An adoption agency has taken the unusual step of explaining why it chose to publicly advertise two vulnerable siblings, after sharing photo and video footage of the brother and sister in an online newspaper. The private details were shared in an attempt to find foster parents for the children.
The invasive practice, which allows vulnerable children’s details to be shared worldwide, often draws criticism from the public. Reformers and child rights groups are also growing increasingly concerned about the exposure the practice offers grooming gangs and child traffickers.
Interestingly, the piece in the Evening Post does not explain why adoption agency Caritas Care felt the need to explain its actions. The decision may stem around the often aggressive public reaction to making information about vulnerable children widely available online and in print. And for good reason: the practice is widespread but poorly regulated, and is in direct breach of a child’s right to privacy.
The practice also throws up another important conflict of interest. Many parents whose children are taken into care share parental responsibility with the Local Authority who are looking after their children, which means that significant decisions about a child’s health and wellbeing need to be made with parental involvement, and often, their consent. That would include ensuring that parents who share decision making responsibilities have agreed to their children being publicly advertised in the first place. Caritas does not say whether the parents were involved in this appeal, or whether they had parental responsibility at the time. Trying to get a sense of how agencies and government are implementing this kind of publicity is also virtually impossible. Centrally held child welfare data in the UK is so piecemeal, that information on which councils and agencies are publicising children in the media and doing so either with the consent of parents who share parental responsibility, or as the sole body with that responsibility, isn’t automatically available.
Another deeply concerning aspect of publicising vulnerable children online, is that it may well be contributing to the child trafficking epidemic in Britain, which is responsible for thousands of children in care going missing every year, who are then sexually exploited and groomed by gangs. Given that 70% of child sex trafficking victims are sold online, we can see that traffickers are using the internet in a variety of ways to find, and sell, trafficking victims. It’s the first place they look.
And yet the government remains complacent about the effects of publicly advertising vulnerable children online.
Publicising deeply intimate information about a child, and sharing photos and videos of them online, can also be traumatic for a child. The trauma can take place during the event if they are old enough to access the internet, but it can also happen later on, should someone tell the child they’ve been seen online, and know, for example, what their personal preferences are, and, of course, that they are not only vulnerable, but being looked after by foster or adoptive parents.
Caritas tell the Yorkshire Evening Post that the online appeals it has run for the children in its Leeds branch have resulted in the service finding families for over 90% of the children it has featured over the last three years. What Caritas doesn’t tell the newspaper is how many of those children stayed in those placements permanently, how many ran away, and how many were identified by groomers and traffickers, and then found themselves victims of child sexual abuse and neglect.
Caritas also don’t mention that Leeds is one of the worst places in England for human trafficking and child sexual abuse.
We also know that a large number of children go missing from foster care every year, though the government is still not sure why. Perhaps practices like these are part of the problem. It is now vital that we ask whether this Local Authority’s media drive is helping to feed the trafficking and grooming industries in the city. (For more news items on this, Google “child trafficking in Leeds”).
Still, it’s not just Leeds’ fostering agencies engaging in the practice. We know it’s a nationwide phenomenon. So, it’s time for the government to have a serious debate about the practice and policy around advertising vulnerable children online. This is what it must do:
- Investigate the practice of publicly advertising vulnerable children for placements, both online and in print, by collecting as much data on this practice as possible
- Examine the child rights issues involved
- Look at the ways in which local authorities have been, and should be proceeding, where they share parental responsibility with the children’s parents
- Explore the link between child trafficking and grooming, and publicly available information about children and their whereabouts
- Hold a consultation on the practice, inviting submissions on all the points above
Very many thanks to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this story.
tummum said:
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
The parental responsibility side going ignored? What if the parents don’t understand their rights? Are these children being exploited online? Parents still maintain PR right up until/if an adoption order gets made. An adoption decision is only a decision and the parents last chance to hold on to their PR for their child/ren xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Feeding Child Trafficking? | tummum's Blog
Ian Josephs said:
. You quote”Many parents whose children are taken into care share parental responsibility with the Local Authority who are looking after their children, which means that significant decisions about a child’s health and wellbeing need to be made with parental involvement,”
That is how it should be but NOT what it is !!
In fact most parents are ignored and never know if their children in care are ill or how they are doing at school. ;COMMUNICATION BY PHONE OR EMAIL IS FORBIDDEN TO THE CHILDREN;
Shared responsibility is a bad joke shared between giggling social workers,fosterers and so called guardians ,many of whom traffik children in care who disappear without a trace (10,000 per year according to the parliamentary enquiry) but who can grudge them such a nice little earner??
LikeLiked by 4 people
tummum said:
Yes they are. An adoption decision still means the parents hold parental responsibility even if shared with the LA right up until the time/if an adoption order gets made. It also seems presumptious and fast tracked where they are getting too far ahead of themselves, because anything could change by then? What if the parents do end up getting their children back home after all? Then their children’s faces and details have been exploited all over the papers in the meantime, which could interferre with them settling in back at home with their real parents. It’s almost like minds are already made up for these children? What chance have the children or their parents got? Their identity is being ‘toyed with’ up until this time either way and can have life long effects xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ian Josephs said:
If a mum whose baby has been snatched at birth protests via the media publicising her own name she will be jailed if she persists because babies don’t like their privacy being breached !
On the other hand adoption agencies and now adoptive parents can publish photos and first names in the Daily Mirror and in Magazines because children in care suddenly don’t need privacy .
Wow ! One law for them and one for us……………..?
LikeLiked by 4 people
maureenjenner said:
This is appalling information that should be put in the public domain immediately. There needs to be an investigation of those responsible, but alas, experience teaches us that such measures are so ponderous the conclusion may never be reached in time to help the most vulnerable this side of the grave.
It is difficult to believe that the conditions of the eighteenth century that encouraged philanthropists like Coram to set up institutions where orphans and homeless children could find refuge from exploitation and abuse, are now possible sources for those very evils.
I am tempted to believe that a possible solution might be to deport all found guilty of exploitation to some barren island; there they would be made responsible for their own survival or demise. Similarly, those found guilty of dereliction of duty, or participating in procuring for exploitation in the care and legal systems, might be made to do the same – who knows, we may overcome our problems of overcrowding in prisons and ease the housing situation at the same time.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Pingback: Sharing Vulnerable Children’s Details Online – Are UK Fostering Agencies Feeding Child Trafficking? « Musings of a Penpusher
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
A while back Sutton council were doing exactly this advertising names of children waiting to be fostered out. They stated people from Sutton or Croydon need not apply. So its obvious to anyone where the children came from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian Josephs said:
Yes when forced adoption is on the move all the publicity in the world is ok but if mums complain in public they are jailed !
The adoption industry is a cash racket and of course relies on advertising !
LikeLiked by 3 people
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
This advert was by a social worker who was also running her own child care business. That’s how bad the situation is. Its lawless
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Sharing Vulnerable Children’s Details Online – Are UK Fostering Agencies Feeding Child Trafficking? by Natasha | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : SUPPORTING FRESH START @FSFtruthjustice
truthaholics said:
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Solution: Outlaw/Abolish the policy of commodifying children for corporate profit.
“*Examine the child rights issues involved
*Look at the ways in which local authorities have been, and should be proceeding, where they share parental responsibility with the children’s parents
*Explore the link between child trafficking and grooming, and publicly available information about children and their whereabouts”
LikeLiked by 1 person
tummum said:
Some years back, children were advertised in a magazine called ‘Be my parent’ and the first parents would know this had already been done, was when they reached court. But then if the parent(s) asked to see the advert they would be told ‘no you cannot see it’. It was only ‘potential’ adopters who got see it. How many hr breaches happened there in all parents and their children’s cases? and how many were not compatible with the CA 1989?
‘Potential adopters’ (could be strangers) who had no parental responsibility of the children, like the parents did (and many could still have, but not even realise it) but for ones from that era, who are now realising all these years later it seems they are being silenced even when the children affected enough, are growing up to want to know the truth.
Yes, there is something even thought out and put in place to hide the transparency of all that. There was no real transparency and of course the paperwork was voluminous. Cases were not sped up like they try doing now, so the obvious is stated in this caselaw here really. With the children being allowed minimal information who ‘want to know the truth’ and parents/natural parents being silenced with gagging orders and restrictions (same with the newspapers) which can be around the time the child affected coming of age, to not just think to start asking questions but actually asking them. The concerns here are that only one side of the story will be told. Well is that exactly what has happened here? How many more miscarriages of justice covered up are there? affecting firstly the children’s rights and then the parental responsibility of the parents affected and traumatised too!
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mother-denied-chance-to-take-her-case-to-court-of-public-opinion/5066283.article
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/1301.html – In 2002, BAILII published only 8 first-instance judgments in family cases; in 2017, the corresponding figure was 336.[1] xx
LikeLike
Alan L Brunwin said:
Be my parent ltd is a company, looked into this lot sometime back going to look again now. Thanks for reminding me of them, there are so many hard to remmeber all of them.
LikeLike
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Sharing Vulnerable Children’s Details Online – Are UK Fostering Agencies Enabling Child Trafficking? | | truthaholics – seachranaidhe1
alan Brunwin. brunwinbooks. brunwin poetry. said:
Moving on care ltd. Family care centre , robinhood lane Sutton surrey.
LikeLike
Ian Josephs said:
Children in care provide a “Paedo’s paradise” Naturally they want to share their “good news” as widely as possible…………….
LikeLike
Alan L Brunwin said:
So wrong can we know the name off this ltd agency company it its in the public interest plus any ltd company and its directors is for the general public viewing put in place by the govermenyt to stop corruption ?? The head of addoption at Sutton done the same thing advertized children for adoption , Police put a stop to her practice by saying resign from your company now or leave the employment of sutton council, that accured around 2013 / 2014. She chose to stay at the council, but the company was run by someone else close to her.
LikeLike