Mothers who agree to temporary fostering risk ‘adoption by stealth’

family law

Women from troubled backgrounds who agree to have the babies taken into temporary foster care run the risk of losing them permanently a charity has claimed.

Following a freedom of information request the Family Rights Group discovered that 127 such babies have been placed with foster carers who have already been accredited as adopters. No less than 111 of these were less than six week old.

Although no figures are available for subsequent permanent adoption, the group believes that under the fostering for adoption scheme a significant number of mothers risk losing their children via “by stealth”. As the name suggests, the scheme allows prospective adopters to foster children before formal adoption.

Vulnerable mothers may not understand the possible consequences before agreeing to temporary foster care they insist. Many are seriously disadvantaged by a lack of access to legal advice, said the charity’s chief executive, Cathy Ashley.

“It is much harder to get a baby back than it is to keep a baby when it’s not been removed. So it can be adoption by stealth.”

Before the introduction of fostering for adoption, The Guardian reports, most such mothers could reclaim fostered children if they chose to do so.

Photo by Till Westermayer via Flickr

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

7 comments

dr. manhattan62 - July 10, 2017 at 7:46pm

“Mothers who agree to temporary fostering risk ‘adoption by stealth’

So what that means in None-stealth English is – Mothers who agree to temporary fostering risk there child being stolen by means of lies and deception.

st - July 11, 2017 at 4:03pm

Welcome to the Best Legal in the world

Caroline Roberts - July 16, 2017 at 7:51pm

The biggest issue is foster to adopt placements and the lack of clarity from social services. This is something that needs addressing within legislation and local authorities. When a baby is taken into foster care, while a parent is being assssed, if that placement is both a registered foster carer, but also has passed everything to adopt a child it becomes very messy. Especially as their is no legal aid available to a parent who has signed a section 20 agreement and most have no understanding of the consequences of this agreement or the rights they hold as a parent.

dr. manhattan62 - July 17, 2017 at 2:17pm

Another area not very clear is when parents are advised Not to sign a S20. or to withdraw a S20 after signing it.
are they any better off not signing, especially when the LA will very likely seek an interim CO from the court and take the children anyway.

Samantha - July 26, 2017 at 1:09pm

What about the mothers thinking there signing for a epadurel,pethadyn to help with labour and actually it’s a section 20? Yes this happening. The parents who are to scared to sign a section 20, the social services make it up. While the father is not in the loop at all. The local authorities have found by foster to adopt a better thing,this means also they can take the newborn baby 250 miles away and no contact. Also in the children’s act/legislation nothing is in there about the family only child and adopters. However part 30/33 it states if the parents/parent wants the child back eg revoking orders or trying to withdraw section 20 there moving the process more quickly. It says clearly if the parents want the child the child has to be returned within 7 days to the local authorities.. or risk inprisonment for 3 months. This is child abduction. I know 8 revoking orders went in,none of the contract was kept by the local authorities at any point and went to court using the money we paid.. then the solicitors claimed legal aid and co-hursting with the local authorities and knew every step before we made it. This is organised crime. When we support the parent it’s used against them.
Yesterday as we continue the protest 5 different cases were lost on newborn infants saying the same as they did in our case saying we were there from them the social services legal representation used and lied about this. A woman gave birth 24 hours previously she lost her baby,another was 5 days old no section 20 so they went for ICO/section 31 order/placement order! . We’ve set out fact and figures we’ve given them to MPs (shamed in parliament by may 7/3/17.. calling it a chia in social care. It cost for only 7 children £317,000 to move these. In April 2017 136 young babies and toddlers were taken 2 England from Wales (printed in papers) saying not enough foster parents? When a week later England said there wasn’t enough foster carers for 721 newborn babies to 3 years old. The industry in trafficking children is the highest they have ever been. We know how there able to do international adoptions and how there getting the children out..
This is a global thing and temporary jobs being offered for social workers in hospitals,schools,health,local authorities,locums and 6 months is a adoption orders. And if ppl researched it it was only brought in after the family wanted the child back. And he one judge agreed and adopted parents/foster supported then put a appeal in and won it by mumby. This propaganda and uk parliament and local authorities in every borough in the uk are illegally doing this.
The Cinderella law was looking at in 2014 but never stamped? I wonder why? As it states every parent would be charged if causing harm to a child. If this passed they wouldn’t have so many children being taken and the industry would crumple. Social services are not fit for purpose it’s broken and it needs a independent body looking over what’s going on. A independent body for cafcass claiming hours there not spending the hours there claiming for. ISW are not independent as paid by the local authorities. This should also be looked at. In our case the guardian didn’t know the child had been placed 2 months before and had to admit to the judge and was allowed to pass even though submitted reports saying she seen the child 14 days before this was a lie. Asked a judge to Debra down and refused? Because he knew where we asked for a higher judge the case would have been chucked out.

dr manhattan - July 26, 2017 at 3:29pm

“solicitors claimed legal aid and co-hursting (did you mean coercing)
with the local authorities and knew every step before we made it”

you speak a lot of logic. i also believe there is a lot of coercing going on.
one of the key things we hear from parents dealing with the SS in proceedings is that the Solicitors tell parents not to fight against the LA but to work with them and do as they ask. this is highly suspicious given that the SS have no intentions of returning your children no matter how much parents work with them. all it does is make their job so much easier while they dismantle the family with lies and deception.

dr manhattan - July 26, 2017 at 3:37pm

given the latest information from the courts re LAs using private detectives to spy on parents during court proceedings, i wonder if this is legal and can parents find out if this was done to them.

Leave a comment