ireland, and N.Cyprus where they know their children will not get snatched to feed the greedy adoption industry.In 12 + years of helping such mothers I have never heard of even one such parent losing their child to adoption in their country of refuge. Vindictive social workers have pursued mothers as far flung as Laos and Uganda trying in vain to recapture the escaped babies and all at public expense !
Forced adoption is a crime and those who are involved should be jailed for crimes against humanity.
LikeLike
I agree with all you say, adoption without consent is ‘forced’ to call it anything else is playing with words, family courts or a hot bed of abuse of power and due process, perjury is normal although a criminal offence …. social engineering and child trafficking is what it is.
LikeLike
lucy allan is hemming’s minion but like all Tories have be trained to appear to have a balanced view. She should release all paperwork for the public to see as Daily Mail reporting is unreliable.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
http://www.adoptionuk.org/beyond-adoption-order-summary#TheDisruption
http://www.adoptionuk.org/resources/article/beyond-adoption-order-challenges-interventions-and-adoption-disruption
LikeLike
You often hear that adopted kids were maltreated by their birth parents. What of those children taken at birth? Where is the data to see how they fared?
I would also like to know how social workers justify their actions? They put the child up for adoption despite there being an alternatve but they don’t want to work with the family. Social workers do not always get to know potential candidates but apparently can make a decision based on what? Are social workers really qualified to make such momentous decisions? I don’t think so. Fresh out of Uni, young and inexperienced of life & keen to please their superiors or older, reliant on their wages to pay their mortgage but jaded. The decision to adopt a child lasts a lifetime not just while they are kids! Although many kids leave their adoptive homes before 18 years old!
LikeLike
I did reply but it doesn’t seem to be up…
LikeLike
Amber, The study for England stated 3% but they think it’s more 9%. That’s a big difference within the parameters they were working on. The disruption rates would be higher than stated if other criteria was included. Questions asked will give answers only to what was questioned! Have they included the kids who have had previous disruptions before being “sucessfully adopted” before the last disruption or being on the edge of disruption? A kid who was disrupted twice before had 2 disruptions that were not included. Only the last would be taken into account.
As regards Special Guardian Orders, that has been hijacked by fosterers, that is just another form of adoption. It is not the permanence for the children that makes it attractive to the government/social workers. The social workers are freed up and unless the fosterers negotiated the same finances they get for fostering it’s cheaper. A recent report, on Community Care, stated fosterers were being pushed into SGO or the kids currently with them would be taken off them!!! With no checks by an Independent body like Ofsted SGOs pose a significant risk to the kids in their care as they are effectively off the radar. If it’s all about the risks why are Ofsted not checking on foster homes?
As regards Foster Care it seems obvious to me that children are being manipulated when they are taken into care. Subtle and maybe not so subtle innuendo can make a young child turn against their real families. The fosterer doesn’t want the hassel or the competion of the real family and so before long the child no longer wants to see the real family. The child who is in a strange home will align themselves to the fosterers for survival. It’s not surprising a large percentage end up with mental health issues with this kind of mental conflict. How many researchers have focused on the relationship with the real families before they went into care and compared it to the relationship once the kids are in care? How many kids eager to please the fosterers say they don’t want to see their family?
LikeLike
time people spoke with kids from care who were adopted or fostered then the nation can all write and debate with the truth, and perhaps people should work with the homeless and set up hostels for them most from what is know as “In a child’s best interest” so before commenting like the MPs and Lords and the millions “In a child’s best interest” get your AR–S out there and learn.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Victims Unite!.
LikeLike
How can raising such an emotive and important issue in Parliament be counterproductive? To be avoided? One presumes that all the Parties have their experts who are free to enter the debate and put forward their views. One presumes that MPs are able to put forward the views of constituents who are affected by such situations. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who have subjects that they want discussed in Parliament but are denied. It would seem that from what has been said here by those who want to criticise Carswell, can only be satisfied if their side of the argument is heard and adopted (no pun intended). These proceedings in Parliament smack of democracy; lets stamp it out. You talk as if UKIP is responsible for all the problems that are alleged. Only Parliament itself can change a rotten system – if it’s bad then so are at least 50% of the MPs who created the situation.
LikeLike
isn’t simply about opening up the family courts – sunshine is the best disinfectant – as is now coming out in Swansea Family Court where parents and Mackenzie friends have been gagged [unlawfully] so that the failures of the local social services can be covered up or contained and the corruption of judges receiving papers behind the back of parents is the norm.
after all it would not do for it to be known that the failures in the local services were readily aired in the local family court before a child death occurred.
People have had it up to here with the promises of the other parties. Why be anti UKIP if they raise it whether cynically or not. At least they are out there and as is now being seen if you go to a UKIP MP he/she will have a different perspective on the issue rather than be forced to toe the line as other MP’s often do, or write letters but do nothing not even a simple question in parliament. John Hemming when he was an MP was a lone and ineffective voice? was he just looking for votes?
LikeLike
I was disappointed in Carswell because I hoped he would be against forced adoption. There are no grey areas. Yes or No! By the way I voted for UKIP. They were the only party that brought up social services involvement in the lives of 1 in 6 in any street and that is excessive!
LikeLike