Transparency Project post : UKIP Policy on Family Courts, which so far has produced the response from UKIP MP Douglas Carswell on twitter that it isn’t worth responding to as the Transparency Project is part of “the cartel”. *sigh*.
Elsewhere the airwaves appear full of cries of “more adoption” and “more quickly”. All semblance of nuance in the debate has disappeared in a puff of smoke, as there is now no attempt to distinguish between more finding good placements promptly for those who can’t go home and just generally removing all children from crappy parents everywhere in some kind of class cleansing. I can’t even be bothered to do a proper post about the gazillion ways in which this is legally wrong, morally bankrupt, economically stupid and socially catastrophic I am so despondent. And besides, the politicians would no doubt retort with the sneering suggestion I would say that because I am just part of a cartel. Oh, f*ck off the lot of you. Just crack on with your ill informed lawyer-bashing rabble rousing tabloidified politics.
Welcome to a new week folks.
Good morning. Who’s been letting you get to the keyboard before you get to the gin?
who said i hadn’t had any gin? 😉
If that’s what you are like after the gin what are you like before it?
you don’t want to know.
I seem to remember the last time the Government had wonderful ideas on early adoption, it all went a bit “Pete Tong”. They brought in cash incentives for Local Authorities to meet adoption targets and low and behold, the number of very young children adopted shot up (and those taken into care) as fewer people want disturbed kids, and kinship care took rather a back seat. Remember this and the outcry? It was about 2008 if I recall (and I was involved in a bit of the campaigning on this at the time).
Sadly, the number of families being supported by Social Services is going to suffer, and as a result, more children will be taken into care, kinship care avoided (due to falling LA support as budgets are cut), and younger children will be placed for adoption with all family ties severed. That’s a casualty of cuts (my local authority must find a further £19m of cuts by 2015 and 15% of the children in the county live below the poverty line).
Adults with learning difficulties, disabilities and mental health problems will lose their kids, and those kids their parents and wider family (not to mention the trauma caused by such a dramatic change… but don’t worry, children’s mental health services have been cut by 6% since 2010). We’ll see more critical judgments from Munby no doubt. Many of the older children with problems will remain in care as they’re a less desirable commodity (as happened when they brought in cash incentives for adoption).
My prediction… we’ll see an increase in very young children being placed for adoption and the Government will pat itself on the back for increasing the number of children adopted, and the speed at which it’s done.
So when I saw your ‘fuck off’ comment did I think it unfair and a bit inappropriate over my morning coffee? No. I’ll join you.
I think you’ll find I said “f*ck” not f*ck. I am a lady you know.
…and I meant to type the same. Damned auto-correct.
Low and behold… good grief… lo… bleary eyed today and have my head in meaningless HMCTS statistics (will blog on this myself today… and a fun lunch time teaser for you…
According to HMCTS statistics, how many children were subject to leave to remove applications in 2014?
a) 6
b) 2576
c) 1,345,231
Answers on a postcard to ‘Meaningless Drivel’
Oooh. Is it a)? Assume that HMCTS stats are barking and they probably undercount this sort of thing. They probably class it all as s8 most of the time.
Why it is! If they class it as a specific issue order, there is the thought “why include it in its own individual line?”