Revealed: the cost of children’s social care as number of children being looked after rises 39% in last five years

CARE: Louise Kerrison

PRESSURE: Jane Portman

First published in News
Last updated

COUNCIL chiefs are spending millions more each year taking higher numbers of children into care.

Bournemouth council has spent £2.28m over budget this year, taking the children’s social care bill to £25.5m. Dorset County Council’s overspend is forecast at £1.9m this year, on top of the £27.1m budgeted.

Poole council is also spending more to deal with a rise in the number of children they are looking after, taking the county wide bill to £67.8m Social care chiefs have told the Echo how the pressures of investigating increasing numbers of concerned calls about children has heightened pressure on social workers and budgets.

The rise in costs is due to a 39 per cent jump in children being taken into care in the last five years across the county.

The latest figures show 776 children are being looked after by foster parents, in homes and other placements away from their parents as they are believed to be “at risk of significant harm”.

Jane Portman executive director for adults and children services, told Bournemouth council’s cabinet that the children’s social care department had based their original budget of £23.1m on having 250 children in care this year, as that was the usual figure.

But she said having an additional 29 “looked after children” is “creating this pressure”.

Bournemouth’s head of children’s social care told the Daily Echo there is a spike in concerned calls each time a high profile case of neglect and child abuse comes to light nationally.

“There has been some terrible tragedies recently like with Daniel Pelka,” said Jane Portman.

“They raise people’s awareness about safeguarding children and referrals to safeguarding teams do rise as people are more aware and alert.”

Mrs Portman said research shows more than half of the prison population were in care as children.

But she believes that is due to the original reasons for which they were taken into care, rather than their time in care.

“If children do not form good bonds with an adult that can significantly have a very negative impact on them in the future,” she said.

“If children are not getting the proper care then that can impact on them being able to attach and make positive relationships in future.”

She added: “When a child has to be taken into care it’s a huge decision because we know children who experience the care system are much less likely to do well in life.

“They are taken into care when it is in the best interests of that child.” Mrs Portman said her 230-strong team continue to be proud of their success in giving youngsters the chance to succeed in life. And her team welcome the help of residents and staff in other public services raising any fears they have.

She said: “The message we always try to give is that if you are worried, don’t think ‘what if I’m wrong’, think ‘what if I’m right’.

“That means we then get the opportunity to check people are safe.”

Mrs Portman said her team is finding that financial pressures on families are having an increased impact.

Job loss, reduced benefits, mental health problems, domestic violence and addictions to alcohol and drugs effect the way some parents prioritise their children.

But the council is investing in early intervention to help more families stay together.

A total of 214 youngsters are currently in child protection plans aimed at doing that.

“If parents have mental health issues it’s sometimes very hard for them to put parenting first,” Mrs Portman added.

“That’s not because they are bad parents, it is because they have other issues that they are prioritising.”

She said children are often referred due to neglect “in its many forms”.

“That’s physical neglect, not being fed properly and we’ve got some families with large numbers of children upwards of eight and there’s emotional neglect.”

The latest figures show a total of 776 children are in the care of Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset County Councils, a rise from 560 in March 2009.

Those figures represent a 39 percent rise.

A total of 342 children are now in the care of Dorset County Council, 279 under Bournemouth council and 155 with Poole council.

Government figures for March 2009 show 265 for Dorset, 180 for Bournemouth and 115 in Poole.

Budget increase for looking after children

BOURNEMOUTH council’s budget for children’s social care has grown by nearly £5m in two years.

For the 2011 to 2012 financial year the budget started at £20.6m with £21.2m spent in the end.

For 2012 to 2013 the budget was £20.5m, with a final spend of £22.3m. This year the budget started at £23.2m and already stands at £25.5m.

This year the council has created 26 new jobs, including four managers and 15 social workers.

Dorset County Council’s budget for the children and families service was £25.1m in 2011 to 2012 and was raised to £27.1 for the last two years, with this year’s spend expected end up at £29m.

Poole council’s budget is £13.1m this year but in July councillors approved a £214,000 overspend, which has not yet been used. In the previous year the budget was £12.6m, which is around the same as the year 2011 to 2012.

High profile cases like those of Daniel Pelka and Hamzah Khan are believed to have led to an increase in concerned calls to social workers. Daniel Pelka was starved and beaten at his Coventry home and four-year-old Hamza’s mummified remains were found in his cot in Bradford.

Referrals (concerned calls) to Bournemouth council about children in the last three months show a rise of 48 percent.

Case study: Louise Kerrison

LOUISE Kerrison spent around two months being looked after by a foster carer at weekends when she was younger and said it had a positive effect on both her and her mother’s lives.

“I was only seven or eight,” she said.

“It gave us a break from everything that had been going on.

“So for us it was a good thing.”

Louise, now working as an apprentice accommodation support worker in Bournemouth, spent the rest of the week with her mother.

The 25-year-old said her foster carer was a woman who was older than her mum and remembers thinking ‘what’s going on’ when the foster care started.

“She was a stranger and I did not understand what was happening but over those weeks we got to know a routine, she added.

“I was frightened at first but then it turned out to be fun.”

Louise said she knows somebody in care in another town who suffered physical abuse at the hands of a female foster.

But that was more than 10 years ago and she still felt that in total the care system had helped her friend over time.

“Being in care has done her the world of good,” Louise said.

“And hopefully there are more checks on foster parents now,” she added.

COUNCILS have their own teams of foster carers and also use agencies. Bournemouth council has 279 children in care including 10 in adoption placements, 30 living in homes and 215 in foster care. From the total in foster care 95 children are with “in-house” carers and 120 are with agency foster carers.

Bournemouth Council welcomes anyone married, single or in a same sex relationship to apply to be a foster carer, call 0800 009 3084.

Poole council’s latest figures show they have 155 children in care.

Jane Underhill, fostering team manager, Borough of Poole, said: “We are always looking to recruit new foster carers, including specialist carers. We would encourage anyone considering becoming a foster carer to contact us to find out more information by either visiting boroughofpoole.com/fostering or telephone 01202 714711.”

Of the 342 children now in the care of Dorset County Council a total of 246 are in foster care, 170 of those looked after ‘in-house’.

Stuart Riddle, head of children and families at Dorset County Council, said: “There are many factors behind the increase in numbers of looked after children.

“We have learned lessons from serious case reviews, and other professionals and members of the public have a higher awareness of child welfare issues and are more willing to talk to us about the concerns which they have.

“For a number of years council budgets have been shrinking so prioritising spending in key areas is essential.

“We are working smarter to find solutions that meet the needs of looked after children.”

To become a foster carer for Dorset County Council call 0800 1959654 or visit dorsetforyou.com/fostering for more information.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:19pm Fri 10 Jan 14

gileto says...

There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption.
This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons.
Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy. gileto
  • Score: -5

2:44pm Fri 10 Jan 14

rozmister says...

gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
[quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P. rozmister
  • Score: 3

2:53pm Fri 10 Jan 14

simcal says...

rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Plenty of abusive foster parents which is quietly hushed up and don't even start me on the secret family courts.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Plenty of abusive foster parents which is quietly hushed up and don't even start me on the secret family courts. simcal
  • Score: -6

2:53pm Fri 10 Jan 14

simcal says...

rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Plenty of abusive foster parents which is quietly hushed up and don't even start me on the secret family courts.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Plenty of abusive foster parents which is quietly hushed up and don't even start me on the secret family courts. simcal
  • Score: -1

3:18pm Fri 10 Jan 14

gileto says...

rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy.

Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful.

Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy. Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful. Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort. gileto
  • Score: 1

3:30pm Fri 10 Jan 14

simcal says...

gileto wrote:
rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy.

Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful.

Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.
Not forgetting that there is lots of money to be made by child protection and adoption agencies. A nice little earner as Dell Boy would say.
[quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy. Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful. Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.[/p][/quote]Not forgetting that there is lots of money to be made by child protection and adoption agencies. A nice little earner as Dell Boy would say. simcal
  • Score: 1

5:04pm Fri 10 Jan 14

gileto says...

gileto wrote:
rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy.

Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful.

Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.
sorry, meant 'partiality' not 'impartiality'
[quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy. Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful. Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.[/p][/quote]sorry, meant 'partiality' not 'impartiality' gileto
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Fri 10 Jan 14

rozmister says...

gileto wrote:
rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy.

Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful.

Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.
I know at least 3 children who are languishing in the care system from birth or close to birth with court cases putting back adoption to give their parents the chance to come back for them if their situation changes despite the parents being alcoholics/drug addicts who have not cared for their children for the first few years of their life at all. They're growing up in foster homes that are all they know and they could be wrenched from that back to parents that they have no caregiving relationship from. How is that putting the child's rights before the parents?!?!

God only knows how many kids are stuck in care from birth waiting in case their parents come back. If they do come back it'll disrupt their child's early years and if they don't they'll be 4 or 5 before they go up for adoption. Doesn't sound like the best thing for any child.
[quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy. Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful. Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.[/p][/quote]I know at least 3 children who are languishing in the care system from birth or close to birth with court cases putting back adoption to give their parents the chance to come back for them if their situation changes despite the parents being alcoholics/drug addicts who have not cared for their children for the first few years of their life at all. They're growing up in foster homes that are all they know and they could be wrenched from that back to parents that they have no caregiving relationship from. How is that putting the child's rights before the parents?!?! God only knows how many kids are stuck in care from birth waiting in case their parents come back. If they do come back it'll disrupt their child's early years and if they don't they'll be 4 or 5 before they go up for adoption. Doesn't sound like the best thing for any child. rozmister
  • Score: 1

7:05pm Fri 10 Jan 14

s-pb2 says...

simcal wrote:
gileto wrote:
rozmister wrote:
gileto wrote:
There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.
The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs.

If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.
Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy.

Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful.

Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.
Not forgetting that there is lots of money to be made by child protection and adoption agencies. A nice little earner as Dell Boy would say.
Wheres your evidence for this? Its a common misconception or how I prefer to call it, a vicious lie, that councils, and in particular social workers, make any money from removing children from their birth parents. Its utter nonsense.

As for family courts. There is an obvious reason to anyone with half a brain why family courts are not open to the public, but then again im perhaps asking too much for people to actually think about what they are saying for a moment and not just jump on the anti-council and anti-social services bandwagon. The child should always come first not the birth parents. Childrens Social Care is without question the most important work our council does. We should be able to give them the funds they need to keep children safe and its good to see rozmister make some thoughtful and excellent comments on the subject
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gileto[/bold] wrote: There needs to be an immediate end to the scatter-gun approach (recommended by Barnardo's in recent years) of taking more and more children into care for eventual adoption. This is just lining the pockets of those involved in fostering/adoption child-protection system, at considerable expense to the UK taxpayer, and causing in many cases unnecessary suffering in children and parents where Social Services contrive to remove their children for unfounded reasons. Resources MUST be focussed on those cases where children are in genuine danger, not where there is a perception that a child MAY be subject to emotional abuse at some point in the future (any and every child potentially). Bournemouth and other Social Services need to stick to their mantra and concentrate on such genuine cases (eg violent parents, drug dealing etc) and DO work positively with those parents who MAY need some parental guidance but have committed no crime nor harmed their children. Otherwise we WILL keep having repeats of the Baby P tragedy.[/p][/quote]The only people I know whose kids have been taken into care for eventual adoption are the children of people with addiction issues or who seriously neglect their children. I've met many children through the years who are living with parents who fail to meet anything but there most basic needs and sometimes not even that and yet are left there by social services. On top of that even after children enter the care system, some as babies, adoption often doesn't materialise until the child is quite old and can be hard to place because of the need to consider the parent's rights over the childs. If you think there's enough resources to even save all the children in danger, let alone start thinking about children who may be subject to emotional abuse explain to me where they're coming from. Social services by all accounts are overstretched, underfunded and doing their best whilst unfortunately having to live children in dangerous households. The cases of children ending up in care due to potential emotional abuse seem to be EXTREMELY rare. More so than anything like Baby P.[/p][/quote]Parent's have rights over the childs? Is this a recent development? Surely the needs of the child are put very much first in any family court case - this was certainly the case a few years ago - unaccountable High Court judges can be very one-sided and dismissive of a parents 'rights', rejoicing in impartiality and happy to build a case for adoption. One reason why the 'secret' court remains so, and how a child's life before them can be decided on the whim of just one person, rather than the jury system that criminals enjoy. Sadly it is a FACT it's certainly NOT extremely rare for children processed in recent years to end up in care/adopted solely due to potential emotional abuse, certainly NOT just those with parents with addiction issues or are seriously neglectful. Social Services are indeed no doubt overstretched and should be properly monitored to ensure proper prioritisation of their time and effort.[/p][/quote]Not forgetting that there is lots of money to be made by child protection and adoption agencies. A nice little earner as Dell Boy would say.[/p][/quote]Wheres your evidence for this? Its a common misconception or how I prefer to call it, a vicious lie, that councils, and in particular social workers, make any money from removing children from their birth parents. Its utter nonsense. As for family courts. There is an obvious reason to anyone with half a brain why family courts are not open to the public, but then again im perhaps asking too much for people to actually think about what they are saying for a moment and not just jump on the anti-council and anti-social services bandwagon. The child should always come first not the birth parents. Childrens Social Care is without question the most important work our council does. We should be able to give them the funds they need to keep children safe and its good to see rozmister make some thoughtful and excellent comments on the subject s-pb2
  • Score: 1

9:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

simcal says...

Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.
Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss. simcal
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Fri 10 Jan 14

s-pb2 says...

simcal wrote:
Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.
In other words, you have no evidence for your vicious claim that Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset are removing children for adoption, because proof is, its a complete lie! Disgusting!
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.[/p][/quote]In other words, you have no evidence for your vicious claim that Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset are removing children for adoption, because proof is, its a complete lie! Disgusting! s-pb2
  • Score: -1

1:00am Sat 11 Jan 14

simcal says...

s-pb2 wrote:
simcal wrote:
Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.
In other words, you have no evidence for your vicious claim that Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset are removing children for adoption, because proof is, its a complete lie! Disgusting!
I'm not going to spend hours on here quoting sources. Google it or don't you know how to do that?
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.[/p][/quote]In other words, you have no evidence for your vicious claim that Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset are removing children for adoption, because proof is, its a complete lie! Disgusting![/p][/quote]I'm not going to spend hours on here quoting sources. Google it or don't you know how to do that? simcal
  • Score: 0

1:21am Sat 11 Jan 14

billd766 says...

"Mrs Portman said her team is finding that financial pressures on families are having an increased impact."
“That’s physical neglect, not being fed properly and we’ve got some families with large numbers of children upwards of eight and there’s emotional neglect.”

How odd she should say that about large families. At the beginning of the 20th century it was quite coomon to have large families. My Mum was one of 7 children and they all survived and had families of their own and there was no lack of love in the family. My Granddad was a labourer and they all managed to live on his wages.
Of course in those days there was no council or government help and as far as I know none ofthe family were were ever in trouble with the police, none were vandals and they all grew up respecting their parents and made good lives for themselves and their families.
They never had much in the way of toys or new clothes etc but they never starved or were neglected.

When did it all strat to change for the worse and end up like it is today I wonder.
"Mrs Portman said her team is finding that financial pressures on families are having an increased impact." “That’s physical neglect, not being fed properly and we’ve got some families with large numbers of children upwards of eight and there’s emotional neglect.” How odd she should say that about large families. At the beginning of the 20th century it was quite coomon to have large families. My Mum was one of 7 children and they all survived and had families of their own and there was no lack of love in the family. My Granddad was a labourer and they all managed to live on his wages. Of course in those days there was no council or government help and as far as I know none ofthe family were were ever in trouble with the police, none were vandals and they all grew up respecting their parents and made good lives for themselves and their families. They never had much in the way of toys or new clothes etc but they never starved or were neglected. When did it all strat to change for the worse and end up like it is today I wonder. billd766
  • Score: 3

10:03am Sat 11 Jan 14

boscombewizard says...

Simcal - 'Plenty of abusive foster parents which is quietly hushed up'

This is of concern. It is quite an allegation. If you have this information have you informed the appropriate council? If not, I would suggest you do so at once. It will be investigated.
Simcal - 'Plenty of abusive foster parents which is quietly hushed up' This is of concern. It is quite an allegation. If you have this information have you informed the appropriate council? If not, I would suggest you do so at once. It will be investigated. boscombewizard
  • Score: 4

4:15pm Sat 11 Jan 14

ashleycross says...

To an accountant adoption of children is a very cheap and cheerful option, as long as you don't include the number of adoptions that fail when the children are rejected by their adopted parents,which is very high. There are government targets for adoption which is completely wrong as every decision should be on the best interests of the children.
Incidentally, the higher costs of care have a lot to do with the pubs being open all night and booze being available at every food shop. Boozing at home is dangerous for children, especially babies and toddlers.
To an accountant adoption of children is a very cheap and cheerful option, as long as you don't include the number of adoptions that fail when the children are rejected by their adopted parents,which is very high. There are government targets for adoption which is completely wrong as every decision should be on the best interests of the children. Incidentally, the higher costs of care have a lot to do with the pubs being open all night and booze being available at every food shop. Boozing at home is dangerous for children, especially babies and toddlers. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

6:01pm Sat 11 Jan 14

rozmister says...

ashleycross wrote:
To an accountant adoption of children is a very cheap and cheerful option, as long as you don't include the number of adoptions that fail when the children are rejected by their adopted parents,which is very high. There are government targets for adoption which is completely wrong as every decision should be on the best interests of the children.
Incidentally, the higher costs of care have a lot to do with the pubs being open all night and booze being available at every food shop. Boozing at home is dangerous for children, especially babies and toddlers.
There's a distinct correlation between the age children are taken into care and the likelihood of their adoption breaking down. The older they are the less likely they are to be adopted and, if they are, the more likely their adoption is to break down.

Government targets were introduced to stop children sitting in care for years but in reality it just places undue pressure on social workers to place children in ill suited families.

I think adoption is most appropriate for children who are unlikely to ever be able to go back to their parents and that the best way to reduce the amount of breakdowns would be to speed up the adoption process. It shouldn't be driven by targets about how many children are adopted though and should be measured by how many children remain with their adoptive parents after five years. That would place the emphasis on quality adoptions rather than quantity.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: To an accountant adoption of children is a very cheap and cheerful option, as long as you don't include the number of adoptions that fail when the children are rejected by their adopted parents,which is very high. There are government targets for adoption which is completely wrong as every decision should be on the best interests of the children. Incidentally, the higher costs of care have a lot to do with the pubs being open all night and booze being available at every food shop. Boozing at home is dangerous for children, especially babies and toddlers.[/p][/quote]There's a distinct correlation between the age children are taken into care and the likelihood of their adoption breaking down. The older they are the less likely they are to be adopted and, if they are, the more likely their adoption is to break down. Government targets were introduced to stop children sitting in care for years but in reality it just places undue pressure on social workers to place children in ill suited families. I think adoption is most appropriate for children who are unlikely to ever be able to go back to their parents and that the best way to reduce the amount of breakdowns would be to speed up the adoption process. It shouldn't be driven by targets about how many children are adopted though and should be measured by how many children remain with their adoptive parents after five years. That would place the emphasis on quality adoptions rather than quantity. rozmister
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Mon 13 Jan 14

gileto says...

s-pb2 wrote:
simcal wrote:
Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.
In other words, you have no evidence for your vicious claim that Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset are removing children for adoption, because proof is, its a complete lie! Disgusting!
I have plenty of first-hand evidence, but with the veil of secrecy the Family Court has never been very happy at allowing it to be published for all to see.

In life, I've learnt that it's far more meaningful to say something does happen when it's been experienced first-hand, rather than guess and hope that something doesn't happen. I'd rather be open-minded than stick my head in the sand over any issue, and I'd suggest others did the same especially in matters as important as this.

Indeed Government targets were introduced to stop children sitting in care for years but in reality it DID add to more easily-adoptive children being taken into care, rather than councils spending money on those who stood a low chance of being adopted.

It's interesting that the government have finally admitted that fairness and the use of poorly-qualified 'professionals' backing social services has been rife for many years now. Panorama this evening should be interesting.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Don't be lazy and do your own research! I'm not expecting you to have an open mind with your blank refusal to even concede anything might be amiss.[/p][/quote]In other words, you have no evidence for your vicious claim that Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset are removing children for adoption, because proof is, its a complete lie! Disgusting![/p][/quote]I have plenty of first-hand evidence, but with the veil of secrecy the Family Court has never been very happy at allowing it to be published for all to see. In life, I've learnt that it's far more meaningful to say something does happen when it's been experienced first-hand, rather than guess and hope that something doesn't happen. I'd rather be open-minded than stick my head in the sand over any issue, and I'd suggest others did the same especially in matters as important as this. Indeed Government targets were introduced to stop children sitting in care for years but in reality it DID add to more easily-adoptive children being taken into care, rather than councils spending money on those who stood a low chance of being adopted. It's interesting that the government have finally admitted that fairness and the use of poorly-qualified 'professionals' backing social services has been rife for many years now. Panorama this evening should be interesting. gileto
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree