Facebook users were left furious last week after discovering that a local authority had been advertising children for adoption on the social media site. The page offers full length descriptions and links to photos of the children.
Suffolk Fostering and Adoption Agency, which is run by Suffolk County Council, is advertising children for adoption on Facebook through its business page Suffolk Adoption Agency. The move prompted Facebook users to leave negative reviews on the page, which has a rating of 2.3 stars out of 5.
Families were shocked by Suffolk Council’s Facebook page, calling the strategy deeply insensitive to parents who had had their children removed through care proceedings. Many of these parents are active on the social media platform. Seeing children being marketed online by Suffolk Council led to one mother leaving a scathing review on the page:
“This page is disgusting, sharing children like animals… how do you think their birth parents would feel? It’s wrong and disgusting…. If I ever see my children on here all hell will break loose… disgusting the lot of you…. children… are human beings and deserve better than this.”
Reacting to an advert featuring a newborn baby on the Facebook page, a family law activist said, “Hang your head in shame Britain… up for sale like puppy farming, except these babies are worth £33,000 once they find adopters, #SS you disgust me.”
Another poster left a plea for help on the review section, asking the council to give her parents a second chance.
The adoption agency’s Facebook page was shared by Facebook users over the weekend, with dozens of private comments left under the shared content.
Concerns over a child trafficking epidemic in the UK do not seem to have stopped adoption agencies from marketing children online, despite the level of detail being offered by these agencies which is visible to everyone around the world. Pages and sites offer the names of councils and the whereabouts of agencies, making it easy for offending paedophiles to locate and target children, placing not only those children advertised at risk, but every child within the agency’s location. The ability to like and subscribe to Suffolk County’s adoption page also means that offending paedophiles could be tracking the adverts without the council knowing.
Allowing councils – who are responsible for assessing parents in child protection proceedings – to run adoption and fostering agencies creates a sharp conflict of interest. The dual role gives councils every incentive to remove children from parents so that the government can take advantage of adoption and fostering placements, which are big business inside the sector.
Suffolk Council’s Facebook page has over 800 likes, though it is not clear whether the engagement is organic, or has been paid for by the council. The page also mentions that the agency received an Outstanding rating from Ofsted in 2011. In 2016, the agency was rated Good, by the inspection body.
The current policy of protecting children’s identities during child welfare proceedings and then making their identities public to secure adoption and fostering placements is also ineffective, and in several instances, illegal. Parents are being contacted by friends who are seeing their children being advertised online, causing the families even greater distress. There is also no evidence to suggest that the strategy of advertising children online is working – a significant percentage of placements break down, and in January 2018, it was revealed that placement breakdown was on the rise.
Councils also do not have a legal right to advertise children where parents still have parental responsibility, which is the position in the vast majority of cases where a child has been placed in foster care.
Very many thanks to the wonderful Michele Simmons and the very generous posters who gave Researching Reform permission to quote them.
Researching Reform 
I just left this comment on their FB page and it was immediately removerd and I then also had my freedom of speech restricted as they have now restricted me from being able to post on tehir page at all! Shows their fear and arrogance for what it is!
“Suffolk Adoption Agency yes, I have a question. Is it morally acceptable to advertise children ‘for sale’ like a commodity on a public social media site? Is it legal even, given that what happens in a Family Court to a child is deemed to be ‘secret’ and not for public disclosure? How many of the total number of children which you have up to give away (with additional bonuses of course to make them even more attractive to the desperate) are being placed for adoption WITHOUT PARENTAL consent? As criticised by the United Nations? I know you won’t answer this as your position is in point of fact untenable, so you of course have no valid answer. #SHAMEONYOU #INDEFENSIBLE”
LikeLiked by 4 people
It seems that comments left as reviews cannot be deleted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But they have been doing this for years ! If the mother of one of these children goes public on the internet with her protest at her child’s removal she will be threatened with jail if she does not immediately remove the photographs and text.
Public authorities flout the law and break it continually while the rest of us have to humbly obey !
LikeLiked by 2 people
Using Facebook to highlight specific children is relatively new.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My God, how low can they go? If we needed any more proof that this system is broken and harms rather than helps children and families, this is it. I do hope they’ve shot themselves in the foot and that same bullet ricochets through the whole system. Shame, shame on them all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The total figure, after legals, SS, Guardian, medicals and admin, is around £73, 000 !
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:32 AM Researching Reform wrote:
> Natasha posted: “Facebook users were left furious last week after > discovering that a local authority had been advertising children for > adoption on the social media site. The page offers full length descriptions > and links to photos of the children. Suffolk Fostering and A” >
LikeLike
Thank you Researching Forum, for taking mine and other activists serious concerns into account. For me, it’s a first seeing children advertised and paraded like pups for sale where an adoption agency page is linked up to their ‘Facebook’ page WITH all child’s personal details like you say.
Before an Adoption Hearing takes place, with an Adoption Order to follow then parents still maintain parental responsibility. As it is, unless parents are given the Adoption Order ‘in full’ so with nothing redacted as per serial number 05/05 stated on it then how can parents be expected to know with all fairness if their child/ren were ever really adopted at all when it’s contested. I got sent a copy of my child’s birth certificate after one hearing prior to an alleged adoption hearing when I later learnt before said alleged hearing I still maintained my PR. I know this, because I eventually got invited to a further meeting where it’s stated in writing I still held my PR. I had been misled by the SW who asked me to ‘borrow’ said certificate and I’d been misled, led to believe it was fruitless me appealing the adoption decision at Court. It was only because I got an Advocacy worker involved I learnt all these things at the time ‘re my PR as told to her then me by a Solicitor when my first one (her firm) said they couldnt help me anymore at only adoption decisions stage of proceedings because they had gone private. I later learnt (8 years later) from the Solicitor at the time, that the firm going private shouldn’t have made any difference at all if grounds could have been found for me. I never got given that opportunity to find out. Back in 2004 I believe many parents were being misled similarly as told to me at the time.
It’s pot calling kettle black when parents are having photos up of their children, where it’s their copyright (pre adoption order stage) when the photos were taken and parents can argue it’s their copyright! That’s what I did, with success in one of the Cases where I instigated proceedings LIP. I had been asked by SS to remove it, with them even falesly suggesting/manipulating the idea I had agreed I would. Difference was, it was just the photo which had allegedly upset the alleged AP seeing it of my child and I the last time I’d ever saw them at that time when they was a young child. I couldn’t handle or bear seeing my house filled with photos, so they were there on my account to see when I felt ready as otherwise it was too heart breaking and overwhelming for me. Parents are not doing these things for financial gain as much as love when photos are the main memories they can hold onto when it’s all they have left besides hope of reunion in years to come.
I can also vouch, after hearing from other parents that they have shared their frustration of having their comments removed from said Facebook page you describe. So what is it, they fear the public knowing? Family Courts have welfare checks to make procedure fair. If these children are being advertised ‘before’ there’s even an Adoption Order done then surely- yes they are breaking the law! How dare they change the names of children for all the public to see, when parents still hold their PR helping cause these children more identity crises by the time they are older and get given their files. I would not at all be surprised if in such Cases, the LA’s and intermediary services are holding double case files to benefit fraudulently making it appear both Cases are separate. Doubling their money when after all it’s a child trafficking business and not about the best interests of the child. I believe this has happened on my Case already and believe I have already suffered ‘miscarriage of justice’ and betting I can’t be the only one apart from the handful of others Cases already publicly known.
Anything could change between adoption decision and alleged adoption order stage, and if these children do end up going home (although rarely) it would constitute data breaches and are adoption agencies that confident to be doing all this so a*se backwards (excuse my nearly French) 😉 that they’re not giving two hoots what or which child and their family is at stake. My child was put in BMP magazine back then, i learnt at Court. I asked to see it and was told no! What information could have been in there when i couldn’t fairly be expected to respond without having sight of it. As parents, we get told we can’t show MP’s our paperwork Family Court related when we still hold parental responsibility. So welfare checks are already being failed miserably there. Then interestingly, if you make a ‘post adoption application for face to face contact’ so after a child is ‘allegedly’ adopted, when you get referred to as the mother like i was then that alone gives parents like me the more questions to ask as to my status to alleged adopted child and if really i was still his mother after all (as recognised yet concealed) by the law! Please, please parents get a copy of the child’s newer full length birth certificate from the general registry office to find out more. You can ALL request that and by priority service for around £20, you’ll have it by Christmas if your child can be traced, otherwise you’ll get a refund like i did (long story) where taking matters back to Court depending on the outcome of your findings, you’re likely to get a Reztriction Order shoukd you challenge it further, at Family Court. But if your child comes looking for you, you will at least have the tools to start helping repair some of the damage and be able to show them the truth and help fill a vital part of their ‘Life Story work’ where there was a void before from Professionals who simply did not care. Xxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/little-girls-wears-dress-covered-13680138?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mirror_main&fbclid=IwAR303W5ouXKWgAQ3BsCoMjI7FTR7GtP0epx0zYbfGLPyFu4xZeDeIF8LpQM How it feels for children affected by bereavement and what one family did, to help their little girl with her baby brother’s photos (newborn) I believe this way is healthier for the child, to help reduce the impact of trama in the future xx
LikeLike
trauma*
LikeLike
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
Pingback: Adoption Agency Marketing Children On Facebook Sparks Public Fury | tummum's Blog
FYI, the agency have removed their Facebook reviews section since this post was published….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh deer i wonder why.
of course bad reviews are bad for business.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Allowing councils – who are responsible for assessing parents in child protection proceedings – to run adoption and fostering agencies is also a sharp conflict of interest. The dual role gives councils every incentive to remove children from parents so that the government can take advantage of adoption and fostering placements, which are big business inside the sector.”
trying to Crack this lucrative racket in child farming is never going to be easy.
just like the Murder of jamal khashoggi too many powerful and educated people are involved in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Is It Illegal To Advertise Children Online For Fostering And Adoption? – Voice of the Child Podcast | Researching Reform