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. …

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…