Skip to main content

New Stats show that over 60% of toddlers in care get adopted

New Statistics obtained from DCFS (erstwhile DfES) and released by John Hemming MP, Chairman of Justice for Families show that 60% of the numbers of children under 5 taken into care are now adopted."

The system", he said, "is supposed to try to reunite families rather than simply drive towards adoption. However, in 2006 4,160 children under 5 were taken into care and 2,490 were adopted. There will be a small number that have not been adopted at that time and remain in care for a while. That means that the 60% figure is in fact an under estimate rather than an over estimate as the lag is in the numbers adopted."

"Looking at individual cases," he said, "it is clear that the government's forced adoption machine is substantially a one way conveyor belt. We know of a number of miscarriages of justice like the Webster Case in Norfolk where children are wrongly taken off their parents. With these figures it is not surprising that children are taken into care because of the demand for young children to adopt. The comparable figures for 1995 were 910 children adopted and 2870 taken into care. This gives an adoption ratio of 32%.

"The error the government have made," he said, "was to look at the proportion of children in care at any one time that get adopted. There are two problems with this. Firstly, children that are taken into care do not get adopted (and should not get adopted) that quickly when the parents are fighting to keep them. Secondly, there are larger numbers of chidren that it is very difficult to get adopted and adoptions normally fail with older children so it is an error to attempt to force adoptions of 10 year olds."

"It has taken me a few months to get figures from the DfES as to how many children are actually taken into care (the flows) rather than numbers that are actually in care. However, I have now got figures for 1995 and 2006. The really disturbing trend is in the large numbers of newborn babies taken into care. I am aware of cases where babies are put in care because their mothers might get post natal depression. This is simply an evil way of working. We do need to think first of the children and their wider families rather than responding to the government's demand for more and more adoptions. England and Wales (and probably Northern Ireland, but not Scotland) have struck out in a way which is alien to human nature. This needs to come to an end."

"I regret the government's decision to increase the secrecy in the Family Courts. These statistics and the reported cases clearly demonstrate the need for more scrutiny rather than less."

ENDS

Note for Editors:
"In care" means that there is a care order of some form. This can be a police protection order, Emergency Protection Order, Interim Care Order or a Full Care Order. Normally a case will start with one and then end up with a care order under S31 of the 1989 Childrens Act. This is to be distinguished from those cases where Section 20 of the 1989 Act is used for a "looked after child". These are voluntary rather than compulsory.

The raw statistics are available at:
http://john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/stats/index.html
The source of the statistics quoted in this release is the DfES. (now DCFS)

Comments

Simon Bell said…
John,

I heard you on the radio the other day discussing the topic of increased adoption. (Must have been the Today program but I can't find it on the BBC site).

I was adopted in 1967, from birth, and am currently tracing my birth mother. I have learnt much about the adoption industry, and of the anonymity and secrecy involved, and of coercion and regret. I have also learnt of the physiological and psychological impact of infant separation - there is a great deal more than breastfeeding to this subject.

This trend of supplying the infertile with infants thought to be in danger must be reversed. Help needs to be directed towards the birth parents so they can learn to parent effectively. And the family courts need to be opened.

Glad you're making some noise about it.
john said…
It is a very complex issue that doesn't handle well in soundbites.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…