Loose your
children for being too poor By James Chapman – Political Correspondent
Social
workers faced new accusations of “child snatching” last night over youngsters
taken into care because of poverty. Campaigners and MP’s were appalled by
official figures giving low family income as the main reason in 100 cases.
The
revelation deepened the row over the “unjust” removal of youngsters by social
services departments. They have already been accused of unfairly targeting
parents deemed “not clever enough”.
Tory
spokesman Theresa May, who is calling for an inquiry into adoption policies,
said the state should help lift a family out of poverty rather than breaking
it up.
Despite the
large number of cases, there was no official explanation last night. The
Education Department could not say in what circumstances a child would be
removed because of family poverty and the secrecy surrounding family courts
means individual cases cannot be reported.
Campaigners
say that setting performance targets for the number of adoptions councils
should achieve has created a “market” in vulnerable children.
Only some
3,000 children are adopted each year and the Government has tried to
streamline the process. Tony Blair wanted a 40 percent increase over a five
year period ending this year.
Official
statistics show that there were 61,000 children in care in the year to March
2004 – an increase of 20 percent since Labour came to power.
Of those
38,200 were in care because of abuse or neglect, 6,100 because of “family
dysfunction”, 4,900 because of absent parents and 4,200 because their family
was in “acute stress”.
Another 3,500
were removed due to parents’ illness or disability, 2,400 because they
suffered disability themselves and 1,700 because of socially unacceptable
behaviour”.
But the main
reason in the cases of 110 children was given as “low income”. Mrs May said
she was concerned that children should be taken into care – even temporarily –
because of low income. She said “In the 21st century, no child
should be taken from their parents simply because of income.
“In a
civilised society, with the fourth largest economy, we have a right to expect
better than this.
“At the
General Election, the Prime Minister boasted about the numbers of children the
Government have taken out of poverty, so why is this still happening?
The pressure
group Families Anti Social Services Inquiry Team, set up to help parents fight
removals of children called the situation “a national scandal”.
Its spokesman
said “To take people’s children away because they are poor is absolutely
shocking. Social workers shouldn’t be equating poverty with abuse or
neglect. These people are people on very low incomes who may feed their
children. That doesn’t mean the children are not loved.
“Surely the
state should be stepping in to help, rather than taking the children away.
That should always be the last resort.”
The group
insists that, despite Government denials, there are incentives for local
authorities to take children into care and have them adopted quickly.
It says
several councils have been awarded “beacon status” for increasing the number
of adoptions, often attracting extra Government funding in the process.
The spokesman
said “The Government has created an industry where the commodities are
children. Local authorities get financial rewards for meeting targets because
it affects their star ratings. “They are being praised for cutting the time
it takes between children being brought into care and being adopted.
“Tony Blair
has said he wants a 40% increase in adoption numbers. But the terrible effect
is that children are being procured for adoption and then rushed through the
system”.
FASSIT
says vulnerable families have been left with less and less time to fight to
get their children back before the process is completed.
Felicity
Collier, chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering
said “I don’t know why social workers may have ticked a box giving low income
as a reason. There’s absolutely no way that a court will make a decision to
take a child compulsorily from their family on that basis.
“It only
happens when a child is suffering and will continue to suffer significant
harm”. It may be that a parent has asked for a child to be looked after
because they don’t have any money. It may be that you have a family that
doesn’t have money because they continually gamble it or spend it, and no
matter how much extra money you give them to help, its not spent on the
children”
She said
claims that social workers had incentives to take children into care were
“rubbish”.
The Education
Department said: “The decision to remove a child from parents is not made
lightly. It’s nothing to do with targets. It’s about getting children out of
a situation that’s not stable and into loving families wherever possible.
Responsibility for taking these difficult decisions rests with the courts.
All involved work is on the basis that the welfare of the child is paramount.
Wherever possible, local authorities support parents to care for their
children in the family context.”
In her call
for an inquiry, Mrs May warned that the prospects for children taken into care
were “appalling”
She said
“Children in care are vastly more likely to take drugs, become pregnant or
commit crime. Over a quarter of people in our prisons and as many as a third
of people sleeping rough on our streets, were in care as a child. No-one
would accept this for their own children.
“Surely it is
better for us to help the parents of vulnerable children, through support and
advice, so that their children are not taken into care in the first place”.
DAILY MAIL
COMMENT
Poor Care
The Mail has
revealed over recent weeks that children are being taken into care because
their parents are deemed “not clever enough” to bring them up – that is
alarming enough.
Now it
appears that more than 100 children have been taken into care because their
parents’ income is too low.
If that is
the sole reason for the child’s removal (rather than the poverty being caused
by drug or alcohol abuse for example), it is indefensible.
This
country’s generous welfare system is designed to ensure that families are
never so poor that they cannot feed and house themselves.
And poverty
cannot be equated with neglect. Some of the poorest families can be the most
loving.
The decision
by a family court to have a child taken into care is never an easy one. The
interests of the child must always be paramount.
But there is
a growing suspicion that children are being taken from their parents
unnecessarily to help local authorities meet the Government’s aim of
increasing adoptions by 40 percent.
That surely
would represent the most grotesque outcome yet of New Labour’s obsession with
targets.
