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

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…