Skip to main content

Adoption figures reports

I have linked to the BBC report on the numbers of babies adopted from care. There have always been very few of these as they are basically the babies that are abandoned at birth.

I am not sure myself that the Government are right to regret that fewer babies are abandoned at birth. I would think that it would be better if they were not abandoned. However, that is the government's view.

Similarly it is not enough to just look at the figures for adoptions. We need to look at what happens with the children. There has been a movement away from children returning to their parents, perhaps this is being reversed. We don't know.

Hence really there is not a lot that anyone who fully understands the care system should say. That, of course, does not stop Martin Narey from saying:
"The numbers are disappointing, but the tide is turning."

Comments

Jerry said…
John, there will never be a true figure as you know, the main reason why babies under 1 are not being adopted is simply because it takes over a year for normal care proceedings,then at least 6 months for adoption/placements. Also missing is the fact the L.A's apply for placement orders when there are no placements for the children, look at my circumstances, two years and one month now placement orders have been on, so the figure would indeed be lower than the seventies back they parents never fought for their children, there is also the other option now that parents are finally fighting back to try and secure their babies, its all hog wash to me, usual spin from Martin.

The more that Martin spouts off the garbage he does the more he shows its purely financial gains, thats why he needs more babies adopted, has anyone ever asked the Man why this should be the case, I think that the less is better, maybe the Social Services are working with many parents, giving many parents the chance first, Martin would almost certainly put a stop to the support if it meant more babes fills his coffers, I wish I didn't have to speak about him this way but I detest him with a passion, he has never changed since I last met him in 2008

The figure of 60 would simply be the ones parents did not want and rather than abandoning they chose to place their baby up for adoption so it would avoid lengthy court proceedings, Martins Ideal scenario
Jerry said…
I see Mr M has been writing for the times about the situation and its in dire striates, he would seriously do a better Job if he stopped pontificating around the L.A's, come in to court sometimes Mr. M. get from behind your desk and speak to the many thousands of children who simply want to return home, oh yeah another reason why adoption is in such a mess. back in 1927 the Government at the time then devised the Adoption of Children act, it had all good intentions, went way beyond to protect children and parents, now though with the likes of the now bankrupt Manchester Adoption Society £33,000 per child/baby it costs Local Authorities to place children with adoption AGENCIES, OR cattle markets as they seem to be these days.

We are not in 1927 any more, babies /children are not being dumped at churches and nunneries, there are not that many orphaned children because of wars (reasons for the Gov. to set up the adoption of children's act, I bet if Lord Salisbury Lord Salisbury (1830-1903) The Libertarian(who's portrait hangs in committee room 12 in the houses of parliament)was alive today I bet he would give Martin a run for his money along with a thick ear and be in complete opposition of what Martin stands for
Hywel said…
Does this support or contradict your claim that babies and young children are being deliberately taken into care in order for councils to hit adoption targets (and get extra money)?
john said…
The targets were scrapped from 1st April 2008. Some councils still have targets.
Hywel said…
So does it support or contradict your claim?
john said…
If anything it supports my claim (in that without the targets the numbers are gradually going down).

However, it is really an issue about looking at detailed cases.
Jake Maverick said…
"regret that fewer babies are abandoned at birth"

so you're saying they want MORE babies to be abondoned at birth? WHY? if they're paying themselves extra money from themeslves to themelves, where is the money coming from? or why else do they want more babies? feeding them to aliens perhaps? or pratice dropping bombs on them?
adarynefoedd said…
There are still a small number of relinquished babies too who are adopted before the age of 1, and I have known babies in proceedings to be placed before the age of 1. (eg where there have been very recent care proceedings)

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…