The furore over claims social workers are removing children from their birth parents and placing them for adoption in order to meet government targets continues. On Sunday the BBC Radio 4 will air a programme featuring interviews with four parents who say their children were wrongly removed. John Hemming, the liberal democrat MP who first made these claims, will be pleased his controversial pet subject is still generating public debate. So am I.
I might not buy Hemming’s argument but I will confess to niggling concerns that the government’s approach to adoption could be responsible for driving social services departments to push for adoption even when it isn’t in the child’s best interests.
It’s not uncommon for children happy in long-term foster care to be removed from their placements because a decision has been made that they should be adopted. Why?
Hemming’s assertions have been described by some as offensive, while others dismiss them as a fiction. But if what he says encourages politicians and professionals to take a long, hard look at adoption policy that can only be a good thing.
Comments (1)
Politicians have 2 main roles in this. Firstly, examination of evidence with their statistical advisers and others through Inquiry in order to verify the facts. Secondly, through handling case work.
The government is not pursuing the former and some politicians do not wish to make representation in child protection cases. In the latter it is important to remember the interests of the child may not necessarily be the same as their voting parents as well as the fact that there may be smke without fire.
Posted by watchdog | August 25, 2007 8:18 AM
Posted on August 25, 2007 08:18