Skip to main content

That EDM 626 Row

A mild row is going on about EDM 626. (link on edmi) That is the EDM that says:
That this House notes that local authorities and their staff are incentivised to ensure that children are adopted; is concerned about increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted; and calls urgently for effective scrutiny of care proceedings to stop this from happening.

It is worth doing some analysis on the evidence for this EDM. This part:
local authorities and their staff are incentivised to ensure that children are adopted;
Is incontravertible. There has been a targeting system for getting children adopted from care for some time. A visit to CSCI will demonstrate the pressure on local authorities and their staff to increase adoptions from care. Doing so would be a laudable objective if it meant that children who otherwise would remain in foster care got adopted.

However, if it means that children would otherwise remain with their family then it is not a laudable objective.

There are, then two tests. One test is whether children otherwise would have gone back to the family the other test is that relating to:
is concerned about increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted;
Is it the case that more babies are being taken into care because when it comes to adoption they are easier to get adopted. I have rummaged around the figures for this and found it takes about 2 years from being taken into care for a child to be adopted.

The increase in adoptions is substantially within toddlers. There is very little of an increase of babies being adopted, but then if the parents are fighting to keep their children a contested process would not complete that quickly.

For the age group 1-4 the figures for adoption are 910 (1994),830,870,980,1000 (1998)
and 1900 (2001), 2000, 2200, 2300. The total figure in 2005 was 3,800 and 1,900 for 1997. So the toddler figure has gone up by (2300-890) 1,410 and the overall total by 1,900. There are quite a few in the 5-9 age range as well, but not so many in the higher ranges. That is not surprising.

The real question is what would have happened to these children otherwise. Clearly some would have remained in care and therefore it is a good outcome for them. However, would some have returned to their parents? Or indeed would some not have been taken into care in the first instance.

What we do have is an increase in babies being taken into care. Given the approximate 2 year time to adoption from going into care then a goodly proportion (I estimate about 1,000) of the increase in toddlers comes from children taken into care as a baby.

It is quite difficult to reconcile DFES figures as they round everything to 100 and the same figure for the same year varies between different DFES reports. However, there does seem to be a clear pattern in this. I am going to try to get better information from the department

Comments

ian josephs said…
You are as usual quite correct so I continue to offer you my vigorous encouragement. My own key suggestion is that the quickest and easiest way to stop most of these injustices would be to give parents the right to demand a hearing before a jury if they risk losing a baby or young child to adoption or long term fostering.No jury would "confiscate" children because of a risk of emotional abuse the way that compliant judges now do in secret family courts !Criminals facing 6 months or more in prison have the right to a jury so why not parents who face a life sentence if their child is adopted?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…