Author: admin

A Manchester MP, John Leech, tabled this  Early Day Motion (EDM 92) in support of our campaign in May this year.  So far 82 MPs have signed it. EDM 92 That this House recognises the suffering that forced child adoptions during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s caused, which took place due to social pressures on women who had children outside of marriage; notes the unacceptable adoption and care practices of the past, such as not giving information about welfare services including housing and financial help which were available at the time and not questioning whether women putting their children up for adoption had given informed consent; further recognises the negligence of previous Governments, with regard to ensuring that the care provided for unmarried mothers was appropriate and that they and their children were not mistreated or discriminated against, resulting in many women suffering traumatising pre and post-natal experiences and children being denied contact with their birth parents; and calls on the Government to apologise in order to go some way toward helping the parents and children who were victims of these practices. I am a birth mother but also a retired social worker—ie I gave up a child for adoption many years ago, because I was not married.  I was actually a social worker at the time—so yes, I should have known better…but!  However, I am one of the lucky ones who went on to have more children.  But many ended up too traumatised to do so, through grief, guilt and shame.  So I am now involved in  this campaign called MAA (www.movementforanadoptionapology.org) to try and bring all this out in the open and help women come to terms with what happened in those days, by seeking  a cross-party Parliamentary Apology (see many more details under ‘forced adoptions’). This has already happened in Australia, whose campaign has inspired us. Last October we wrote to 586 MPs who have not yet signed, asking them to do so. But many MPs have ignored us and all MPs are more likely to answer requests from their own constituents than from anyone else.  

If you are interested in helping our campaign , please write to your own MP, saying something like this: ‘I am writing to seek your support for a campaign which was started by a few women in 2010, to seek  acknowledgement for the wrong done to thousands of women who were pressurised to give up their children for adoption in the years from the fifties right up until the 80s, simply  because they were not  married.  As you may  be aware, this situation, while totally usual nowadays, often led to women being thrown out of their homes by shocked parents. The only people they could turn to, the social workers  employed  both by the state and religious organisations, were rarely likely to offer any substantial assistance , such as information about the housing and benefits which would have been available to them even at that time.  Instead the unmarried mothers were pressured, some would say forced, to accept the only solution which seemed to be left to them ie to give up their child for adoption, which typically left them with lasting grief. The campaign now seeks a Parliamentary apology for these wrongs, and so I hope that you will consider signing the Early Day Motion 92 about this issue.  If you are unable to sign an EDM  because   you are a minister or shadow minister, please send a letter of support instead, either to Michael Gove or Edward Timpson.’

If you don’t feel like writing to your MPs , please at least have a look at the MAA web-site  (www.movementforanadoptionapoloogy.org) and also many web-sites which you will find under the heading ‘forced adoptions’.  The information on these may surprise and shock you. Finally, why am I now a member of SWAN?  Well, first of all because the London members of SWAN gave me a hearing when I came to talk to them about our campaign, and have been extremely supportive towards us.  But more importantly, because, as a retired social worker , I hate to see what is happening to families at the present moment, with many mothers failing to find enough support at the right time to enable them to look after their own children, while more and more money is being invested in the new industry of adoption placement–yes I would call it an industry, because like so many other functions of social work it is being  increasingly privatised.   So the nightmare of people losing their children when they should be able to keep them is not over.  And don’t forget, adoption is not always a happy ever after story for the children either, as my friends and myself have learned all too often from our own children, when we do manage to find out what has happened to them.

Jean Robertson-Molloy 30-1-13

To get  in touch with MAA, please e-mail  MAANPN@gmail.com

Stan Cohen was the academic who coined this phrase as he tried to understand the media and public response to the 1960’s phenomena of ‘mods and rockers’.  A series of seaside clashes between different youth gangs became identified as a major threat to the social and moral order of the time, the young people transformed into ‘folk devils’. Cohen’s fascination with the process of stereotyping and stigmatisation turned into a very influential school of criminology called ‘deviancy studies’. Although he had left social work (he had trained in his native South Africa and then worked in London), preferring what he called ‘the safer world of sociology’, many social workers were attracted to his ideas. In CASE CON, the radical magazine of the seventies, various writers railed against the process by which individuals in difficulty came to be labelled as ‘clients’ with professional interventions serving to ‘amplify’ or exaggerate that role, creating ‘deviant careers’.

In his contribution to the Bailey and Brake book, ‘Radical Social Work’ (1975) Cohen was not, however, especially impressed with how his ideas had been taken up by social workers but he does this in a comradely fashion. The chapter is worth rereading because he honestly touches on the tensions SWAN still struggle with, which is how we turn academic theories into something that can be used in our direct work with individuals. He concludes his chapter with a series of ‘suggestions’. These include the need ‘to think very concretely about how to avoid stigmatizing your clients, unwittingly facilitating their drift into further trouble, trapping them in cycles of rejection’.  One I especially warm to is his encouragement for us ‘to stay in your agency or organization, but don’t let it seduce you. Take every opportunity to unmask its pretensions and euphemisms’

And most challenging perhaps, ‘In practice and theory, stay “unfinished”. Don’t be ashamed of working for short-term humanitarian or libertarian goals, but always keep in mind the long-term political prospects. This might mean living with the uncomfortable ambiguity that your most radical work will be outside your day-to-day job’ (1975, p. 95).

 

The proposed closure of further children’s homes in Birmingham was the one cut where the moral and economic case coincided. This oft repeated claim made at Decembers Budget consultation meetings by Cllr Brigid Jones, the Cabinet member for Children and Young People, bears further critical examination.

To paraphrase the rest of her argument it is far better for young people to be in the loving care of a foster family than to be in institutional care.

There is a current programme of Children’s Homes closures in Birmingham with Chamberlain House, Fountain Road, Kings Lodge, South Acre and Viscount House due to be closed as a result of this year’s budget cuts. A cut of £3.289 million will be realised by these closures mainly through staff redundancies.

The November Cabinet report (1) on the consultation over these closures brings into question the narrative and case for this closure strategy.

At the Budget consultation meetings Councillor Jones lauded a successful recruitment campaign for foster parents in the City. But what she didn’t tell us in public was what it said in the Cabinet report that ‘there has been a rise in foster care recruitment recently but it is still uncertain as to how many foster carers will be able to care for more challenging young people.’ This is referring directly to those young people currently in the Children’s Homes identified for closure.

The failure to be able to provide alternative internal foster placements to the young people affected by the closure of their homes is further highlighted in the Report under the financial implications of these closures.

‘It is intended that £1.4million of the identified efficiencies will be re-invested to support the purchase of alternative placements for young people affected by the closures and for whom alternative placements are not available internally.’ (Para 4.2.2)

This is not a reinvestment to be used to develop and provide alternative care provision; rather £1.4m is being taken to pay for external placements and in all probability to private providers, for young people who cannot be placed within Council provision. There are also questions to be asked as to how many of these alternative placements will be in the City and how many will be foster as opposed to residential placements?

The young people concerned will face the disruption of a further move completely unrelated to their needs, although in the consultation the young people said they ‘broadly they liked the Homes, felt safe, were supported by staff and were settled.’

In challenging these budget cuts we must reject the simple narrative that residential care is bad and foster care is good. The demographic of young people looked after by the local authority is complex, with differing needs and differing histories of coming into and exiting care.

Young people who live in children’s homes tend to be older, and the age range of the young people living in the residential units in question is between 13 to 17, with an average age of 15/16 years. They may not want to go into foster care and may positively prefer residential care. It should be their choice.

In the next round of proposed closures proposed for 2013-14 important questions need to be asked about the range and balance of different types of care provision for young people in the city and likely needs of young people in the years to come. There will always be a need for high quality residential care for some young people and this should be publically provided. The debate should centre on young people’s needs and not the expediency of making cuts and Managements failure to raise standards of care in some of Birmingham’s Children’s Homes.

An activist from the West Midlands Social Work Action Network

(1) Report of the Strategic Director of Children Young People & Families on CHILDREN IN CARE STRATEGY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL HOME CLOSURES (CHAMBERLAIN HOUSE, FOUNTAIN ROAD, KINGS LODGE, SOUTH ACRE AND VISCOUNT HOUSE) 19th November 2012

Kevin Caulfield Chair Hammersmith & Fulham Coalition against Community Care Cuts said, “The announcement of the closure of the ILF is yet another nail in the coffin of the increasing numbers of disabled people being discarded into isolation, social exclusion, deteriorating health and premature death. This is more evidence that we are so far from being all in this together.”

Whereas support received through the ILF has transformed thousands of lives, local authorities are not able to provide the same level or range of support through their current systems. With central funding to local authorities being cut this can only get worse.

Current ILF recipient Jenny Hurst said she “can’t bear to think of a return to life” without the opportunities the ILF has given her. “Before I was referred for funding from the ILF I received a package of 4 hours a day, one hour for getting me up/showered and breakfasted, one hour for house work and lunch, one hour for supper and an hour to do the “put to bed”. In between times I couldn’t get a drink or use the toilet- let alone do anything meaningful with my life.” With support funded by the ILF she was able to go to university, get a full time job and become a Trustee of a charity.

ILF recipient Anne Novis who received an MBE for services to the community, said ”I employ five PA’s, their jobs will be at risk as I know and have been told I will receive less funds … from my local authority”. She added “I definitely will not be able to contribute to society, have my grandchildren over to stay, or even have a life worth living.”

The government’s decision to push ahead with their plans comes in spite of overwhelming opposition from disabled people and their families. Local Authorities have widely expressed concerns that without ring fencing there will be a loss of support for existing ILF users and for some individuals no option but to go into residential care. Given the current surge of abuse revelations concerning people placed in institutional settings such as those associated with the Winterbourne View case, it is distressing that the government is nevertheless abandoning the right for disabled people who require round the clock support to live in the community in a home of their own and with choice and control over their lives.

Notes to Editors

1)  Inclusion London is a pan-impairment organising promoting equality for London’s Deaf and disabled people.
2)  Disabled People against Cuts is a national campaign led by disabled people to oppose the attacks on disabled people’s human rights and independent living being carried out under the guise of the austerity agenda.
3)  The Independent Living Fund (ILF) was set up in 1988 to provide the additional funding disabled people needed to live at home when the alternative was residential care. 4)   The Fund which was permanently closed to new applicants in December 2010 will be shut down completely from 31 March 2015.5)   The action by the Westminster government contravenes article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People on independent living and goes against the principle of the Convention as well as against the European Convention on Human Rights
 
For more information:
Ellen Clifford,
Campaigns and Communications Officer
Inclusion London                   Tel: 07505 144371
 
Contact:
ILF recipients:
Kevin Caulfield: 07899 752877; info@hafcac.org.uk
Jenny Hurst: jennyahurst@yahoo.com
 
Solicitors representing the claimants involved in the legal challenge:
Scott-Moncrieff &Associates (Diane Astin/Kate Whittaker)
Office 7, 19 Greenwodd Place
London NW5 1LB   Tel: 020 7485 5588/07792 700825
 
Deighton Pierce Glynn (Louise Whitfield)
8 Union Street
London SE1 1SZ     Tel: 020 7407 0007

I read the details of your interview alarmingly as UKIP’s “culture, media and sport” spokesman airing your views via the Metro on gay adoption, you term as “abusive”. Perhaps your party leader Nigel Falange, UKIP leader should question his choice of spokesperson as it is clear that you have a very narrow minded and ignorant approach to the term “culture”.

It is always a debate that astounds me but never fails to rear its ugly head to catapult us back to the dark ages. Let me start by saying this, I was raised by two heterosexual, conventional parents and I am gay. Did something go wrong? No, I can’t fault my parents; I didn’t suffer a trauma to confuse my sexuality. I had, by all accounts, a conventional upbringing and just happened to be attracted to the same sex.

The “nature vs nurture” debate is a fallacy for me; if indeed sexuality is a matter of nurture then I should be attracted to and sleep with women, being raised in an exclusively heterosexual family. If, by nature, we are programmed to procreate then gay wouldn’t be; so what happened? Let’s leave the absurd behind and focus on the reality, shall we?

You stated: “To say to a child, ‘I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don’t worry about it’ – that is abuse. It is a violation of a child’s human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances. A caring loving home is a heterosexual or single family. I don’t believe [a gay couple] is healthy for a child… There are people out there who bring up their kids encouraging them to believe they are gay themselves”

Some very outlandish claims Mr McKenzie, where’s your evidence other than your own ignorance? Do you know there was a time where black people were actually considered second class citizens and made to sit at the back of the bus? Thank God for people who ACTUALLY value social justice and human rights that fought against ignorance for equality, mutual respect and dignity. How you can call yourself a Christian if you hierarchise human worth on the basis of same sex attraction? I don’t remember any of my Catholic teachings on the basics of treatment of others to be conditional?

I would consider any parent, who influences the innate sexuality of their child, by what you allude to as psychological and environmental grooming, as abusive regardless of whether the parent is heterosexual, bi-sexual or homosexual. Therefore, my view is that your statement is pathologising gay parents as ritualistic groomers of children. I, as a proud member of the gay community refuse to accept your ignorant stance on the matter.

Just for the record, a caring loving home is one with caring and loving parents, it’s that simple. Evidentially, your opinions hold no weight and quite frankly based on your own narrow-mindedness. Let me draw your attention to The Telegraph’s Tom Chivers’ blog (click for links to articles) which may enlighten you:

There has been some research into all this. A review of the literature carried out in 2002 by the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology looked at 23 studies, examining a total of 615 children of same-sex parents and 387 controls. They looked at “emotional functioning, sexual preference, stigmatization, gender role behaviour, behavioural adjustment, gender identity, and cognitive functioning” – exactly the sort of criteria we discussed above.

They found that “Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes”; more specifically, the studies “indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children”, and the same appears to be true for gay men, although more research was needed given how small their sample was.

Another review, this time from 2010 in the Journal of Marriage and Family, found that “Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers”, and that while “Average differences favour women over men … parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive”. They conclude “The gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parent-child relationships but has minor significance for children’s psychological adjustment and social success.”

A third review, published in 2008 in the journal Child Development, looked at “sexual identity, personal development, and social relationships” among children of same-sex parents, and found that “there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.”

If any child of gay parents were to develop problems as an adult, this is more likely to be due to views similar to yours and that of wider society’s intolerance and ignorance, rather than impact of same sex parentage. What we need to see is structural change and normalisation of same sex relationships.

In response to your comments Mr McKenzie, please see this video which offer you first-hand experience, to the contrary of your view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VnEexIhBTU

Written by Michael Dwyer

The original article from SEEN magazine and is accessible here: Article link

————–

For further comment from SWAN on UKIP and the recent Rotherham foster story see the SWAN statement HERE

And sign the SWAN petition ‘No to Political Point Scoring – Put Children First!’ HERE