Skip to main content

Martin Narey is wrong.

John Hemming MP, Chairman of Justice for Families, has struck out at Martin
Narey for his suggestion that more babies should be taken into care and that
more adoptions is the solution to prevent situations like that in Edlington.

"Martin Narey demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the stastical realities
as to what has happening in England. The number of babies taken into care
under 1 month has jumped from 430 in 1995 to 1,140 in 2006. Of the 1,140 in
2006 670 were taken into care in the first seven days of their life
essentially "at birth".

"He also makes the assumption that once a child is adopted all is good.
Sadly the government are turning a blind eye to the number of disrupted
adoptions. In 2006 6,000 children under 10 years old were taken into care
and 3,520 children under 10 left care through adoption. That means 59% of
children leaving care through adoption.

"The government themselves said this year that "This does not mean that adoption is appropriate for more than a minority of children"

"The government have refused to attempt to find out how many adoptions
result in children returning to care. It is quite clear that Reactive
Attachment Disorder affects a number of children taken into care at an early
age and then adopted at or around 2-3 years old. This often results in a
disrupted adoption and a child returning to care with additional
psychological trauma.

"There are statistics about the numbers of failed adoptions where the
adoption fails in the same local authority as it occurs, but this is only a
small part of the story. Channel 4 recently identified that the number of
failed adoptions is increasing. Martin Narey, however, repeats the mantra
"More adoptions, More adoptions".

"Our policy making really should be evidence based. For that we need the
research. That is where the government are failing.

"Martin Narey should not look at adoption as a solution for the chidlren in
Edlington. It is not in any way clear that the outcome for children aged 10
and 11 could be predicted reliably before they were born. The question
about Edlington is why there was no response at an earlier age of 5 or 6.
I think that arises from the concentration on babies and adoption that the
system now has. We need to change direction rather than go further in a direction
that is clearly failing."


Jerry said…
John, you already know my feelings of Narey, his background is more of the prison system, kinda explains a few of his un warrented remarks.

When I had a converstion with him in York a few weeks back he really does not know how the family courts work more so to the workings of the L.A's I have been an MKF for about the same ammount of time he's been CEO for a childrens charity, Martin clearly thinks that the Social Services are prevented from removing the right children. Correct me if I'm wrong but I am sure Ed Balls has completely disagreed with Martin.

I would also Add that these remarks from Martin must have caused a significant drop in their donations
Fran Oborski said…
Changes in Care Placements cause Attachment Disorders BUT that doesn't mean we should not remove very young baby's from disrupted/unsuitable families.
What is wrong is the delay between taking them into Care and Adoption.
If more adoptive parents were approved as Foster Carers then it would be easier to place a child with prospective adopters straight away when taking them into Care instead of moving them around between carers prior to adoption.
john said…
The difficulty is the question of obtaining evidence to warrant permanent removal of a child. That is why a long time elapses between a child being taken into care and a final placement.

In any event the decisionmaking systems go wrong far too often.

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…