Incompetent. Vicious. Mendacious. Abusing. Politically driven. Out of touch. Lacking in common sense, Racist. Obstructive. Waste of taxpayers money. Useless. No these are not the results of a word association test received after being shown a picture of Gordon Brown, but rather epithets that could quite easily be applied to many members of Britain’s social work ‘professions’.
A recent article on the Conservative Home website outlined the experiences of potential adopters who have had to deal with Birmingham Social Services. What was published made me extremely angry. Children who are in desperate need of loving, caring homes are being left to languish in Britain’s so-called ‘care’ system.
It appears that Birmingham social workers are going out of their way to impede the adoption process and the Conservative Home report says that the social workers seem to have a ‘prejudice’ against adoption.
Conservative Home said:
“Birmingham City Council have published a survey of adoption applicants. There are some sensible recommendations on some of the criticisms raised. So it is an interesting document and it is to the credit of the council that the research was undertaken and that it was published. Let’s hope that action indicates a desire to change. Many of the concerns raised will not be unique to Birmingham.
But I’m afraid it does show the most widespread and horrendous prejudice in the council against adoption – at least hitherto. Those wishing to adopt a child seek to provide that child with a permanent loving home rather than being shunted around the care system. Those offering to adopt should be given every possible welcome and encouragement. Their applications should be pursued as a matter of urgency. I fear, to put it mildly, this has not been the experience in Birmingham.
As the Daily Mail has highlighted the report says:
There were several reports of adopters being told they would need to give up work. One participant left the process because of this.
We often hear about black children being kept in care rather than be placed with white couples – the refusal to allow “transracial adoption.” In Birmingham children are also kept in care if there isn’t a religious match. The report says:
One participant spoke of their experience of rigid matching on religious criteria. The adopter from an Asian origin, was very open to a trans-religious adoption (e.g. would adopt a Muslim child), knowing their own religion – Hindu – is not common amongst children waiting. However, they were told there was a low chance of a trans-religious adoption and an adopter of the same religion as a Muslim child (e.g. Somali) would have more chance of adopting them.
The adopter found this experience very frustrating, particularly given the low level of Asian adopters in the city, and stressed the similarities between their culture and that of many Asian Muslim children.
At the time of the Research, this adopter was still waiting to be matched after over two years in the process.
So far as the Kafkaesque preoccupation with “ethnic matching”, the report said:
A white couple who reported they had no ethnicity preference ticked ‘white’ on the ‘preference form’. They said this was subsequently highlighted in a negative manner by different members of staff during the process. They felt judged but pointed out there was nowhere on the form to select ‘no preference’.
There were also several examples of participants who felt they experienced rigid matching and felt the Service would not consider them for transracial adoptions: “We feel we were quite broad minded … However we were effectively barred from … adopting non-white children by the system?!” “…suggested I was not going to be able to adopt…given my rather unusual ethnicity. I was basically told they did not have many X children to be adopted. I had not asked for X children” “We are now in the matching stage. Despite our NOT stipulating a preference for white UK children. These were all we were considered for … although my husband and I have the skills and ability to help a child understand their heritage”
In one case, a mixed White/Black African applicant, who appeared physically white, wanted to be matched with a mixed ethnicity child. On ‘paper’ they said they generated a lot of interest, but once photographs were exchanged interest often declined. “…on paper, I think lots of social workers thought, ‘Oh that’s good’ and sent stuff through and whenever they got a photo of us, they all went quiet and in the end our social worker didn’t send a photo”.
The general message from this report was of social workers being as negative and obstructive as possible. They would be intrusive, hostile and use delay to push applicants into giving up. Of course it is right to ensure those wishing to adopt are aware of the challenges. But imagine if antenatal classes adopted the same tone?”
Read the full article at: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2013/01/birmingham-councils-anti-adoption-bigotry-exposed.html
What we see time and time again is social workers who despite saying that they act for the best interests of looked after children, are in practice, doing the exact opposite. Social Services not just in Birmingham but elsewhere, are keeping children in the worst possible environment, state provided ‘parenting’ in the care system, rather than getting them into families who will care for them,love them and nurture them. It is almost as if social workers were ideologically prejudiced against the whole idea of ‘the family’.
It is appalling that children who may have had terrible starts in life are left to rot because an exact ethnic or religious or nationality match cannot be found for that particular child.
The current set up of local authority social services has failed and I can’t help wonder if these damaged children’s chances would be better if the Government took a very sharp axe to social services departments, sacked the doctrinaire managers and social workers and replaced them all with those who live in the real world. I’ve lived long enough to have come across some appalling examples of social services idiocy and that has brought me to the sad conclusion that local authority social work is completely unreformable and some form of drastic action is required. However, I’m not going to hold my breath whilst waiting for ‘Call Me Dave’ to do the slightest thing about it.
There are very few career paths that a person can take that would qualify them to be classed as ‘scum’ by ordinary decent people, but those who enter local authority social work, and follow without question the politically correct dross that passes for social work training, really do deserve this word being applied to them.
Great article thank you, he most important part being your comment about SS being ‘ideologically prejudiced against the whole idea of the family’.
This is absolutely true because they are under such powerful political influence they’re addicted to abnormality. The main driver for this is the powerful gay lobby, who of course, cannot have children without depriving it of its birth right of both parents. Indeed, Erin Pizzy, founder of the women’d refuge movement, was threatened by gays when she highlighted the fact they had highjacked her movement. Under this political influence, the bar for domestic violence is brought ever lower until a man will find himself in handcuffs if he slams a door. This criteria is the oft used justification for the removal and deliberately protracted estrangement of children under the category of ’emotional abuse’. I know a woman whose Social Worker was determined to have her youngest child adopted when they were taken under the flimsiest pretext and she was very fortunate to get then back after 10 months needless separation. Without the army of support behind her she would have lost them both. The manipulation was sickening to behold. Wake up Britain this is an epidemic so don’t think it cant happen to you. Adoptions often equal success and promotion to Social Workers. These people are complete and utter filth and the system is corrupt to the core. I find it incredible that Social Workers are considered by Judges to be ‘professionals’ when comparably they are no such thing. A Social Worker (Emily Collett) in the case of me and my alcoholic ex-wife flirted with me at our 1st meeting and when i did not reciprocate was set against me. When my ex-wife smashed up her house, terrifying her daughter when I was 228 miles away, she tried to blame me !
We are living in a society where the male gender and the institute of the nuclear, normal, heterosexual family is under an onslaught as never before in history. The smashing up of the family unit weakens resistance to Government and creates markets by the need for additional households. We are simultaneously fed propoganda which makes us obsessed with paedophiles, when in reality our children are safer and more easily tracked than at any other time. Contrast this with the fact that in the case of my children’s friends sleeping over, of about 50 occasions, only once did the parent of the child enquire direct of me where there child was staying and ensure I was contactable. In 49 cases I had to chase the mother for their contact details, address etc. Something doesn’t add up.
Firstly, as I know some gay and lesbian parents, either through self insemination or surrogacy and although they are not the norm, do and have brought up their own well balanced kids. That is not a problem for me at all.
Where I agree with you is that there has been a movement within social services which has been happening for a while, to go beyond treating people as equals but follow an agenda of their own. I’ve come across a few cases where grandparents or other siblings to incompetent parents could have taken the child or children but instead the children have been adopted out to people who although may be perfectly suitable to be parents, may have been picked because the right box could be ticked.
It is not just social services who have smashed up families, a welfare state that encourages men and women to be irresponsible has had a large part to play in that.
On the subject of agendas in social services, this ancient and dusty tome on my shelf opened my eyes to the stupidity of fads and fashions in social work. Woe to be the client of a 1970’s ‘radical’ social worker.