Archived Forums

This happened to my neightbour some years ago now. She has since done it again and has now adopted a lovely little girl.For her the hardest part was knowing the first birth mother so well and knowing she was not a good mother. She feels worse because the child she now has had a mother who put in a lot more effort but was deemed not good enough by SS.She always says her 'win' is bitter sweet as the mother was justifiably so upset. My neighbour had to move at the time as the contact had been in her home. It just all seems so wrong when everyone just wants what is right.

I think it is a great idea in theory, but worry about how it would work in practise.Your post is an example of how it can go wrong, but my question is why the heck did it take 15 months for thejudge to decide the BM was fit enough to look after her kid. That is a hell of a long time. If a child is to be returned to BM's care then there should be a maximum time of something like 6 month MAX. Once this time has gone past then that's it, they should beallowed to adopt, any longer is just cruel for both the child and the adoptive parents.This is my worry about the new proposals - Not sure it will work and I see it as just another cost saving exercise that sadly could destroy good potential parents as not many could go through it twice and they would probably give up and remain childless or go abroad instead.

I have concerns about this. We had considered concurrency, but as we already have 2 children we knew it just would not be fair on them. I also know I just could not cope with the uncertainty of this.In my view the best change that can happen is speeding up the BP's assesments, court process and matching stages to get children with their new parents as soon as possible.

we are foster carers who are adopting ,had sibs together here for 17 months ,1 sib went home after birth mum appealed ,after the orders were made and won, so 1 sib will stay with us, and 1 sib has gone home.so it does happen and maybe more frequently than we think.

Intresting With my limited knowledge of all things adoption my concerns are (in no particular order) how would birth family contact be managed ? Would bf know it was concurrent placement ? are the govt saying the legal paperwork will be quicker or would it be a case Of foster/adoption being 15 months. Very difficult IMHO for the adoptive family & their extended family & friends etc. everyone would be on egg shells the whole time & needless to say LO would "feel" this atmosphere we adopted a child in this category so understand the leap of faith you must have with a young child but the only details the foster/adopter would have is what the bf are prepared to declare would the focus be taken off older children ? will the courts change tack & return children to bf & if that fails & then back to fosters/adopters are the govt reviewing this last minute appeal/false hope that is currently allowed. Huge pressure on everyone concerned & a massive waste of resources My 2 big fears are 1) this appeals to Joe Public marketing - nice cute babies up for adoption (The Times article was accurate) 2) the rushing thro of the HS when it is the children's in care that need their cases speeded up Our LO birth mother has had another child which was taken into care from the hospital, this is number 4 & it is looking likely the baby will be 12 months before placement. We all agree the system needs changing but with the correct support

I think one of the things I find hard to rationalise is the way foster carers are treated by SS. They have absolutely no say in what happens to the babies in their care, and I wonder if this will be any different even in concurrency. So, let's say that loads more families come forward to do concurrency - will the attitude change towards them? I doubt it somehow. Will these prospective adopters / foster carers get a say in this baby's upbringing before the "paperwork" is completed? I am apalled at the attitude shown towards some foster carers by social services - Are there any foster carers who have a different opinion?

I think that everyone agrees that the process needs to be speeded up. Probably the first thing that needs to happen is more honesty. Firstly towards the birth parents. For example when we had our first 3 children placed the birth parents were informed that any other children they may have would probably be removed as well if things hadn't changed. Thats fine but when they had another child, although he was removed they were fed false promises of assessment centres and hope. When in private the SW were saying the exact opposite. This is cruel. The birth parents in my opinion should have as much pre birth assessment carried out as deemed fit by a judge. My next point is that I believe there should be pre birth court proceedings. At these proceedings SW would be able to state the case for adoption/staying with parents/ assessments centre etc. The judge then decides NOT anyone else. Birth parents would have ample opportunity to appoint legal advise and hear exactly what the plan will be. From this point i=onwards there could be a prescribed timescale. If assessment centre is deemed fit the birth parents should go straight to one from the maternity unit. Thus removing the cost both emotionally and financially to the child, parents and state. Once the assessment centre is completed there should be a court hearing to determine the outcome. If its home then all the support is inplace prior to laving the assessment centre , if its adoption then foster care/currency should be considered.If the plan is to retun to parents then the safeguarding and follow up support would have already been prescribed and agreed.If its for adoption then maybe concurrency could be the right way forward. But only with a strict timetable. In these cases it should be possible to have a full and final adoption hearing by 3-6 months.Sorry to ramble but having been through a situation when a full sibling (of our 3 )was removed at birth and then paperwork and the courts messed up so he didnt come home until he was 12 months old I feel very strongly about the timescale and the lack of honesty. I would also say that the solicitos of the birth parents also need to be more honest and not give false hope. ULtimatly they are only being unfair to their own clients.

the reality is that as foster carer/adopters they would be treated in the exact same way as a mainstream carer. they would hold no parental responsibility and yes they would have to follow BP's wishes in things they may prefer not to, like the clothes the child wears, the milk teh baby drinks, whether baby can have a dummy or not, no ability to sign for emergency medical care, parents at health appointments etc, facilitating contact. this is becoz the child could still be returned to bp's, i think they quoted around 50% of babies being returned to bp's though my guess is that babies deemed suitable for concurrency would most likely be those that are number 2,3,4,5,6 etc and not the first child so less open to being returned, but it does still happen. i have a child coming soon who would probably be ideal for concurrency, no. 5 baby, no change in circumstances, all other children in care/adopted elsewhere, but even with this child there would be risks in concurrency becoz bm has changed in terms of levels of committment (so far) and the courts could still send the baby back to bm despite the histroy of neglect with the others. had a bubs recently where the prebirth plan was adoption but now the child is going home despite the previous serious neglect of other children, still in care and remaining in care.concurrency is not for the faint hearted!

Yes, this is the bit that gets to me how with each new baby the BM has to be re-assessed as to whether her circumstances have changed when in reality every one involved knows that nothing has changed since the last baby was taken into care. Why does this then take 12-18 months. A lot of BM's have 6,7,8 and more children. IMO after the first 2 children have been taken into care, the following babies should be freed for adoption BEFORE birth, unless the BM can prove her circunstances have changed dramatically. It is just cruel giving BM false hope that she can keep this baby, if everyone around her know this isn't possible. Also if a BM knows her child is going to be removed and put up for adoption after a few days, then maybe it will be the wake up call she needs to sort her life out if she truly wants to change and keep her child. Too much emphasis is placed on the BM's needs/rights - What about the rights of the innocent baby to a right to have a loving parent who will put it's needs first? Too many children are being damaged by being left in care for too long while the BP's faff around making promises to attend re-hab or whatever, when statistics prove that very few get their act together. Freeing up the babies before they are born is the best possible solution IMO, especially as others have said for babies no. 3,4,5,6,.............

its a frustration of the system that allows for parental rights, also many of these subsequent babies have different fathers and so that automatically starts a new assessment on the father and if requested the fathers family as potential carers even if bm's assessments are not going to be redone and that then means months (or years) of contact with bp's before the final hearing that makes the decision to return or not. and quite often bm's hold on to teh name of the bf until several months into the proceedings, before its too late, and then give the bf's name and that prolongs proceedings. or, as with another of my bubs, parents only decide on a family memebr to be assessed when the final hearing is in sight and they know they won't get them back themselves but that family care means they will still at elast see their child if a family memebr is caring for it. and that delays everything. my LO was around 9 months and heading for adoption but this delayed everything and she was nearer 18 months once placed in family care, and while thats a good outcome for her how much better if she'd been 6-8 months old instead?

There are heartbreaking stories about concurrency, Springchicks is one- but another more practical point is could adopters manage. Most of us get one or two shots at adopting a child or sibling group-and I do believe this new policy is about encouraging first time adopters to come forwards. I agree that the fewer carers in a child's life the better- but we have to be practical about whether this can be achieved. Whilst our experience of FCs was very negative- I do believe that good FCs have a very important role to play in transitioning children on.One FC I know had an addict baby placed in her care from birth- that child never slept for more than 15 minutes at a stretch. And screamed a high pitch wailing scream almost constantly when awake- the baby had to be wrapped to stabalize detox shakes-feeding that baby was so hard and this FC managed because she had experience and back up. When that child left at 7 months it was a smiling baby exceeding milestones much more the expectation of what a baby should be-and very much loveable. What comes across in so many new adopters posts is how hard they struggle with the tough stuff in the early days- the rejection the lack of connection making the tough stuff tougher- how many new adopters hand on heart do you think could take in a baby like that andd bond without almost breaking. Also what about birth siblings where mum gets another chance? You can't preempt removal by assessing sibs adoptive parents for concurrency just in case can you? What issues does it raise during contact for the sibling even if you could? So then do you say with birth siblings the priority should no longer be to stay together because an assessed couple is already waiting? Like I said the theory behind this is valid-and in some cases it will be good practice- but there are flaws in the plan.

This will make it even less likely that prospective adopters will consider older children. If there is any chance of a baby the majority of prospective adopters will go for that option.This gov. Have just written off a generation of older children waiting for adoption and for that I am sad and angry.When are the gov. Going to announce something positive for older children waiting for adoption?

I totally agree with you trishrebel. When I heard it announced that the PM was going to announce plans to shorten waiting adoption times for children, I thought it would be just that. But I have yet to read about the changes for older children. Any links anyone? Or are there none?

also mean that if you do decide this is for you the birth parent know you and where you live in some cases tis will make life harder

hi i agree with you all tangerine - I was thinking this morning over a year into placement "phew !! Saturday - 2 of us at home !!" So no I do not have the experience for an addicted baby. As I say one of my concerns are the older children its so much easier to sell this senerio thou to the general public Reason for my post was to ask do you think SW have to keep giving flase promises etc to bp to keep them "on side" and co-operate ? I'm goong off topic here I know

Having to endure so much damage to our family because of the birth family's criminal behaviour and general nastiness I would be very wary. In our experience and in my work experience birth families on the whole don't play by the rules. I would not want them to know where I live or indeed have control over the first few months of the child's life I believe it would be hell. Lets go for the pre-birth freeing up; problem solved. Our children's BM is about to have the five children she went on to have after the first seven removed. These five children are as damaged as the original seven there are five birth fathers, five new assessments for the mother no one stood back and said this woman is so damaged should she be bringing up children at all regardless of wether she has a different partner. Rant over.

Thanks for that post Homerton. Your children's BM highlights exactly what I was saying in my earlier post and she is not unusual. Why then does SS waste precious resources when she has failed to improve her circumstances time and time again. Each new child will be more damaged as it is moved around from pillar to post while they do a pointless assessment and the sad fact is they will do the same thing again next year when she has her next child.

People who can not bring up children should be prevented of becoming pregnant. Pay them £5000 or 10000 or even 20000 to get a steralisation, much cheaper than all those kids in care. It is all about human rights, the right to be born in a family where people can look after a child and do not abuse or neglect the child.Rights of the mother? Well she will loose the right to produce children after she messes up childrens lives. And the fathers as well, snip, problem solved.The same with animals if you abuse your Staffie you are no longer allowed to keep pets, or breed them.Or is this something you are only allowed to think?

I can see how concurency could work for some cases, but how does this really work in practice if it is promoted as a 'blanket' approach. As well as all the uncertainty of whether a child may be returned to birth mother / father or another member of the wider family. There is also the issue of developmental uncertainty for many newborns in the care system. If mother has a history of alcohol or substance abuse - these environmental issues can have a significant impact on development. If birth family have moderatte or severe learning difficulties there is a inherrit risk of developmental delay. And waht about all the parents for which little or nothing is known (absent birth fathers in particular but not exclusively). Are there really going to be huge numbers of adopters willing to take on a child from birth where the developmental risks are completly unknown????? And tangerine - your point about siblings is a really worry...... will this encourage local authorities to place new borns with 'approved waiting adopters' rather than LA's investing time/money in the re-assessment of the older brother/ sisters adopters????? As someone who has adopted subsquent siblings and endured all the 'tests' this has involved I am really concerned that what you have highlighted might indeed come true. And I would bet a large number of the new borns who come into care are infact subsequent siblings - and a fair few of these do eventually join one or more of their older sibs after court proceedings and the re-assessment of the adopters...... so surely this issue needs to be looked at asap - how do you speed up the re-assessment process for existing adopters who want to be considered for their adopted son/daughters new born sibling????? The preocess for second time adopters/ sibling adopters was origianlly mentioned but I have not yet seen anything which revises this process yet.