Skip to main content

14 Children taken in sequence into care

The linked story is to The Sunday Times' take on the same story reported previously.

Clearly a proportion of newborn babies taken into care are from mothers who are addicted to drugs. One of the saddest cases I met, however, was a mother in an assessment centre who had cleaned up, but the system was still trying to remove her child.

There is also the question as to whether or not it is the best way of handling things to simply remove each child at birth. This, after all, is not what is done in Scotland.

One of the advantages we have from a social science perspective in the UK is that there are different approaches in Scotland and England. This gives the unusual possibility of a control experiment (after all what is being done in both places is an experiment). Let me make myself clear in that I don't think what is done in Scotland is perfect, but it is a lot better than England.

The issue of addicted parents is a distasteful issue for people to discuss, but it is a very important issue. Simplistic approaches such as removing the children from families where either parent has taken for example cocaine would result in Boris Johnson MP losing his children. These are non starters as suggestions.

It is quite clear, however, that this cannot be left as a general issue to be resolved in secret in the mixture of local authorities and courts. Although there is no reason to identify the people concerned there is a good reason to consider the general principles based on a range of real stories.

One big problem with family law is that things are supposed to be done "in the best interests of the child". That is fair enough, but we don't have any rules to determine what is in the best interests of children hence it ends up as a subjective decision by the people in charge (Childrens Services, Judges).

A useful part of the article that I had not previously sourced is this:
"Researchers at Brunel University who studied care cases in four London boroughs found that 34% were caused by drug or alcohol abuse by parents, the biggest single factor. Of 186 children taken from 100 families because of this dependency, 67 had one or both parents addicted to crack cocaine."

That does not substantiate the argument used by defenders of the current system that the increase in newborn babies being taken into care is all as a consequence of substance abuse.

Comments

moira said…
I don't believe the argument that more babies are being taken because of an increasing drug problem.I remember the 80's and there was a real problem then with heroin.We have always had the drug problem and alcohol.

I hate the use of in the best interests of the child as nobody follows up the progress of the child in care to find out if their lives have improved.

You will find this"in the best interests of the child"is used to justify the most corrupt and malicious behaviour from social workers.

It is also used to justify bullying and abusing parents in particular vulnerable anxious people who genuinely love their children and are terrified by these aggressive social workers.

It is very subjective and does not take into account the extreme distress and damage caused to a child by his removal. also separation anxiety is a common occurence resulting from aggressive removal of the child and the bad handling of cases through incompentent and unskilled social workers.
moira said…
I don't believe the argument that more babies are being taken because of an increasing drug problem.I remember the 80's and there was a real problem then with heroin.We have always had the drug problem and alcohol.

I hate the use of in the best interests of the child as nobody follows up the progress of the child in care to find out if their lives have improved.

You will find this"in the best interests of the child"is used to justify the most corrupt and malicious behaviour from social workers.

It is also used to justify bullying and abusing parents in particular vulnerable anxious people who genuinely love their children and are terrified by these aggressive social workers.

It is very subjective and does not take into account the extreme distress and damage caused to a child by his removal. also separation anxiety is a common occurence resulting from aggressive removal of the child and the bad handling of cases through incompentent and unskilled social workers.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…