Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

FOSTERING AND ADOPTION

ITV 1 HAS A PROGRAMME ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF FOSTER PARENTS FOR KIDS NEEDING CARE – BUT THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CARE AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN IS A SHABBY ' JUMBLE SALE' WAY AND ALL CHILDRENS CARE SHOUDL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE LOCAL COUNCILS AND PUT INTO A NATIONAL BODY TO DELIVER.

 

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:  PERSON A IS A WORKING WOMAN – SINGLE – WITH A HOUSE AND NO MORTGAGE – SIX YEARS OF YOUTH WORKER EXPERIENCE – AND TEN YEARS OF MANAGEMENT WORK WHICH SHE CAN GO BACK TO, AND WANTS A CHILD. IN ORDER FOR HER TO ADOPT SHE MUST GO THROUGH OVER 6-12 MONTHS ASSESSMENT, AND IN THAT ASSESSMENT SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ON REPEATED OCCASSIONS UNDERMINED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF NORMAL AND NATURAL THINGS – LIKE HAVING AN ELDERLY MOTHER (WHO IS NOT DISABLED OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED) – OR THE FACT THEY ARE SINGLE OR …ETC

 

HOWEVER A FOSTER TEENAGE GIRL GOT PREGNANT BY A LAD WHO IS NOW IN PRISION AFTER SEVERAL DIFFERENT CAR STEALING ACTS AS A TEENAGER.  SHE SHOWED – AS OVER 50% OF MOTHERS FROM CARE DO – SIGNS OF REJECTING HER BABY IMMEDIATELY.

 

THE SOCIAL SERVICES PUT THE CHILD WITH THE GRANDMOTHBER – WHO IS IN FACT THE MOTHE ROF THE SON – IN A COUNCIL HOUSE WHICH GRANNIE HAS HER OTHER SON AND TEENAGE GIRLFIRNED AND THEIR NEW BABY AND HER OTHER CHILD OF 14, A THREE BED COUNCIL HOUSE.  GRANNIE WHO CREATED THE TWO SONS AND ONE DAUGBHTER THROUGH THREE DIFFERENT ABSENT FATHERS BECAUSE SHE "WANTED KIDS" IS QUITE CLEARLY ABLE TO WIPE A CHILDS BOTTOM BUT NOT ABLE TO BRING UP GOOD AND SENSIBLE ADULTS WHO THINK ABOUT USING CONTRACEPTION AND IN FACT THE STATE SUBSIDY OF GRANNIE FOR THE WHOLE OF HER LIFE PRODUCING BADLY BROUGHT UP CHILDREN HAS MEANT SHE EVEN ASKED SOCIAL SERVCIES TO GIVER HER A  FOSTERING PAYMENT – WHICH THEY REFUSED BECAUSE AS A GRANNIE SHE IS NOT PAID.

 

tHIS BABY – ACCORDING TO THE MOST MODERN NEUROSCIENCE AND AUTHORS SUCH AS SUTHERLAND, BERRY, AND SO FORTH, SHOULD THRIVE INTO BEING A STABLE AND GOOD CITIZEN IF IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF THE BABY'S DEVELOPMENT SOMEONE WAS GIVEN THE BABY WHO IS A GOOD PARENT.  INSTEAD DUE TO LEGISLATION DEMANDING THE NATURAL PARENT IS GIVEN ALL THE CHANCES TO RAISE THE CHILD AND BECAUSE THERIR IS NO JUDGEMENTAL ATTITUDE TO THE BABY=-MACHINE-DOLE SCROUNGER GRANNIE, THE STATE SEES IT AS PREFERABLE TO HAND THE BABY TO GRANNIE – THAT IS UNTIL OF COURSE GRANNIE PRODUCES ANOTHER CAR STEALING TEENAGER  FRON THIS BABY.   GRANNIE THINKS SHE IS A GREAT PARENT – SOCIAL SERVICES GET A CHEAP OPTION – BUT THE SOLVENT SANE AND LOVING GOOD PARENT IS TOLD THAT THERE ARENT THAT MANY BABIES AVAILABLE.

 

THE STATE WILL HAVE A BILL FOR NOT ONLY GRANNY AND HER BROOD OF NE'R DO WELLS BUT ALSO THE STATE WILL PAY FOR THE BABY TO DO SO, AND THIS ISNT WHAT NYE BEVAN OR THE ORIGIANL HUMANIST MOVEMENT WANTED OF STATE HELP TO THE POOR OR NEEDY.  THERE USED TO BE THE IDEA THAT A HANDOUT WAS IN ORDER THAT THE PERSON RECOGNISED AN OBLIGATION TO THE SOCIEITY THAT HELPED, WHEREAS GRANNY, HER TEENAGER CAR STEALING SON AND HIS CHILD, SHOW NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING MORE THAN LIVING OFF A HANDOUT AND COMPLAINING TGHE SOCIAL WORKERS ARE C+++S.  tHE FACT IS EVEN A SOCIAL WORKER OF EXPERIENCE WOULD AGREE – OFF THE RECORD – THAT WE SHOULD TAKE CHILDREN FROM THESE PEOPLE AND GIVE THE BABYS IMMEDIATELY FOR ADOPTION IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BABY A CHANCE – AND ITS THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC WHO GET SWEPT UP IN THE ODD PERSON WHO BLEETS THE SOCIAL SERVICES TOOK THEIR KIDS AWAY.  Talking to happily grown adult adopted children and askign gthem if they would have preferred to have been brought up by their alcoholid, drug taking, or simply thick natural parents it is clear that once they met the real thing they were quite relieved not to have been.

Bring in a forced adoption for baby, on the grounds that if you do not do so then the damage caused to the child's neural system – brain damage basically – could have been avoided if the child was immediatgely adopted.

 

Ironically however the good parent who is childless – is given a hard time proving their ability to look after or care for a child, whilst the awful and incompetent natural parent is given every opportunity to mentallly retard their baby – without the same limitations of a judgement call.

 

If you judge prospective adoptive parents as stringently then why are so many baby's still being brought up in awful natural familes who would not ever meet the same levels that adoptive parents have to.

 

The waste of time is of course that the adoptive parents get their time wasted because social services are afraid of a placement going wrong – and they will always go wrong for 10% of adoptions anyway.  Once again we have lost the point of the whole thing.  Get the child with good people – as soon as possible as they are born – and you raise a good adult, and socieity.  Leave a child with bad natural parents and the longer they are there the harder it will be for a good foster parent/adoptive parent to help change the neural circuitry of the baby, and enable them to challenge the brain damage caused by natural parents.

 

We all know that it isnt poverty that causes an adult to be damaged but damaged parents, yet there are thousands of babies being brought up by people who would not pass the adoption application process, and thousands of people who get put off by the arduous and labourous time wasting of the adoption process – who would be better at raising our society.

 

instead the child is put with a family who are judged ;good; foster parents – that is someone who has children of their own – and the child then develops as the add-on to the family and told frequently that this foster placement is not stable and will not last so that when they are moved on or back to mum and dad – the child is not shocked.

Then this instability and brain damage produce adults who produce babies – and the cycle of creating generation after generation of damaged children is continued. 

It is time we did say – this is good parenting and this is a bad parenting – and stop hiring and training social workers who actually dont really have the powers to change that at all.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

ITV 1 HAS A PROGRAMME ABOUT THE SHORTAGE OF FOSTER PARENTS FOR KIDS NEEDING CARE – BUT THE REALITY IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE CARE AND WELLBEING OF CHILDREN IS A SHABBY ' JUMBLE SALE' WAY AND ALL CHILDRENS CARE SHOUDL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE LOCAL COUNCILS AND PUT INTO A NATIONAL BODY TO DELIVER.

 

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:  PERSON A IS A WORKING WOMAN – SINGLE – WITH A HOUSE AND NO MORTGAGE – SIX YEARS OF YOUTH WORKER EXPERIENCE – AND TEN YEARS OF MANAGEMENT WORK WHICH SHE CAN GO BACK TO, AND WANTS A CHILD. IN ORDER FOR HER TO ADOPT SHE MUST GO THROUGH OVER 6-12 MONTHS ASSESSMENT, AND IN THAT ASSESSMENT SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ON REPEATED OCCASSIONS UNDERMINED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF NORMAL AND NATURAL THINGS – LIKE HAVING AN ELDERLY MOTHER (WHO IS NOT DISABLED OR MENTALLY CHALLENGED) – OR THE FACT THEY ARE SINGLE OR …ETC

 

HOWEVER A FOSTER TEENAGE GIRL GOT PREGNANT BY A LAD WHO IS NOW IN PRISION AFTER SEVERAL DIFFERENT CAR STEALING ACTS AS A TEENAGER.  SHE SHOWED – AS OVER 50% OF MOTHERS FROM CARE DO – SIGNS OF REJECTING HER BABY IMMEDIATELY.

 

THE SOCIAL SERVICES PUT THE CHILD WITH THE GRANDMOTHBER – WHO IS IN FACT THE MOTHE ROF THE SON – IN A COUNCIL HOUSE WHICH GRANNIE HAS HER OTHER SON AND TEENAGE GIRLFIRNED AND THEIR NEW BABY AND HER OTHER CHILD OF 14, A THREE BED COUNCIL HOUSE.  GRANNIE WHO CREATED THE TWO SONS AND ONE DAUGBHTER THROUGH THREE DIFFERENT ABSENT FATHERS BECAUSE SHE "WANTED KIDS" IS QUITE CLEARLY ABLE TO WIPE A CHILDS BOTTOM BUT NOT ABLE TO BRING UP GOOD AND SENSIBLE ADULTS WHO THINK ABOUT USING CONTRACEPTION AND IN FACT THE STATE SUBSIDY OF GRANNIE FOR THE WHOLE OF HER LIFE PRODUCING BADLY BROUGHT UP CHILDREN HAS MEANT SHE EVEN ASKED SOCIAL SERVCIES TO GIVER HER A  FOSTERING PAYMENT – WHICH THEY REFUSED BECAUSE AS A GRANNIE SHE IS NOT PAID.

 

tHIS BABY – ACCORDING TO THE MOST MODERN NEUROSCIENCE AND AUTHORS SUCH AS SUTHERLAND, BERRY, AND SO FORTH, SHOULD THRIVE INTO BEING A STABLE AND GOOD CITIZEN IF IN THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF THE BABY'S DEVELOPMENT SOMEONE WAS GIVEN THE BABY WHO IS A GOOD PARENT.  INSTEAD DUE TO LEGISLATION DEMANDING THE NATURAL PARENT IS GIVEN ALL THE CHANCES TO RAISE THE CHILD AND BECAUSE THERIR IS NO JUDGEMENTAL ATTITUDE TO THE BABY=-MACHINE-DOLE SCROUNGER GRANNIE, THE STATE SEES IT AS PREFERABLE TO HAND THE BABY TO GRANNIE – THAT IS UNTIL OF COURSE GRANNIE PRODUCES ANOTHER CAR STEALING TEENAGER  FRON THIS BABY.   GRANNIE THINKS SHE IS A GREAT PARENT – SOCIAL SERVICES GET A CHEAP OPTION – BUT THE SOLVENT SANE AND LOVING GOOD PARENT IS TOLD THAT THERE ARENT THAT MANY BABIES AVAILABLE.

 

THE STATE WILL HAVE A BILL FOR NOT ONLY GRANNY AND HER BROOD OF NE'R DO WELLS BUT ALSO THE STATE WILL PAY FOR THE BABY TO DO SO, AND THIS ISNT WHAT NYE BEVAN OR THE ORIGIANL HUMANIST MOVEMENT WANTED OF STATE HELP TO THE POOR OR NEEDY.  THERE USED TO BE THE IDEA THAT A HANDOUT WAS IN ORDER THAT THE PERSON RECOGNISED AN OBLIGATION TO THE SOCIEITY THAT HELPED, WHEREAS GRANNY, HER TEENAGER CAR STEALING SON AND HIS CHILD, SHOW NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING MORE THAN LIVING OFF A HANDOUT AND COMPLAINING TGHE SOCIAL WORKERS ARE C+++S.  tHE FACT IS EVEN A SOCIAL WORKER OF EXPERIENCE WOULD AGREE – OFF THE RECORD – THAT WE SHOULD TAKE CHILDREN FROM THESE PEOPLE AND GIVE THE BABYS IMMEDIATELY FOR ADOPTION IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BABY A CHANCE – AND ITS THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC WHO GET SWEPT UP IN THE ODD PERSON WHO BLEETS THE SOCIAL SERVICES TOOK THEIR KIDS AWAY.  Talking to happily grown adult adopted children and askign gthem if they would have preferred to have been brought up by their alcoholid, drug taking, or simply thick natural parents it is clear that once they met the real thing they were quite relieved not to have been.

Bring in a forced adoption for baby, on the grounds that if you do not do so then the damage caused to the child's neural system – brain damage basically – could have been avoided if the child was immediatgely adopted.

 

Ironically however the good parent who is childless – is given a hard time proving their ability to look after or care for a child, whilst the awful and incompetent natural parent is given every opportunity to mentallly retard their baby – without the same limitations of a judgement call.

 

If you judge prospective adoptive parents as stringently then why are so many baby's still being brought up in awful natural familes who would not ever meet the same levels that adoptive parents have to.

 

The waste of time is of course that the adoptive parents get their time wasted because social services are afraid of a placement going wrong – and they will always go wrong for 10% of adoptions anyway.  Once again we have lost the point of the whole thing.  Get the child with good people – as soon as possible as they are born – and you raise a good adult, and socieity.  Leave a child with bad natural parents and the longer they are there the harder it will be for a good foster parent/adoptive parent to help change the neural circuitry of the baby, and enable them to challenge the brain damage caused by natural parents.

 

We all know that it isnt poverty that causes an adult to be damaged but damaged parents, yet there are thousands of babies being brought up by people who would not pass the adoption application process, and thousands of people who get put off by the arduous and labourous time wasting of the adoption process – who would be better at raising our society.

 

instead the child is put with a family who are judged ;good; foster parents – that is someone who has children of their own – and the child then develops as the add-on to the family and told frequently that this foster placement is not stable and will not last so that when they are moved on or back to mum and dad – the child is not shocked.

Then this instability and brain damage produce adults who produce babies – and the cycle of creating generation after generation of damaged children is continued. 

It is time we did say – this is good parenting and this is a bad parenting – and stop hiring and training social workers who actually dont really have the powers to change that at all.

 

 

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Ban forced adoption and save £millions

Local authorities receive financial incentives for getting children
adopted – FACT.
If forced adoption was outlawed, the money for these incentives
would no longer need to be provided.
This however would result in more children being in care – which
costs money…  But hundreds, if not thousands of children in care
have been taken from innocent families and should never have been
taken into care in the first place.
If children were taken into care based on evidence-based harm only
(in the same way as in a criminal trial,) the number of children
being taken into care would drop dramatically.   Such children who
have not been proved to have been hurt should then be returned to
their parents.  The care system is currently bulging at the seams
and the government is paying out massive amounts of money for
foster carers needlessly.
Time and money is wasted on taking children into care
unnecessarily. This DESTROYS families and CREATES child abuse
(emotional harm from being taken away from loving family) where
there was none to begin with.
At the same time, these injustices are being allowed to carry on
due to the Family Courts being held in secret.  Family Courts
should be open and have a jury, as in a Criminal Court.

Making these 3 changes alone would save the government millions of
pounds every year:

1. Ban Forced Adoption
2. Children to only be taken into care if it is proved by way of
evidence (as in a criminal trial) that the child has been abused.
3. Family Courts to be open and have a jury, (as in a criminal
court.)

These changes would make the child protection system far more
effective, children would be safer and more children and families
would benefit than they do now

 

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities receive financial incentives for getting children
adopted – FACT.
If forced adoption was outlawed, the money for these incentives
would no longer need to be provided.
This however would result in more children being in care – which
costs money…  But hundreds, if not thousands of children in care
have been taken from innocent families and should never have been
taken into care in the first place.
If children were taken into care based on evidence-based harm only
(in the same way as in a criminal trial,) the number of children
being taken into care would drop dramatically.   Such children who
have not been proved to have been hurt should then be returned to
their parents.  The care system is currently bulging at the seams
and the government is paying out massive amounts of money for
foster carers needlessly.
Time and money is wasted on taking children into care
unnecessarily. This DESTROYS families and CREATES child abuse
(emotional harm from being taken away from loving family) where
there was none to begin with.
At the same time, these injustices are being allowed to carry on
due to the Family Courts being held in secret.  Family Courts
should be open and have a jury, as in a Criminal Court.

Making these 3 changes alone would save the government millions of
pounds every year:

1. Ban Forced Adoption
2. Children to only be taken into care if it is proved by way of
evidence (as in a criminal trial) that the child has been abused.
3. Family Courts to be open and have a jury, (as in a criminal
court.)

These changes would make the child protection system far more
effective, children would be safer and more children and families
would benefit than they do now

 

Stop Forced Adoption of Children

Currently a Social Worker can undertake reports to an adoption prior to any court decision, thus as a planning process approve a care plan for adoption, rather than work to reunite or rehabilitate with Parents. It is prejudicial and destabilizing to parents who seek the return of children taken from them in a Justice system that is weighted against parents in any Family Court Proceedings. Social Workers act in an unchecked system, not audited and without adequate process and proceedures. Frameworks that never uses – shall or will – any contract with a statutory Parent or body should ensure unhuman Social Workers be required to act properly – not on a maybe or perhaps Framework.

Pararel Planning under ICO is costly and wasteful, given the time in Court Process under Care Proceedings  a 6week direction by a Judge should be made prior after a fair open court hearing.

Why is this idea important?

Currently a Social Worker can undertake reports to an adoption prior to any court decision, thus as a planning process approve a care plan for adoption, rather than work to reunite or rehabilitate with Parents. It is prejudicial and destabilizing to parents who seek the return of children taken from them in a Justice system that is weighted against parents in any Family Court Proceedings. Social Workers act in an unchecked system, not audited and without adequate process and proceedures. Frameworks that never uses – shall or will – any contract with a statutory Parent or body should ensure unhuman Social Workers be required to act properly – not on a maybe or perhaps Framework.

Pararel Planning under ICO is costly and wasteful, given the time in Court Process under Care Proceedings  a 6week direction by a Judge should be made prior after a fair open court hearing.

Abolish means testing for adoption allowance

Its about time that adopters and fosters and kin care were BIGGED up and acknowledged by our society.I have met some wonderful family's who adore their children and have given them the opportunity to be raised with the childhood they should have had in the first place .These are those that have offered their hearts and homes to those children who are discribed by social services as "difficult to place" due to their emotional needs disabilities or even age. They have faced and are facing not only emotional hardship with very little if no support from those who are meant to be proffesionals but also financial hardships in order to provide the best care for these children .These familys should be exempt from any means testing and be given adoption allowance based on the needs of the child. We as a society should be thanking these people for doing what so many of us can not.

 

Why is this idea important?

Its about time that adopters and fosters and kin care were BIGGED up and acknowledged by our society.I have met some wonderful family's who adore their children and have given them the opportunity to be raised with the childhood they should have had in the first place .These are those that have offered their hearts and homes to those children who are discribed by social services as "difficult to place" due to their emotional needs disabilities or even age. They have faced and are facing not only emotional hardship with very little if no support from those who are meant to be proffesionals but also financial hardships in order to provide the best care for these children .These familys should be exempt from any means testing and be given adoption allowance based on the needs of the child. We as a society should be thanking these people for doing what so many of us can not.

 

Get rid of red tape surrounding adoption.

I am 1 of many people who would like to adopt in the near future, but currently i will have a major fight to do so given the amount of red tape, tests, exams, courses etc…. that is compulsary before YOU are told that your capable to adopt. I have a loving partner, we have our own children who are happy, loved, do well in most of their achievements and are behind us adopting. I have a friend that tried to adopt but was refused due to a criminal offence from 20 years ago! has never re-offended since and is a wonderful parent, who was willing to adopt 2 or more siblings.

Why is this idea important?

I am 1 of many people who would like to adopt in the near future, but currently i will have a major fight to do so given the amount of red tape, tests, exams, courses etc…. that is compulsary before YOU are told that your capable to adopt. I have a loving partner, we have our own children who are happy, loved, do well in most of their achievements and are behind us adopting. I have a friend that tried to adopt but was refused due to a criminal offence from 20 years ago! has never re-offended since and is a wonderful parent, who was willing to adopt 2 or more siblings.

Independent Review of Determinations (adoption & fostering) Regulations 2009

Dear Sir/Madam

Given the poor economic climate for Local authorities coupled with the vested interest in the Independent Review Mechanism run by BAAF to encourage foster carers to seek independent determination in regards to their fostering status, it is my professional view that this independent mechanism introduced in april 2009 should be either scraped or fundamentally overhauled.

It will cost local authorities £2227 for each case to be heard and inevitably more and more foster carers will seek this paticular avenue when they have a dispute about their fostering registration with their approving agency. This chosen opportunity is determined primarily by 2 factors, one being the local authority foots the costs and secondly the IRM are on the whole not upholding Agency Decision Makers professional views particularly in relation to deregistering foster carers. BAAF clearly have a vested interest in not siding with local authority decisions, as a consequence of this foster carers would chose not to use them and therefore BAAFs funding would be significantly affected in this area.

If a local authortiy has to attend 13 IRM panels In a year which is clearly possible for some larger local authorites this overall cost could have alternatively paid the salary of an experienced social worker for a year. The £2227 is only part of the cost for local authorities as they have to send 2 members of staff representing the agency on the day of the panel which is unlikely to be a local  venue for most local authorities. 

I do not feel the IRM panels remit is one of prioritising the welfare and safety of children as it is clear to me they have more interest in maintaining the status of the foster carer. Please request the statistics from the IRM now that it has been in existence for over 12 months you will probably be startled by the the percentage of their decisions which are contrary to the local authority who have assessed, supported, and monitored  foster carers for some considerable time and therefore are in a positon to justify why some carers need to be deregistered.

Please inform me how in todays social care environment you can deregister a foster carer, I came into the social work profession to protect children from dangerous birth families and sadly from a minority of foster carers too. However this aforementioned regulation has made it difficult to eradicate carers who are likely to provide an unsuitable environment for disadvataged children to reside in.

I am a concerned experienced social worker who is seriously considering a change in my employment as this is just a further example of decisions being taken out of the hands of social workers and has some similarity with the introduction of the Public Law Outline (taking decisions away from social care professionals, please note that like all professions the majority of its workforce are competent and the child care profession is no different.

As most politicians are concerned about local authority spending please justify how this resource should remain an option when far more significant services are having to be cut back and/or shelved.  

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns and frustrations on a subject I am quite passionate about.

   

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam

Given the poor economic climate for Local authorities coupled with the vested interest in the Independent Review Mechanism run by BAAF to encourage foster carers to seek independent determination in regards to their fostering status, it is my professional view that this independent mechanism introduced in april 2009 should be either scraped or fundamentally overhauled.

It will cost local authorities £2227 for each case to be heard and inevitably more and more foster carers will seek this paticular avenue when they have a dispute about their fostering registration with their approving agency. This chosen opportunity is determined primarily by 2 factors, one being the local authority foots the costs and secondly the IRM are on the whole not upholding Agency Decision Makers professional views particularly in relation to deregistering foster carers. BAAF clearly have a vested interest in not siding with local authority decisions, as a consequence of this foster carers would chose not to use them and therefore BAAFs funding would be significantly affected in this area.

If a local authortiy has to attend 13 IRM panels In a year which is clearly possible for some larger local authorites this overall cost could have alternatively paid the salary of an experienced social worker for a year. The £2227 is only part of the cost for local authorities as they have to send 2 members of staff representing the agency on the day of the panel which is unlikely to be a local  venue for most local authorities. 

I do not feel the IRM panels remit is one of prioritising the welfare and safety of children as it is clear to me they have more interest in maintaining the status of the foster carer. Please request the statistics from the IRM now that it has been in existence for over 12 months you will probably be startled by the the percentage of their decisions which are contrary to the local authority who have assessed, supported, and monitored  foster carers for some considerable time and therefore are in a positon to justify why some carers need to be deregistered.

Please inform me how in todays social care environment you can deregister a foster carer, I came into the social work profession to protect children from dangerous birth families and sadly from a minority of foster carers too. However this aforementioned regulation has made it difficult to eradicate carers who are likely to provide an unsuitable environment for disadvataged children to reside in.

I am a concerned experienced social worker who is seriously considering a change in my employment as this is just a further example of decisions being taken out of the hands of social workers and has some similarity with the introduction of the Public Law Outline (taking decisions away from social care professionals, please note that like all professions the majority of its workforce are competent and the child care profession is no different.

As most politicians are concerned about local authority spending please justify how this resource should remain an option when far more significant services are having to be cut back and/or shelved.  

I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns and frustrations on a subject I am quite passionate about.

   

Adoption, social services and the family courts

The 'quotas' for adoption given to Social Service Departments should be ended immediately, as should any departmental financial incentives.  Thus Social Services Departments can go  back to a proper function where 'forced adoptions' are the last resort, and not the first.

Secondly the Family Courts should be held in public.  If justice is to be done, then it must be seen to be done.  This will no doubt raise a howl from all the lawyers, social workers and so called 'experts involved, about protecting children.  The reality is that the present system avoids showing up the avarice of the lawyers, and the incompetence and arrogance of the 'experts' and social workers.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

The 'quotas' for adoption given to Social Service Departments should be ended immediately, as should any departmental financial incentives.  Thus Social Services Departments can go  back to a proper function where 'forced adoptions' are the last resort, and not the first.

Secondly the Family Courts should be held in public.  If justice is to be done, then it must be seen to be done.  This will no doubt raise a howl from all the lawyers, social workers and so called 'experts involved, about protecting children.  The reality is that the present system avoids showing up the avarice of the lawyers, and the incompetence and arrogance of the 'experts' and social workers.

 

 

Ban adoptions that have no parental consent

Parents' rights are being abused by a dictatorship country. Parents mostly have their children for themselves, and not for strangers to steal. Forced adoptions by the government according to Children's Acts, abuses the rights of parents, in forcing adoptions against parents wishes, often based upon false evidence and lies by social workers. This should never be allowed to happen, yet it happens frequently in our borough of Islington and indeed other parts of this country.

Change the Children's Act. Disallow and abolish the Local Authorities privalage to request placement orders, which gives them the power to dispose of children by adoption. There should be no need for adoptions. Where the child has parents or living family and friends who could help to care for them, they should be invoved. And even so, a child should not be given a false set of parents, the child should only ever need to identify it's real parents as parents, and anybody else, as guardians.

Change the Children's Act, so that a child does not have to face cross race adoptions/ guardianships, as this causes racial identity confusion, and racists are using this loophole in the law, to racially confuse children, in their bid to anialate what races they don't like, worse than what Hitler did.

It should be made law that a child has the right to be placed with persons, with whom it can racially identify eg according to biological parentage. Children are known to thrive best when they have a clear identity about themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Parents' rights are being abused by a dictatorship country. Parents mostly have their children for themselves, and not for strangers to steal. Forced adoptions by the government according to Children's Acts, abuses the rights of parents, in forcing adoptions against parents wishes, often based upon false evidence and lies by social workers. This should never be allowed to happen, yet it happens frequently in our borough of Islington and indeed other parts of this country.

Change the Children's Act. Disallow and abolish the Local Authorities privalage to request placement orders, which gives them the power to dispose of children by adoption. There should be no need for adoptions. Where the child has parents or living family and friends who could help to care for them, they should be invoved. And even so, a child should not be given a false set of parents, the child should only ever need to identify it's real parents as parents, and anybody else, as guardians.

Change the Children's Act, so that a child does not have to face cross race adoptions/ guardianships, as this causes racial identity confusion, and racists are using this loophole in the law, to racially confuse children, in their bid to anialate what races they don't like, worse than what Hitler did.

It should be made law that a child has the right to be placed with persons, with whom it can racially identify eg according to biological parentage. Children are known to thrive best when they have a clear identity about themselves.

Forced adoption – the state is kidnapping children

there is a national scandal whereby social workers and family courts are kidnapping children from their parents in closed family courts. My grandchildren are to be taken away out of the county to who knows where this Friday. They are utterly distraught. You must deal with this Kafkaesque injustice. This is supposed to be England not Nazi Germany! How many more cases must there be and more tragedies before this is properly investigated and dealt with.

see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7870342/Forced-adoption-is-a-truly-dreadful-scandal.html

The outrage against this is growing daily. Listen to Christopher Booker, Sir Bob Geldoff. There will be a public reckoning over this. Deal with it now!

Why is this idea important?

there is a national scandal whereby social workers and family courts are kidnapping children from their parents in closed family courts. My grandchildren are to be taken away out of the county to who knows where this Friday. They are utterly distraught. You must deal with this Kafkaesque injustice. This is supposed to be England not Nazi Germany! How many more cases must there be and more tragedies before this is properly investigated and dealt with.

see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7870342/Forced-adoption-is-a-truly-dreadful-scandal.html

The outrage against this is growing daily. Listen to Christopher Booker, Sir Bob Geldoff. There will be a public reckoning over this. Deal with it now!

End homophobic discrimination by adoption agencies

No-one should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, whether they are religious or otherwise. Catholic adoption agencies should not be allowed to refuse adoption to gay couples because of their religious beliefs. Rascist discrimination would not be permitted, why is homophobic discrimination any different?

Why is this idea important?

No-one should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, whether they are religious or otherwise. Catholic adoption agencies should not be allowed to refuse adoption to gay couples because of their religious beliefs. Rascist discrimination would not be permitted, why is homophobic discrimination any different?