Social Services Myths and Realities


Myths and Realities by Ian Josephs at www.forced-adoption.com To whoever needs the information required to challenge social services Myth 1: family court secrecy protects the identity of the children. Reality: In fact social services advertise these same children for adoption on many websites such as www.ukkids.info and in magazines such as 'adoption UK' giving first names, photographs, birth dates and characteristics. Essex council has also featured a complete judgement concerning the children featured in the Mail on their website for all to see. In other words the Councils can break secrecy but parents risk prison if they do the same. What the secrecy does do effectively is to stop aggrieved parents going to the press or revealing their names (like rape victims can do if they wish). The courts also often issue gagging orders stopping all discussion as indeed they did to Barry Aspinell even though he was an Essex Councillor trying to help a constituent. Myth 2: Social workers pathetically repeat "damned if we do and damned if we don't " as an excuse for their actions. Reality: They get damned because they avoid the violent type of parents and carers who torture their children as they are afraid for their own safety and feel damaged children might be hard to foster or adopt, and they therefore prefer to take the easier option of targeting happy healthy children whose mothers have low income or low IQs (as pointed out by the Mail and the Telegraph). Rather like some police who prefer to target motorists with a defective rear light rather than go after armed robbers. Social workers often point to the large numbers of children in voluntary care but do not mention that many of these were given up to care because parents were promised that if they cooperated by agreeing to this the children would be returned in 2 or 3 months. Of course this promise is too often broken and the parents losing their children for good, are betrayed. both by social workers and their own lawyers who inevitably advise parents to cooperate with social services when they say "temporary care" is the best option . Myth 3: Social workers, judges, foster carers and heads of special schools all do what they can to reunite children with their parents. Reality: In 2000, Tony Blair called for a 40% increase in adoptions. Margaret Hodge fixed targets for local authorities giving beacon status and stars and even large financial rewards (Kent got £21 million pounds for hitting 10 out of 12 targets under a public service agreement) to those councils who were successful. Most social workers are therefore motivated to take children into care with a view to adoption to meet their targets. Government research papers have publicly confirmed this. Judges have admitted in court that it is safer to "go along with social services" rather than take any risks and that is why parents almost never win their children back. As for foster parents who are lucky enough to live in Slough, they get a tax free allowance of £400 per week per child so a fosterer with 3 or 4 children is very well off indeed and is not likely to encourage the children to return home. Private special schools according to channel 4 charge the council up to £7000 per week per child so they too prefer to keep the status quo. Myth 4 "The welfare of the children is paramount" Reality: This phrase of course does not say who is to decide what the best interests of the children are. Social workers trying to meet their targets soon translate this principle into "the children's welfare is best served if we win our case" and they try to win at all costs. Judges, as I have said freely admit that they take the safe route of "going along with social services" when their evidence conflicts with that of the parents. Mothers who come weeping into court to try and recover their children are not usually the type of person who would abuse or neglect their children. They should therefore usually win and get their children returned but they nearly always lose. Even worse CONTACT between mothers and children is gradually reduced (and used as a weapon if mothers are "difficult"), phone calls are forbidden and grandparents, aunts and uncles are frequently stopped completely from any form of contact. Criminals actually in prison are allowed phone calls and family visits but this is very often denied to parents and grandparents seeking contact with children in care or worse still "on track for adoption" Myth 5: The British legal system is widely admired through the world and the family courts are fair and highly respected in other countries. Reality: The European court of human rights in the case of P, C, and S, vs. United Kingdom, condemned as draconian the action of the UK family court when they followed their usual custom of taking a baby from the mother at birth because on a previous occasion one of her children had been taken into care many years earlier. The UK was fined but the child was already adopted. The essential difference between British social workers and those in Latin countries for example is that in France, Italy or Spain children are only removed from their parents if they have suffered severe physical harm. In the UK however children are taken not because they have actually suffered physical harm but rather some very ill defined sort of "emotional harm" or more often because so called "experts" (using a crystal ball?) decide that there is a risk that children might suffer "physical "or far more often "emotional "harm at some date in the future. It is impossible for parents to prove that their children will not suffer emotional harm in the future when these experts swear to the contrary so the unfortunate parents nearly always lose. Yours sincerely, Ian Josephs Back
Forced Adoption By Ian Josephs (shortened version) £5.74 To order Forced Adoption 2nd Edition By Ian Josephs £11.30 To order