And the swedish government want to make it easier to adopt foster children in Sweden... and the media is quiet about what is going on.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html
Share |
"But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.
I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.
Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.
Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year.
The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales - four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.
Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.
Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million "bonuses" over three years to encourage additional adoptions.
Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised an extra £1million.
This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents.
But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care.
As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.
Critics - including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families - report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.
More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them.
One mother's son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.
In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.
What's more, the obsessive secrecy of the system means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human tragedy now unfolding across the country.
For at the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children involved.
Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of Britain's legal system - the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
From the moment a mother is first accused of being incapable as a parent - a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor - the system is pitted against her.
There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of probability.
Crucially, the courts' culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution.
Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5, are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.
From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law - a crime punishable by imprisonment - if they tell anyone what is happening to their family.
Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail.
And many have found themselves sent to prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case."
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html
Share |
Socialtjänsten i Marks kommun (och en del andra):
SvaraRaderaDet är lagligt att sälja våldsamma filmer, spel, och serier till vuxna trots barn kan fara illa om de använder det.
Det är lagligt att lagligt att sälja cigaretter och alkohol till vuxna trots barn kan fara illa om de använder det.
Det är lagligt att sälja bilar till vuxna trots barn kan fara illa om de sätter sig vid ratten.
Det är lagligt att sälja motorsågar till vuxna trots barn kan fara illa om de använder den.
Det är lagligt att sälja mycket brandfarliga vätskor trots barn kan fara illa om de använder den.
Det är därför vi har en myndighetsålder. För att barn och vuxna är olika.
Detta kan nog alla förstå, men om man sätter ett eller flera barn i händerna på socialtjänsten så kommer de att utöva våld ni diverse former, inklusive sexuella övergrepp på HVBinstitutioner och familjehem, barnen kommer att tidigt introduceras i alla tänkbara former av missbruk, de kommer att kunna både stjäla och elda upp bilar efter bara ngn veckas HVB-hems utbildning.
När de kan allt detta kommer sedan socialsekreterarna hem till den/de förtvivlade föräldrarna och agerar precis som i skräckfilmen motorsågsmassakern.
För socialtjänstpersonalen bör införas om inte en myndighetsålder, så allfall ett myndighetsprov!
Jävla stollar i Kinnaström! Ingen vill ens vara chef till dem!