Friday, September 28, 2012

Are Children-in-Need a Commodity

International Adoption Guide | Blog | Views | Children-in-Need a Commodity?

http://www.internationaladoptionguide.co.uk/blog/views/305.html


It seems that there is nothing as controversial as inter-country adoption.
I have been in this world for over 8 years now - as an adoptive parent, creator of adoption support group, as advocate. I have read everything I can get my hands on, spoken to hundreds of adoptive parents and dozens of adoptees, attended lectures, organised conferences etc., etc. and even now, I am still discovering the subtleties of international adoption.
And I have spoken many times to the media - and this is what I find so interesting, "Hello I wonder if you can help me - I have been asked to write this article about international adoption for Friday and I want to know...."
2 days of research and then these 'journalists' think that they know everything.
The most popular and again latest comment, is that children in need are purely a commodity for desperate infertile couples. And, "Those who disagree, should ask themselves, why they are not willing to give the money they would spend on that child, to the community the child comes from. The impact on that child, and many others in their community, would be far greater than removing them from their community and adopting the child."
I love these ridiculous, grand, ignorant statements. How much money I wonder will be equivalent to the loving and nurturing of a child? How much does it cost to take a child who has no future and give them a chance to have a normal life? Why is it always about money and never about love? I would like to see an article about international adoption that talks purely about love. The love it takes to relinquish a child, the love a child needs to give to make them human, the love an adult has to bring up someone else's child. Now that is a story.

Adoption Advisor, Narey...Cruella De-ville of babies?

Home » Blog » Views » Too many children are missing out on adoption


The courts have decided that adoption is the best option for thousands of children, but most of them have nowhere to go


Martin Narey
Guardian Professional,Monday 30 July 2012 10.03 BST

'The number of children needing adoption will always be a small proportion of the children in care population.' Photograph: FREDERIC J. BROWN/Getty Images
A year on from my appointment as the government's adoption adviser, it is helpful that the House of Lords has appointed a select committee to examine the legislative implications of the proposed reforms. I had the privilege of speaking to the committee earlier this month.
I reminded the committee that there were about 24,000 adoptions a year in the mid-70s. Contrary to popular anecdote, these were not all children relinquished by unmarried mothers. About half of the children adopted each year in the 70s were born to married women. Nevertheless, this was a different era and we should expect annual adoption numbers to be much lower now. But would we, in 1975, have expected numbers to have fallen to only 3,000 last year?
The number of children needing adoption will always be a small proportion of the children in care population. Those who suggest I think adoption is the outcome for most children in care haven't read anything I've written. To be clear: I believe adoption will only ever be suitable for a small minority of children in care. But a bigger minority than just 3,000 a year.
I think that belief is evidenced by the reality of the number of children who are waiting for a new start in their lives. There are now more than 5,000 children in England with placement orders. But the number of parents cleared for adoption is probably less than a third of that figure. That means, to be blunt, that any debate about court delays is something of a distraction at the moment. The courts have concluded the cases of 5,000 children, decided adoption is best for them, and most of them have nowhere to go.
But I told the committee that the reform programme is very nearly complete and will make a significant difference. Ministers have welcomed:
• The launch in the new year of a robust but faster adopter assessment process including fast-track arrangements for past adopters. This was and remains my absolute priority;
• Local authority adoptions scorecards which, despite an initially negative response at the time of publication are beginning to have an impact;
• A commitment to a radical reform of the law about ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic factors when matching a child with prospective adopters;
• An obligation on local authorities routinely to consider placing children with adopters in advance of the placement order;
• A lot of progress on post-adoption support. The concept of an adoption support passport is being developed;
• The creation of a new adoption gateway, which will provide would be adopters with all the information they need to consider adoption and then help in finding the adoption agency which is right for them.
Additionally, the government is exploring the reform of adopter leave and adopter allowances to match maternity leave arrangements (the effect of which should not be underestimated), and, after recent advice from me, has launched a consultation on child and birth family contact (both before and after adoption) and the challenge of achieving adoption for sibling groups.
I recently chaired a meeting with some industry leaders in marketing to see how we can attract more adopters and we are working hard – not least with the Association of Directors of Children's Services – at how we can make greater use of voluntary adoption agencies.
I owe ministers one remaining piece of advice about how the matching process between adopters and child can be safely accelerated, that being a source of considerable and damaging delay for children.
The last year has not been without controversy. I know that some think that adoption has been getting too much attention and wonder why there has not been an equivalent focus on fostering. The latter complaint bemuses me. Last year, from a care population in England of about 66,000, there were 47,000 children in foster care but only 3,000 adoptions. It seems to me to be pretty clear why we needed urgently to address that. Too many children, right now, need adoption and are missing out.
Martin Narey is a government adviser on adoption. He was chief executive of Barnardo's from 2005 to 2011.

Don't Fuck Up Your Children!

Family Lore | John Bolch | Articles | Thursday April 30, 2009

"Don't Fuck Up Your Children"

In one of the sternest judicial warnings to warring parents I have come across, Lord Justice Wall (left) quoted from Philip Larkin in the case of R (A Child), Re [2009] EWCA Civ 358 yesterday. The case involved a highly acrimonious residence application, part of a dispute between the parents that had been on-going since they separated in 2003. Judge Everall QC at Luton County Court had found that it was no longer possible for the parents and the child to work together, and so made a residence order in favour of the paternal grandparents. The mother's appeal against that order was granted but Lord Justice Wall in the Court of Appeal gave a warning to the parents of the serious harm that their actions were causing to their child. "I hope this case has given the mother a fright. I hope it has also given the father a fright." He said. "They have come within a whisker of losing their child." In a postscript to his judgment he then quoted from Larkin's poem This Be The Verse:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.

These four lines" he said "seem to me to give a clear warning to parents who, post separation, continue to fight the battles of the past, and show each other no respect."

Let us hope that more parents heed the warning.

Retirement of the President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice for England and Wales


Menu | Home | News | Judicial appointments

Retirement of the President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice for England and Wales
Friday, 28 September 2012

Sir Nicholas Wall will retire as the President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice for England and Wales on 1 December 2012 on grounds of ill health.

Notes to editors

Sir Nicholas (Peter Rathbone) Wall (67) was called to the Bar (G) in 1969. He took silk in 1988 and became a Bencher in 1993. He was appointed an Assistant Recorder in 1988 and a Recorder in 1990. He was appointed a High Court Judge (Family Division) in 1993 and to the Court of Appeal and Privy Council in 2004.
He was a Judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2001 to 2003; a Judge of the Administrative Court from 2003 to 2004. He was a member of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law, 1997 to 2001 (Chairman of the Children Act Sub-Committee, 1998 to 2001). Sir Nicholas was appointed as the President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice for England and Wales on 13 April 2010.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Doctor struck off for abusing boys

METRO [News-London]

by TARIQ TAHIR

A FORMER doctor at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital has been struck off the medical register after being found guilty of molesting boys.

Prof Philipp Bonhoeffer was judged by a tribunal panel to have acted inappropriately towards children in Kenya and France.

He was dismissed by the London hospital in 2010.

A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel yesterday ruled his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct and decided to strike his name from the register.

Bonhoeffer’s actions were ‘calculated, deplorable and an abuse of his special position of trust,’ the panel ruled.

The cardiologist sexually touched a boy in France in 1997 and abused youngsters for more than 15 years while carrying out medical work for a charity in Kenya, the panel heard. Bonhoeffer was employed by Great Ormond Street in 2001 as a consultant cardiologist. In 2002, he became head of cardiology until his dismissal.

Panel chairman David Kyle said: ‘Prof Bonhoeffer has been found to have persistently exploited vulnerable young boys over an extended period of time with sexual motivation.

‘The panel has concluded his conduct is not merely unacceptable — it is fundamentally incompatible with continued medical registration.’

The panel’s decision was welcomed by the General Medical Council.

The doctor did not attend the panel hearing in Manchester or submit any evidence, but a statement from his lawyers said he denied the allegations made against him.

It went on: ‘He has no intention of resuming the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom.’

ADOPTIONS RISE BY 12% 2012 Sep 24


Family Law Weekly > Home > News

Children adopted from care numbers rise by 12% in the last year

BAAF calls for focus on increasing the number of placements from care

Latest figures released by the Department for Education show that there were 67,050 looked after children at 31 March 2012, an increase of 2 per cent compared to 31 March 2011 and an increase of 13 per cent compared to 31 March 2008.

There were 28,220 children who started to be looked after during the year ending 31 March 2012. This represents an increase of 3 per cent from the previous year's figure of 27,500 and an increase of 21 per cent from 2008. There were 27,350 children who ceased to be looked after during the year ending 31 March 2012. This is a small increase of 1 per cent from 2011 and an increase of 12 per cent from 2008.

There were 3,450 looked after children adopted during the year ending 31 March 2012. This was the highest figure since 2007 and an increase of 12 per cent from the 2011 figure.

Of children looked after at 31 March 2012, 50,260 were cared for in a foster placement. This represents 75 per cent of all children looked after at 31 March 2012.

The statistical release can be read here.

Edward Timpson, Minister for Children and Families, said:

"The rise in the number of adoptions and adoption placement orders is extremely welcome, but it still takes too long for those who want to adopt and foster to be approved. The time it takes for a child in care to be adopted can be a significant period in that child's life.

"I know from my own family that parents who adopt and foster bring stability to young lives. That is why we are overhauling adoption, but I know that our reforms will take time to make a full impact.

"So we are looking at measures to encourage councils to make use of adopters in other parts of the country. We will shorten the approval process and fast track those who are already foster carers.

"Taken together I hope these reforms will, over time, encourage more people to come forward and volunteer to adopt children. I want more young children to have a settled start in life with a loving family.

"That way, they can make a profound and lasting impact on young lives."

The British Association for Adoption & Fostering (BAAF) is pleased to see that the number of children adopted from care in the year April 2011-Mar 2012 increased by 12%.

BAAF says that the headline statistic of 3,450 children adopted from care measures the number of children who were the subject of an Adoption Order by a court during the year in question. Typically the court will make an Order some 9 months after a child first goes to live with their new adoptive family. As such the statistic measures the very end of the adoption process and is not the best indicator of current adoption practice.

To get a better sense of what is happening in adoption, BAAF believes that there is a need to focus on the statistic of the number of children placed for adoption during the year. That statistic shows a very slight decrease in the numbers of children placed for adoption during the year from 2,710 in 2010/11 to 2,680 in 2011/12. From experience BAAF thinks this means that the significant increase seen in numbers adopted will be sustained next year but is unlikely to increase further.

BAAF says:

"Our focus now has to be on increasing the number of children placed for adoption. We know that currently there are at least 2,000 children in foster care with a plan for adoption who are not in an adoptive placement. This is in large part because of a chronic shortage of adopters for particular groups of children e.g. children in sibling groups, older children, children with disabilities, etc. If we could find adopters for those children who are waiting we would see further substantial increases in adoption over the next few years and this could only increase the impact of the Government's welcome adoption reform programme.

"The latest statistics provide an encouraging base on which to build. To make further progress, we need to see a concerted whole system focus on increasing adopter recruitment, speeding up court processes, improving the adopter assessment process and ensuring adoption support. We know that adoption works and we owe it to every child who has a plan for adoption to realise that plan for them without delay. BAAF looks forward to continuing to do everything it can to help the Government's adoption reform programme to succeed."

BAAF also notes the very significant year on year increase in the numbers of children who were the subject of Special Guardianship Orders – a 20% increase in a single year. This figure does need to be seen in the context of the increase in adoptions and shows that the number of children achieving permanence through these different routes increased substantially year on year.

Friday, September 07, 2012

LAW SOCIETY GAZETTE: All-Round Roasting for Family Law Reforms

Friday 07 September 2012 by Catherine Baksi

MPs, judges and expert practitioners yesterday condemned the government’s planned legal aid cuts and family justice reforms, warning that the fiscal imperative driving them will harm children.

Plaid Cymru MP and barrister Elfyn Llwyd said the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which from April removes public funding for most private family cases, will ‘change the whole landscape of family law’.

Llwyd told a seminar on the future of family justice: ‘The changes are likely to be detrimental to families, detrimental to access to justice and probably contrary to article 6 rights and others which come into play when a fair trial of issues is not afforded.’ He told delegates at the event, organised by the Westminster Legal Policy Forum, that the changes will not achieve the costs savings claimed by the government.

In his 20-year parliamentary career, LLwyd said that he had never seen such ‘intransigence’ from government than during the bill’s passage. He said: ‘This was a bad bill, it remains a bad bill and, unless some sensible government appraisal is urgently undertaken, the consequences for society at large and vulnerable families in particular are going to be little short of catastrophic.’

The removal of legal aid, he said, will leave courts ‘inundated’ with litigants in person and ‘curtail or undermine’ the principle of paramountcy of the welfare of the child as parents struggle to put across their points across in court. The result, he said would be a ‘huge surge’ in demand for court time with extra cost and delay - at a time when the government is also seeking to impose time limits in care proceedings. ‘How can they work against this most unfortunate backcloth?’ he said.

Llwyd said more use of mediation, the government’s proposed solution to problems, is not a silver bullet, and will not work for the vast majority of cases.

Aside from the impact of the legal aid cuts, speakers expressed concern over some of government’s planned initiatives to reform family justice, in particular, the imposition of a 26-week timetable for care proceedings.

District judge Nicholas Crichton, who set up London’s pioneering Family Drug and Alcohol Court, said the target was ‘helpful as an aspiration’ but questioned how many cases would realistically be resolved in 26 weeks. He said the focus should not be about timelines but ‘outcomes for children’ and warned ‘we’re heading for disaster’ if the time limit is treated as a ‘straightjacket’.

Chair of the Family Law Bar Association Nicholas Cusworth QC, said the ‘financial imperative’ driving the reforms will cause children to suffer and warned that the ‘over-emphasis on speed carries real dangers’. Both called for the appointment of more judges to improve continuity.

Crichton supported mediation information sessions in so far as they may reduce the number of cases going to court, but criticised the removal of legal aid in private law. ‘We have too many people going to court for the wrong reasons. If we take away their legal aid they will come to court unbridled and without the benefit of legal advice,’ he said. ‘Petty problems’ are already a burden, he said. ‘I don’t want to spend half a day disputing whether a child should be picked up at the police station or McDonalds.’

Plans to introduce into legislation a concept of shared or cooperative parenting were criticised by most, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, as unnecessary and against the best interests of children.

Crichton said that courts already try to ensure children maintain relationships with both parents. He saw no problem including the concept in the welfare checklist, but said there should be no reference to the words ‘equal’ or ‘shared’. To do so, he said would lead to ‘20 years of litigation’ as parents seek to enforce rights that they think they have.
_________________
Comments at time re-posted article:
Equal parenting
Submitted by Kevin O'Reilly on Fri, 07/09/2012 - 14:47.
District Judge Crichton has vast experience of the problems which can arise when parents are unable to resolve parenting problems in the best interests of their children. It is therefore disappointing that he cannot picture a system which starts from a presumption of equality when it comes to the involvement of both parents. In the work place it has been the law since 1975 that there should be equality irrespective of sex, and if there are good reasons there will be a difference in treatment which reflects the objective requirements of the work place. I accept that there has been much litigation to ensure that such rights are enforced. However, legislation which prevents employers and the courts from discriminating has been in the interests of employers.

Why is it so difficult for Judges to understand that they have done great damage to children by their unbalanced view of the role of fathers? Social progress has rarely resulted form the wisdom of Judges, in the arfea of family law (and particularly the relationship between children and their father), the Judges have failed and are rightly seen as contributing to the problem and not the solution.

As an equality lawyer I was shocked to experience this prejudice first hand. In many cases the damage done to children by the prejudice of the Family Courts is permanent; but now there are politicians who are prepared to reduce the prejudice they should be applauded.

___________________
Equal parenting
Submitted by anon2 on Fri, 07/09/2012 - 15:42.
This assumes that fathers are keen and eager to participate in full parenting responsibilities after separation, which, in so many cases, they are not.
____________________
It is staggering to compare
Submitted by anon on Fri, 07/09/2012 - 16:45.
It is staggering to compare work place with raising children and to talk of discrimination in this context. This ignores fundamental principles of nature, the interests of children and the views of child psychologists, for example the attachment theory. The damage to children is caused primarily not by the family courts but by angry and selfish parents who ignore the interests of their children and are fixated on their own wishes, rights and equality.

The problem with the current family law system is the backlash against mothers in the recent years due to pressure on judges from organisations such as Fathers for Justice against which mothers have had no time and resources to defend themselves even in their individual cases, let alone through lobbying as they are too busy working, caring for the children and defending litigation from fathers.

I completely agree with the views of DJ Chrichton. It is plainly not in the interests of children to treat them as property. The proposed legislation focusses on the rights of parents, not the interests of children.

__________________
Not all judges are the same.
Submitted by Jacqueline Emmerson on Fri, 07/09/2012 - 17:36.
Not all judges are the same. However, some time ago one in the North East stated that my client, who was a very hands on father, should accept every other weekend and a Wednesday tea time. "After all", said the judge, "That is the industry standard" As a child of divorced parents myself I would have been devastated if a judge had done that to me.

What hope is there for fathers when they come up against judges like that? Shared care should be on the welfare checklist.

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Trafficking arrests made in connection with disappearance of teenage girls from Worthing

Published: 03 September 2012


Officers making the arrests in Enfield, north London
0 comments
POLICE investigating the trafficking of young women from Africa have made arrests in connection with the disappearance of two teenage girls from Worthing.


A 34-year-old British man and a 25-year-old Nigerian woman were detained in Enfield, north London, on suspicion of trafficking.

The man was also arrested on suspicion of abduction.

The arrests were linked to the disappearance of two teenage girls who were placed in a private Worthing care home in March by Surrey County Council, the Home Office said.

The joint UK Border Agency and Border Force investigation, codenamed Operation Hudson, has involved law enforcement agencies in Britain and abroad.

It is targeting a number of organised crime groups suspected of trafficking young women, via London, for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

Chief immigration officer Jonathan Bush, from the UK Border Agency, said: “We believe we have disrupted a significant organised crime group suspected of being involved in the trafficking of young women into Europe through London.

“We have made two arrests at the address we visited. Today’s arrests were part of a six-month investigation. That investigation will continue with the evidence we have seized today.”

The pair are being questioned at police stations in London.

Anyone who has information about immigration crime should contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 where anonymity can be assured or visit http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/.

De-Licious

Popular Posts

Bringing Home Baby... RSS Recent Posts

Shared Items via Google Reader

I am Multiplying