Those Adoption Targets

Even the Court of Appeal thinks that councils are working towards targets for adoptions:

Lord Justice Thorpe said that East Sussex county council appeared more concerned with meeting a quota than the best interests of the family.

The adoption proceedings began while the father was in hospital after a heart attack, but as soon as he was fit he instructed a solicitor to write to the council and ask that he be allowed to care for his daughter. The council reacted by placing the baby girl with prospective adopters the day before a court hearing at which her father intended to challenge the adoption.

Lord Justice Thorpe said: "The council\’s failure to answer that letter and subsequent placement on the eve of the hearing give rise to the clearest inference that the council was out to gain its ends by means more foul than fair.

"There are many who assert that councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children that they have placed for adoption… a history such as this only serves to fuel public distrust in the good faith of public authority."

Luvverly, eh? Children ripped from the arms of their biological parents so that a social worker can make quota?

Sadly, given the way in which the "best interests of the child" are considered paramount, and the way in which bonding with adoptive parents happens, even though the judges are highly critical of the actions undertaken, it has actually worked. This counts towards quota:

However, the judges refused the father leave to appeal on human rights grounds against the adoption order. Lord Justice Wall said: "In my judgment, the answer to this case is not to allow the appeal, but for this court to ensure, in so far as it can, that the conduct of this local authority is not repeated elsewhere."

6 thoughts on “Those Adoption Targets”

  1. “The child, identified as J-L, was born in November 2006 after his parents entered into a casual relationship. The appellant, identified only as MC, did not know he was the father until the council served care proceedings on him and asked for his co-operation in a DNA test. ”

    Casual sex, no contraception, mother having sex with enough men that he didn’t know he was the father, and still somewhere else. Brilliant parents. The council’s actions may not be so wrongheaded and the child’s probably better off with a foster family, regardless of biology.

  2. Regardless, they have not acted outside of the law. The mother’s sexual relations has no bearing on the case, nor should it. The father’s need for proof regarding the parentage of the child is only natural and has no bearing on his future relationship with the child.

  3. If that council have not done anything illegal then there is something VERY wrong with the state of the law in this country.

    Surely they should be held in contempt of court?

  4. “Lord Justice Wall said: “In my judgment, the answer to this case is not to allow the appeal, but for this court to ensure, in so far as it can, that the conduct of this local authority is not repeated elsewhere.””

    Yeah. Good luck with that

  5. They’ll take your children away to justify their own jobs and not for a second admit to themselves that it’s evil.

    Do a search in google for this phrase:
    “daily mail The state stole our children”

    Banality of evil and all that.

  6. These quotas do cause my skin to crawl. However, a story some months ago that Tim similarly commented on concerned a teenager that had her baby illegally taken by the state following birth. She won her back =and then lost her to the services again because she was a complete headcase. I’m not saying the actions of authority are right in these cases, but the parents that these stories revolve around are often highly questionable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *