The Adoption – A New Series On Radio 4

The Adoption

Researching Reform

A new podcast series published in October on BBC Radio 4 called The Adoption, follows a real life adoption and asks some insightful questions about the process.

The series took 19 months to make, and charts the lives of two toddlers, Bethany and Ben, as they find themselves being adopted.

There are currently 16 episodes, with each one looking at a different aspect of adoption. We’ve broken down each episode according to its theme:

Preview: Background information on the documentary.

Episode 1: The family court process and a look at who makes the decision for a child to be adopted.

Episode 2: The foster care portion of the process with thoughts from the foster mother.

Episode 3: An introduction to the children themselves and some input from their social worker.

Episode 4: How the biological grandparents fit into the adoption process.

Episode 5:…

View original post 258 more words

Advertisements

One thought on “The Adoption – A New Series On Radio 4

  1. Successive governments have seen an opportunity to make money out of a social need, it started with Blair,

    As with the advent of abortion and single parenthood, the only babies/children available for adoption were those in care.

    LAs took over all adoptions and small charitable agencies like Catholic Adoption ones despite their hard won experience were closed down, now most are private companies.

    Adoption was Cameron’s flagship policy – announcing his shock that only 60 babies had been adopted that year from care implying that many lingered in care because of the court system.

    Concurrent planning was renamed fostering to adopt, so children were placed immediately with prospective adoptors making it even more difficult for parents to reclaim their children .

    Adoption agencies were also parent assessors like CORAM etc and were paid £27,000, if an adoption went ahead but only 7,000 for assessing the parents, if it did not, so clearly a conflict of interests.

    This, and the 26 time limit , the forced joint instruction by CAFCASS, LA and parents of experts forced parents to rely on experts who were being used to show their lack of parenting skills.

    The legal definition of at risk ‘significant harm’ needed for a care order has been extended now from emotional harm to neglect.

    Mainly by lobbying/research with government money by NSPCC and Woman Aid and Refuge, the later made common assessors for the government of abuse, meaning that most abused woman now lose their children.

    Now over 80% of application are based on neglect very few are based on physical or sexual abuse.

    Curtesy of 375 US mental disorders and any parent with a learning disorder lose their children on risk of future emotional harm.

    Now pregnant pre and post natal mothers are targeted with mental issues of depression.

    Social workers on the mantra of early intervention were told to concentrate on the under 4s, with ever faster easier secret care orders, which have doubled to an average of 1650 per month care application in just 7 years.

    The % of successful care application has increased from 80% to 98%.

    Older children were ignored and scandals like Rotherham’s managers blamed this policy .

    We are the only country in Europe bar Portugal to force adoption

    The amount paid of public money per adoption to the agency, is a minimum of £30,000, but the maximum is discretionary, read here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inter-agency-adoption-fee-grant-for-local-authorities

    The legal threshold for a care application is whatever is in the welfare of a child, but the welfare check list does not take into consideration the psychological affect per se of adoption, nor of thinking your parents were so inadequate your adoption was forced, nor the affect of being deracinated from all those similar to you.

    And it assumes the permanency of adoption, without proof, as we still have no definitive numbers of the adoption breakdowns and I still do not think they are being tracked by LAs..

    For proof positive, this is not about Child Protection, but the syphoning off of public money into private companies, last year LAs tried to exempt themselves from liability to the children they were paid to protect.

    Sorry to go on, but I have followed this horror and found it all beyond disgusting and cannot envisage nor can anyone, the pain and permanent damage it has caused to so many.

    And there is no evidence it has improved child protection..

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s