A study by the Centre of Excellence in Child Trauma (CoECT) has concluded that hundreds of children are being taken to see their biological parents by unwilling foster carers who say that contact is damaging the children and should be stopped.
The survey follows a backlash by carers who want to see a total ban on contact with biological parents.
According to the survey, which received 1,125 responses from parents who have adopted, fostered, or cared for children, 53 percent of carers polled “had to take” their child to see a biological parent.
A further 85% of parents believed it should be illegal for biological parents to be guaranteed contact time. (We are not sure what “guaranteed” means in this context).
There are several concerns with this study (which does not seem to be available on the CoEct site).
The survey calls biological parents who have lost their children to the care system “abusive parents”, without defining what abusive means, and fails to make any distinction between children living in homes where the parents are struggling with poverty, subjected to domestic violence or experiencing direct emotional and physical harm.
It’s a shoddy survey. And it gets worse.
Sarah Naish, who is the CEO and founder of CoECT, a former social worker and a parent of five adopted siblings compared all biological parents to rapists in an interview with The Telegraph today:
“You would not expect to meet your rapist once a month for a cup of tea, so why do we force children to keep seeing their abusers?
“Looking at the poll alone, this is evidence that over 500 children have been marched back to visit their abusers, which is an absolute disgrace. From the stories I hear on a daily basis this is the tip of the iceberg and something needs to be done.
“This should be regarded as one of the biggest scandals that still exists in the British legal system today. The legal view that contact with parents is beneficial to a child’s welfare becomes absolutely ridiculous when that parent is the one that abused them.
“The parents I speak to dedicate their entire beings to try and heal the children they have to care for, only for them to be the adult that has to march their child back to the person that abused them.
“The government needs to take action on this and ban parents that have abused their children from having contact with them.”
Naish is also the founder of the National Association of Therapeutic Parenting, which offers paid for courses, workshops and training for carers.
It is also not clear from the survey whether the respondents were all pooled from Ms. Naish’s association.
And the survey itself is not new, having been announced initially in August, where the alleged findings from this survey seemed to focus not on a ban on contact with biological parents but an effort to get the government to offer more therapeutic support, like the courses Ms. Naish offers, for carers.
While it may be inconvenient for foster carers to have to facilitate contact with biological parents, it is being recognised as an important element in a cared-for child’s life, as a growing body of research tells us very clearly that many of these children don’t want to lose that connection and that the loss of it can lead to children suffering emotional and psychological harm throughout their adult lives.
In situations where a child genuinely doesn’t want to see a parent at a particular time, or during a particular period in their childhoods, that should be respected, but that should not include a complete lack of engagement from the foster carers with the biological parents. That connection must be kept alive for the child, throughout their childhood, even if it is done behind the scenes.
For those few children who have parents that are violent, or unable to engage with them without causing them harm, contact is clearly not a good idea, but the vast majority of child protection cases don’t involve extreme violence or emotional harm.
As of March 2018, there are 55,200 children living with foster families. The alleged ‘hundreds’ of children meeting with their biological parents is a small percentage compared to this figure.
The latest figures which include all forms of care, put the number of looked after children at 75,420. It’s a stat that has continued to rise over the last thirty years, without any explanation for the increase being offered by child protection professionals.
The piece by The Telegraph is inflammatory and we would advise that parents who have children in care and are feeling emotional at this time, not read it. For those who feel comfortable doing so, the sensationalist piece can be read here.
We reached out to CoECT on Twitter and via email to ask for a copy of the survey. We did not receive a response.
UPDATE
We received an email from CoECT on 10th October about our request for access to their survey. This is all they offered:
Hi Natasha,
Many thanks for your email Please see the survey results below.
Abusive contact
Are you looking after, or have you looked after, a child who was forced to have contact with a parent or other adult who had abused them?
53% YES
47% NO
Do you think it should be illegal for parents who have been abusive to their children to still be guaranteed contact time?
85% YES
15% NO
Researching Reform 
My experience has been the other side of the coin, with children being literally dragged away from their family members by contact workers at the end of contact sessions, kicking and screaming, please don’t take me back. Foster carers telling lies by saying the child is being upset by contact and after contact has soiled his or herself, (a fact later disproved in court by examining the foster carers own diary)
It appears that Sarah Nash with her 5 adopted siblings is doing quite well financially from her involvement with our woefully inept child protection services, and judged by her rhetoric is exactly the type of person who should not be allowed near anywhere near children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with you 100%. this woman is a damn disgrace.
“children being literally dragged away from their family members by contact workers at the end of contact sessions, kicking and screaming, please don’t take me back. Foster carers telling lies by saying the child is being upset by contact”.
this is also very accurate and is happening widespread across the country yet no govt body will take it seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my experience, the damage done to children in care, fostered, is because they are traumatised when removed from their parents after a visit. The cause is they don’t want to be fostered in the first place. That they have been removed from their parents is the result of bad practice by the original actions taken by the social care system.
The system is at fault, I can never understand their logic in taking children away from parents who themselves were in care, and are being branded as unfit because they were in care. So social services perpetuate this corrupt system due to their inability to see sense.
It is my considered opinion that most foster carers and social workers should never be allowed anywhere near children at any time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a former foster carer as well as a former social worker I find this call horrific as well as seemingly violating the ethos of the 1989 Children Act. As foster carers we successfully returned home or placed in independent accommoduation numerous children. As a social worker I returned home nearly as many children as I did remove from home. When as a social worker I did remove a child using a court order I always felt like a failure, that I had not been able to access the resources that the family needed to maintain their child at home.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That was an incredibly moving testimony, thank you for sharing your experience. Your approach to my mind, exemplifies the best of social work, and social work at its purest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You were one 0f the good truthfull ones, there are so many that are not.
LikeLike
Who is this horrible horrible woman Sarah Naish ?? Is she a sadist or just someone excessively unpleasant ? Normally I would not use such words in my comments but this monster really is “beyond the pale”
She compares mothers who have had their babies snatched at birth for some unspecified risk of future emotional abuse with rapists.She assumes they are all criminals………..
Well I can only repeat that there should be “no punishment without crime” ! If a parent has been convicted in a criminal court of a significant crime against a child there is indeed a case for stopping contact .In the vast majority of cases parents have broken no laws but have been shouting at each other ,or have been abused themselves as children,or been in care themselves,or refuse to engage with social workers and are aggressive towards them ,etc etc
In these cases the children are usually desperate to see their parents but have had their mobile phones and laptops confiscated to isolate them from relatives and friends………
It is the heartless SARAH NAISH who should be banned from all contact with children for the rest of her life………..
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Ian, I prefer to blame horrible and heartless ideas like some people’s take on Sue Gerhardt ‘s perspective on parenting and trauma (‘Why Love Matters’) and their take on the ACEs research in the USA. Both Gerhardt and ACEs can be useful but not when used devoid of considering the social, historical, economic and political contexts of families (cf. Crittenden’s ‘Raising Families’ Chapter 1). Then there are the three classic cognitive ‘child abuse errors’ (Howitt, 1992) of ‘templating’, ‘justificatory theorising’ and ‘ratcheting’, seemingly missing from the consciousness of many current foster carers, social workers, supervisors and managers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree with you Ian.
LikeLike
Sarah Naish is just one of many that condone this appalling system of removing children from their biological parents…no doubt because fostering and adoption has become such a lucrative business..hence the increasing numbers of children going through the care system…I absolutely despair at this cruel child trafficking for financial gain. No wonder Sarah Naish is against children having contact with their biological parents…one less obstacle.
Words fail me at this heartless system and the lifelong damage it does to children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
couldnt have put it better myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only two words for this woman and her nasty rotten Survey.
Outrageous and Disgraceful.
LikeLike
Well, this is the problem with Freedom of expression in a democracy. The problem is the foster care industry is already asking for professional status. God help the parents if this happens. It means a LAC review of all professionals.
LikeLike
This morning we reached out to the Centre on Twitter to ask for a copy of the survey and received no response. We then sent an email asking for the survey. We are now concerned that the survey may not be real.
LikeLike
Sarah Naish is a former social worker do there is a presumption of prejudice against foster care contact. Thankfully Parliament makes the rules: section 34 ‘reasonable contact.’ When I read her comments it is almost like an extremist the type to call said section 34 rights in a democracy as ‘neo-liberal.’ If you don’t provide social workers with the law foundations to simply create drones. Look at Milgram research and later Burger (2009) where people just follow orders blindly but then become conditioned to think it is normal because of the relatively few parents who are not good or dangerous parents. Notwithstanding, if any credible people that matter were to take this former social worker and foster seriously I would suggest that the lunatics are well and truly running the asylum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to related materials around Featherstone 2018 (sw involvement in forced adoption), they do not know even what human rights are. Research states also social workers do not even know what the threshold is. This might be sufficiently politically correct enough to post am hoping. I am working class and hold non middle class views I still have Bsc, LLB after my name.
LikeLike
I’m having the same struggles as you when it comes to the “guaranteed contact time”. Isn’t there only guaranteed contact time between a biological parent and child when there is the possibility for a child to be returned in his/her/their care in the future? Opposing that is something which should be illegal, to be honest. Foster parents are temporary carers, they know that from the start. If a child could return to his/her biological parents, that’s amazing and should be rejoiced, not opposed.
Also, I find the story in the Telegraph article hard to believe. A child forced into contact with parents who killed 2 of their other children? She needed to get there, meaning her mother needed to have given permission. And even if she would have heard that it was required, which is unlikely, then she could have gone to court to block it. Why didn’t that happen? Or more to the point, why didn’t Sarah Naish do so? As let’s take a moment to note that Rosie Jefferies is her daughter, even though that article for some reason fails to mention that. It’s no secret Rosie is her daughter. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBtepk_MZE
Also, let me just be blunt here, but even if the results of that survey are real, it wouldn’t matter. In regards to childcare, there is only 1 important, the child. Her/his wellbeing should come before anything. And if that includes having contact with his/her biological parents, then that should happen, if possible. It’s as simple as that.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for your insightful comment and for noting that Rosie is Sarah’s daughter – we did not pick up on that, really excellent investigative spot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
She’s Narcissistic. brainwashed into feeling justified for herself. She doesn’t want children to have contact with biological family as it’s about her power and control.
It’s not for the benefit of the children.
Society would see her as a hero if there ignorant to the current child protection money-making scheme for the greedy corrupt elite who have shares in agencies.
Her mentality is a danger to society. She should be put down. Unfortunately many social workers have been programmed into believing child removals is about child welfare. An army programmed to only target the vulnerable. Social cleansing children. Creating a national epidemic of narcissism only targeting the working class. A Class diversion is growing rapidly. Due to public services being privatised. Gov Agencies Are now brokers. The Rentier class profit from misfortune. trading children services to create profits. financially profitable shares. For gov agencies workers on commission for child removal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
the truth will out. what happens in the future when the children learn the truth that they were needlessly kidnapped and passed around a system that made money off them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s just a risk society – a risk society that has replaced judges over the course of time. They were still talking about sterilising kids in the 70s – but yet we’re supposed to believe they care now? Families and children keep the family court in business going just like other professionals in society are kept in business. It is about economics as CB McPherson said first comes the markets then comes liberty. A social worker is cheaper to produce than any other professional on the one hand and needs to think like a state drone on the other. If you train a social worker then put them through law school you’ll still have a state drone. if you put a would be social through law school and not one of these mickey mouse law conversion courses which is about bums on seats, then you may produce individuals who care about families’ rights in a democracy. Each time new law is introduced it creates jobs for the professionals for that generation. The government did it when it said adults should have better educations – it meant changing the economy. It goes right back to the eugenics and the medical model as the medical model produced psychiatrists and psychologists. It is also economically viable to rehabilitate prisoners as it creates more professionals. Rights are an illusion if there really were rights you wouldn’t need to pay a lawyer for them they would be automatic. I hope this is politically correct too to avoid the proverbial chop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whether it is politically right or not, it has a real ring of truth about it. Who first called social workers professionals? The answer is simple, they did. When I consider someone a professional, I expect that person to be well educated and have the ability to use that education with an inherent intelligence. I have yet to meet any social worker to whom I would attribute with anything other than the ability to apply rote learning. They apply and follow their rule book without thought of consequence. They are the perfect example of the adage ” The rule book is written for the adherence of fools and the guidence of the wise” the latter being in very short supply in social workers
LikeLiked by 3 people
A short while ago I’ve come across one article which I believe you might find helpful. Somebody may take a steaming dump all over it, but it clarified some of my questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is appalling. I don’t think presumptions are being made. I think this is an out and out attack on birth families. Fosterers & social workers collude with each other to stop contact between the birth family & child. Its not about the needs of the child but rather the needs of both the fosterers & social workers.
To attempt to prevent any contact between the child & the birth family must mean the fosterers & social workers don’t want the scrutiny of the family when they visit their child & find their child is not as happy as they are being told or when they notice other things that don’t ring right. Fosterers get paid to look after a child & they don’t want anything to upset that source of income that is paying their mortgage. Social workers have a foster carer retention problem so if the fosterer doesn’t want contact then that’s what will happen.
The fosterers also become possessive over the child & develop black & white thinking believing they are right about everything and the birth families are wrong about everything & that’s why their child is in care & they don’t deserve to see their child. The child becomes the stick to beat the parents with. This is condoned &/or instigated by social workers.
To them the child is incidental, a means to an end. If the child’s needs were being met whilst in care we would not be seeing the dreadful statistics that proves being in care is harmful to the child. Allowing & being accepting of the child seeing their real family would help mitigate some of that harm. A child is often in conflict with what they need & what the fosterers want. Instinctive survival whilst in care the child follows the edicts of the fosterer & has to put aside what they need & want.. This conflict leads to mental heath issues that manifests during their time in care or when they leave. Taking a child in care is supposed to be for their well being now & in the future but that is clearly not happening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely correct.
this is exactly what is going on yet nobody is Policing the problem which leaves these Children in a compromised situation and the parents in total despair.
LikeLike
Sounds like another scam of the system. Child stealing continues. Now foster carers want to join in. ??? How do the foster carers know whats happened to the children. not meant suppose to know as its breaching confidentiality of parents. more like the foster carers get too close and want to keep the children for thier own reasons. For own selfish needs. Not in the best interest of the child at all. Not whats this is about is it? Your own needs. Not all children. Are a abused. Infact i am a mother of three stolen by lies. Open your eyes. Im a mother with recordings to prove all this happens. For some reason local autjorities lie along with rest professionals to gain the same outcome. And that outcome is to steal children. Unless uve been through the family proceedings and witnessed this yourself you don’t have the right to throw back wha you don’t know at me. This is not just an opinion. Its a fact. My human right. Freedom of speech to express this. This cannot not happen. Parents need to see thier children and more tban once a month. CHILDREN ARE TOO DEPRIVED OF THIER RIGHT TO A FAMILY LIFE. DEPRIVED OF THIER PARENTS.
NOW THAT IS ALSO ABUSE
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How do the foster carers know whats happened to the children, breaching confidentiality of parents.”
Social workers are telling f/carers confidential information about the case which is clearly wrong but we all know Social workers usually get away with almost anything as there is nobody Policing them. the LGO and HCPC are hopeless as they usually drop 3 in every 4 cases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Foster carers, ones ive been involved with. One beat child to knock the demonds out of the 3 year old, my thought vodoo practice susspected. Another had a maggot infestation in kitchen , fride contained rotten meat brought into the uk. Another carer, child stabbed through his had by carers son, plus lack of drinking water for weeks on end they ended up ill. Is that real care for children that social services and bannardos pride themselfs in. I am writing a book called Boy Blue, that will be full of truths stories told by many victims all over they UK, sad thing in all this some of those victim parents could take no more and ended their lives, so i fight for them as well, never forget whats gone on.
LikeLike
It will never end , lies, colluding, the greed for money, all based around using the word children. Charities to social services even mental health care, they come as so concered about children , most i find its a catch word they use to line their pockets. Their wealth there nice big houses out in the sticks away from the damage they inflict. Even the nhs backline nurses are at now. Frontline nhs brilliant this other lot greedy to become rich. Companies house reveals many change names dates of birth etc, we wern’t born yesterday to know whats really going on. Fraud and corruption is the name of the traders
LikeLike
They claim all bio parents are abusive.
LikeLike
Did ‘the Centre of Excellence in Child Trauma (CoECT)’ carry out a survey asking the real parents/natural parents how many had “hearsay” used against them in Family Court.
Or how many parents had cases concluded in Criminal Court initially, where it was found by a judge that an injury caused to a child was not a deliberate act (caused in play) yet the other parent will get persecuted through Family Court having it fabricated the inury was NAI.
Or what about the other “catch all” the often loose use of “potential” harm used against parents, only for any of that found to be disproved NOT amended as such anyway. There are plenty more, the misuse of section 20 ca 1989. Contact suddenly stopped in contempt where no court order was sought first. Then to top it all, the parent’s who get restricted/gagged including the press being unable to tell their story’s through fear of us naming/shaming the culprits responsible for x,y,z done indefinitely on the sole word of a court clerk who states how the judge said this is how it will be, who had already sent an email ommitting her name.
These are often the parents who were wronged,the hidden concealed miscarriages of justice not recognised by Family Court’s even though Tribunal Court might. After all, there is no recourse to investigate the Cases post adoption even the ones where parent(s) have strong evidence to suggest there may not have been an adoption at all with no record of an adoption taking place on the adoption register; but hey ho, the parent(s) could get sent a made up certificate anyway despite this like what happened to me. It’s these “alleged adopted” (by force) children who have grown up to want truthful answers getting completely ignored by Family Court’s.
Have they thought to seek adult adoptee’s and care leaver’s views, not to mention the alleged adoptee’s where the system caused them more harm than good toying further with their identity(s) because i’m sure if they were all automatically given ALL their paperwork which played out their lives; age 16 in Scotland/18 in England/Ireland and Wales then they would get to see for themselves just how much hearsay and fabrications do get relied on not to mention the serious errors with double case files with different names, dates, years, outcomes to complaints etc differing to each other.
My son would get upset at the end of contact at conact centres, it must because of seeing his mum (family)/going to contact they would say. But knowing already he had speech problems (he was recently 90% mute as a young adult) it turned out it’s because he wanted to stay and carry on playing with the toys there once he was able to express himself. He used to act up when it was time to go. I found out because the one day i asked him if he wanted to stay and play with the toys and he did say yes, so my other children/the contact worker and i shut the door and said goodbye pretending to leave. He happily carried on playing with the toys which suggests he loved his contact with us after all.
Something else he would do is go the toilet once it was time to leave, knowing all our coats were on ready to go home. He would be on the toilet for ages, buying more time with his family he missed living with perhaps?
Could the speech problems be being caused from the child being kept away from their real/natural family’s home where they perhaps once lived in the first place? (Further confused when a Judge says they were seriously considering rehabilitation home only for that to stop all over again because the family should have been mind readers when told to treat is as a normal family setting, doing activities which involved them all (re mum and siblings) and not computer games for the boys and pamper nigts for the girls) Maybe for baby’s who missed their parents scent which all helps to form an otherwise secure bond?
By the way, do we have the stats out there in the public domain as to how many foster carer’s/adopter’s injure children? Please is there a survey for that? How many more/less children in comparison are being physically harmed/killed under social services care/on their watch?
Thank you Xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person