Did anyone watch the documentary 15000 kids and counting. It was on last night and it shows the process when social workers start the process of emergency care orders and adoption.
What was most shocking for me to see is that a couple was set a time frame to get certain psychological sessions with a therapist.
Firstly they had to find and pay for this therapy themselves and had no support in doing so
Secondly the time frame set was not even long enough to achieve the progress needed to even retain there children so it was impossible to begin with.
I found this fact very disturbing and I look forward to seeing further issues appear in the future episodes to spread awareness.
15000 kids and counting documentary
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
I didn't know about this programme but will search it on Sky +. The scenario you speak about from this programme is exactly what my husband and I are experiencing. The court seems to believe that anti depressants and a "one size fits all" approach is correct and in the children's best interests.
Set the bar just high enough to make it impossible for the parents' to achieve the "time frame" of therapy. We are paying private therapists a small fortune to achieve the change we need to show that we are more than "good enough" to parent our children again. Our daughter's special needs requires "enhanced parenting" says the guardian. The bar has moved yet again.
We were labelled as needing between 1 and 3 years psychotherapy by a psychologist who is no longer working for the LA back in September 2012. No one has reassessed us since.
It's not about how many sessions you have but the changes you can make within those sessions. But oh no it's 1-3 years. Settle for middle ground of 2 years. Conclusion - not within the children's timescales. They need permanency now! Search for adopters for 6 months. Last 3 of those 6 months also for long term foster carers even though we have dismissed that option it will be a good fall back.
It's like a race where the finish line keeps moving.
Set the bar just high enough to make it impossible for the parents' to achieve the "time frame" of therapy. We are paying private therapists a small fortune to achieve the change we need to show that we are more than "good enough" to parent our children again. Our daughter's special needs requires "enhanced parenting" says the guardian. The bar has moved yet again.
We were labelled as needing between 1 and 3 years psychotherapy by a psychologist who is no longer working for the LA back in September 2012. No one has reassessed us since.
It's not about how many sessions you have but the changes you can make within those sessions. But oh no it's 1-3 years. Settle for middle ground of 2 years. Conclusion - not within the children's timescales. They need permanency now! Search for adopters for 6 months. Last 3 of those 6 months also for long term foster carers even though we have dismissed that option it will be a good fall back.
It's like a race where the finish line keeps moving.
-
ange301126
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
In our case ,our daughter had been getting very high quality special needs care from birth but the social workers never questioned us as to the true facts and stated to Court that we refused professional help and support and that she was unknown to the children's disabled team.
In actual fact we had had social worker and special needs medical and educational support for years and they were well-known to the team.The Court preferred their evidence to ours and appeared not to see all the medical evidence supporting us..We had attended the special needs development centre from the age of two to four once a week and had had home portage for three years until she started at special school.All that was at our instigation.
The social workers and the guardian ,as in charmed's case claimed that 'good enough care' was not enough and the children required a high standard of care. Yes, the same cliches!
Just to prove that neither of them knew what the hell they were talking about it was ironic that theydid not and still have not made any attempt to find them a special needs placement and they have ordinary foster parents. Is that hypocracy or not?
In actual fact we had had social worker and special needs medical and educational support for years and they were well-known to the team.The Court preferred their evidence to ours and appeared not to see all the medical evidence supporting us..We had attended the special needs development centre from the age of two to four once a week and had had home portage for three years until she started at special school.All that was at our instigation.
The social workers and the guardian ,as in charmed's case claimed that 'good enough care' was not enough and the children required a high standard of care. Yes, the same cliches!
Just to prove that neither of them knew what the hell they were talking about it was ironic that theydid not and still have not made any attempt to find them a special needs placement and they have ordinary foster parents. Is that hypocracy or not?
-
ange301126
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
dear blueplain, just thought I would get a few more pennorth in before this thread disappears!
I saw part of the programme. That social workers are badly-trained and have a fundamental lack of appreciation of their statutory duty to the Children’s Act came through strongly. One key social worker didn’t seem to understand herself why she was taking such harsh decisions, knew she was imposing harm by separating children from their family and did not have a clear understanding of time-scales for children herself. She justified her actions to herself because she was following instructions made on the basis of precedent from above. The bureaucrats making the decisions had not met the family and had little knowledge of the individual circumstances. Time-scales or individual cases, as Charmed commented, should not be set on a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
The Social Workers clearly had no perception of humanity. When a young girl failed to turn up on time for contact sessions, in their minds, this justified the permanent separation of a child from its natural mother. They did not even wait to hear her explanation or of problems she might be faced with let alone examine ways in which they might help her in the spirit of the Children’s Act. They had no understanding of poverty and class differences. Admitting to having no children themselves, they had no realisation that the girl’s confusion and apparent uncaring behaviour might actually be down to their own actions. How can any woman think straight and act normally when parted from her child? The mental torture and inhumanity is immense. The effects cannot be over-estimated. Maybe disturbance to her sleep patterns had caused her to lose a normal sense of time. Maybe she was in so much mental turmoil, her memory was affected and she was not keeping a diary as she normally would. Maybe she falls to pieces when venturing outdoors. How many times do Social Workers miss diary appointments? Perhaps the stress had got on top of her and lacking a support network (or adequate advice and encouragement from the department) she was in despair and had taken to the bottle or taken a sleeping draught.
Taking a child away from his or her mother is inhumanity of the first degree. Are these awful people human? Apparently not.
Historically, even when families are seen as totally uncivilised by society, as in the case of aborigines and American Indians, the authorities have recognised their basic human right to dwell together. They have been lodged in reservations. The placement for adoption of Australian aboriginal children was outlawed long ago for reasons of humanity. The human right of a child to a family life with natural parents is absolutely the essence of universal law and our domestic Children’s Act decrees that a child is always better off living with its natural family! Polish Jews during World War Two were housed in ghettos together. During that war children were only separated from their families by S.S. criminals when taken to death camps and ‘selected’ for work or the gas-chamber. I know that by referring to these historic issues, I lay myself open to accusations of ‘ranting and raving’. In fact I am merely trying to convey the criminality and corruption which prevails at the CS. It does not work in sync with the Children’s Act or basic Human Rights laws. What is to stop the CS from housing children in institutions together with their mothers and fathers? Although harsh, such methods would be more humane and much less expensive than the current system. Solutions lie in supervision, education and training of families not in their permanent dissolution and extinction. The social workers in the programme had no sense that, by law, it is their duty to ‘save and protect’ children by keeping families together if necessary with support. They suffered from the delusion that they were ‘saving’ children by taking them into the ‘half-life’ of the care-system. I have referred to this false, monolithic, belief before and it is one that is obviously still well set in the minds of these so-called ‘child rescuers’. The Children’s Act recognises that removal into care is harmful to children but the myth that removal is more beneficial and kinder to a child remains and must be eradicated. If a social worker removes a child from his natural parent/s, he has failed in his duty. They misconstrue their roles fundamentally. That is bad management and bad training. Or corruption from on high.
Another issue which came across in the T.V. programme was the problem faced by the father involved. He explained at the end how absolutely stunned he was at the way his family had been treated and how upset he was that his voice had not been heard. He was mystified as to the ‘proportionality’ of CS actions given the circumstances but recognised it was useless trying to put his point over.
When apparently he raised his voice at meetings, he was ejected and it was judged by social workers that he is incapable of caring for children and that he was to have no further involvement. Was that decision in proportion to the circumstances and was it humane?
I would say the CS demonstrated bad management and poor training again. Practical child-care is traditionally the domain of mothers and a father may appear to have little understanding of some issues involved to women. In my experience social workers, guardians, children’s legal panel solicitors and other child-protection professionals are predominantly female. When dealing with fathers, they cannot be entirely objective as they appear to have a lack of understanding of them, particularly the younger inexperienced professionals. If a man raises his voice marginally, in order to make himself heard amongst a panel of ladies, it not only raises their hackles but their distrustful and adversarial instincts. It causes them to cringe visibly from him and become affected unnecessarily. If a man even alters the intonation of his voice, he faces a level of discrimination from the women involved. In fact he is only acting naturally. A male professional would not be at all bothered or intimidated by him. Thus men should be interviewed and assessed by other men. A woman might be oversensitive and report ‘aggression’ which is not actually present. Fathers are only human too and they can become mystified and frustrated by events as they unfold before them.He is bound to be protective towards his family and frustration should be expected of him; no way should it be judged that ‘children can’t live with their parents’ just because he protests at separation or raises his voice. Such an assessment lacks realism, especially when the women present are cackling on and altering their intonation as often as they like at will. If he is ejected from proceedings and his voice is not heard, it is also not fully informed.
Here is another point. We live in a cosmopolitan society and in some cultures it is expected that fathers take on a commanding and somewhat dominating attitude towards their wives and families not to mention other women. Do social workers understand diverse cultures fully? Are the majority of child-protection professionals able to make objective judgments of fathers? On the evidence of 15000 KIDS AND COUNTING, the answer is no!
I saw part of the programme. That social workers are badly-trained and have a fundamental lack of appreciation of their statutory duty to the Children’s Act came through strongly. One key social worker didn’t seem to understand herself why she was taking such harsh decisions, knew she was imposing harm by separating children from their family and did not have a clear understanding of time-scales for children herself. She justified her actions to herself because she was following instructions made on the basis of precedent from above. The bureaucrats making the decisions had not met the family and had little knowledge of the individual circumstances. Time-scales or individual cases, as Charmed commented, should not be set on a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
The Social Workers clearly had no perception of humanity. When a young girl failed to turn up on time for contact sessions, in their minds, this justified the permanent separation of a child from its natural mother. They did not even wait to hear her explanation or of problems she might be faced with let alone examine ways in which they might help her in the spirit of the Children’s Act. They had no understanding of poverty and class differences. Admitting to having no children themselves, they had no realisation that the girl’s confusion and apparent uncaring behaviour might actually be down to their own actions. How can any woman think straight and act normally when parted from her child? The mental torture and inhumanity is immense. The effects cannot be over-estimated. Maybe disturbance to her sleep patterns had caused her to lose a normal sense of time. Maybe she was in so much mental turmoil, her memory was affected and she was not keeping a diary as she normally would. Maybe she falls to pieces when venturing outdoors. How many times do Social Workers miss diary appointments? Perhaps the stress had got on top of her and lacking a support network (or adequate advice and encouragement from the department) she was in despair and had taken to the bottle or taken a sleeping draught.
Taking a child away from his or her mother is inhumanity of the first degree. Are these awful people human? Apparently not.
Historically, even when families are seen as totally uncivilised by society, as in the case of aborigines and American Indians, the authorities have recognised their basic human right to dwell together. They have been lodged in reservations. The placement for adoption of Australian aboriginal children was outlawed long ago for reasons of humanity. The human right of a child to a family life with natural parents is absolutely the essence of universal law and our domestic Children’s Act decrees that a child is always better off living with its natural family! Polish Jews during World War Two were housed in ghettos together. During that war children were only separated from their families by S.S. criminals when taken to death camps and ‘selected’ for work or the gas-chamber. I know that by referring to these historic issues, I lay myself open to accusations of ‘ranting and raving’. In fact I am merely trying to convey the criminality and corruption which prevails at the CS. It does not work in sync with the Children’s Act or basic Human Rights laws. What is to stop the CS from housing children in institutions together with their mothers and fathers? Although harsh, such methods would be more humane and much less expensive than the current system. Solutions lie in supervision, education and training of families not in their permanent dissolution and extinction. The social workers in the programme had no sense that, by law, it is their duty to ‘save and protect’ children by keeping families together if necessary with support. They suffered from the delusion that they were ‘saving’ children by taking them into the ‘half-life’ of the care-system. I have referred to this false, monolithic, belief before and it is one that is obviously still well set in the minds of these so-called ‘child rescuers’. The Children’s Act recognises that removal into care is harmful to children but the myth that removal is more beneficial and kinder to a child remains and must be eradicated. If a social worker removes a child from his natural parent/s, he has failed in his duty. They misconstrue their roles fundamentally. That is bad management and bad training. Or corruption from on high.
Another issue which came across in the T.V. programme was the problem faced by the father involved. He explained at the end how absolutely stunned he was at the way his family had been treated and how upset he was that his voice had not been heard. He was mystified as to the ‘proportionality’ of CS actions given the circumstances but recognised it was useless trying to put his point over.
When apparently he raised his voice at meetings, he was ejected and it was judged by social workers that he is incapable of caring for children and that he was to have no further involvement. Was that decision in proportion to the circumstances and was it humane?
I would say the CS demonstrated bad management and poor training again. Practical child-care is traditionally the domain of mothers and a father may appear to have little understanding of some issues involved to women. In my experience social workers, guardians, children’s legal panel solicitors and other child-protection professionals are predominantly female. When dealing with fathers, they cannot be entirely objective as they appear to have a lack of understanding of them, particularly the younger inexperienced professionals. If a man raises his voice marginally, in order to make himself heard amongst a panel of ladies, it not only raises their hackles but their distrustful and adversarial instincts. It causes them to cringe visibly from him and become affected unnecessarily. If a man even alters the intonation of his voice, he faces a level of discrimination from the women involved. In fact he is only acting naturally. A male professional would not be at all bothered or intimidated by him. Thus men should be interviewed and assessed by other men. A woman might be oversensitive and report ‘aggression’ which is not actually present. Fathers are only human too and they can become mystified and frustrated by events as they unfold before them.He is bound to be protective towards his family and frustration should be expected of him; no way should it be judged that ‘children can’t live with their parents’ just because he protests at separation or raises his voice. Such an assessment lacks realism, especially when the women present are cackling on and altering their intonation as often as they like at will. If he is ejected from proceedings and his voice is not heard, it is also not fully informed.
Here is another point. We live in a cosmopolitan society and in some cultures it is expected that fathers take on a commanding and somewhat dominating attitude towards their wives and families not to mention other women. Do social workers understand diverse cultures fully? Are the majority of child-protection professionals able to make objective judgments of fathers? On the evidence of 15000 KIDS AND COUNTING, the answer is no!
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
I have now found the programme on Sky+ from last Thursday. It appears that it is one of three programmes shown over three consecutive weeks. Week 2 concentrates on a 2 year old boy and a brother and sister. The latter is too close to home for me. I will have to choose my moment to watch them.
-
heartbrokenfather
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:38 am
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
Been commenting on this article about the program. I think it's important to spread awareness
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... qus_thread
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... qus_thread
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
Thank you blueplain for adding the link to this thread. I haven't watched the 1st programme yet. Not sure I want to as the comments suggest it is biased in the ss favour. I've had all I can take of them and their lies.
-
ange301126
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Re: 15000 kids and counting documentary
Dear Blueplain, Shall I be the first to comment on thursday night's episode?
These reality t.v.programmes are invaluable and this one exposed the ethos of adoption and the idea that social services put the interests of children paramount as what they are. Mythical!
1. 0nly natural parents put children before themselves.Adoptive parents put their own needs first. No genuine parent or would-be mum and dad would reject a suffering child on the grounds of age or medical condition. It is inhumane.Anyone with true compassion would take a disadvantaged child in before a normal one .Would Mother Theresa walk away from a suffering child?
2.Social worker dishonesty to Courts revealed. The programme showed that, in truth the social workers in the documentary were perfectly well aware that the odds on finding adoptive parents for older or disadvantaged children within reasonable time-scales are unrealistic.In fact they knew they are almost non-existent. Why don't they testify honestly that the better option for children lies with parents who are able to meet reasonable time scales?
3.Social workers brainwash children! Revealed.It was shown how they do it and how they plant moonshine into their little minds.The social workers even supply specially made picture books to support it. The foster-carers were asking which type is best? Adoptive mum or foster mum and the child answered excitedly "Adoptive" . Not once were children asked "would you prefer your real mum?" That idea is cleansed from their minds cruelly by the same methods as early as possible.
4.Social worker bureaucrats exposed as incompetent, They were using box -ticking methods to examine prospective adoptors and place children,Many prospective mums were binned because they preferred a one year old. They were taken completely by surprise when the little boy did get placed.
What do others think?
These reality t.v.programmes are invaluable and this one exposed the ethos of adoption and the idea that social services put the interests of children paramount as what they are. Mythical!
1. 0nly natural parents put children before themselves.Adoptive parents put their own needs first. No genuine parent or would-be mum and dad would reject a suffering child on the grounds of age or medical condition. It is inhumane.Anyone with true compassion would take a disadvantaged child in before a normal one .Would Mother Theresa walk away from a suffering child?
2.Social worker dishonesty to Courts revealed. The programme showed that, in truth the social workers in the documentary were perfectly well aware that the odds on finding adoptive parents for older or disadvantaged children within reasonable time-scales are unrealistic.In fact they knew they are almost non-existent. Why don't they testify honestly that the better option for children lies with parents who are able to meet reasonable time scales?
3.Social workers brainwash children! Revealed.It was shown how they do it and how they plant moonshine into their little minds.The social workers even supply specially made picture books to support it. The foster-carers were asking which type is best? Adoptive mum or foster mum and the child answered excitedly "Adoptive" . Not once were children asked "would you prefer your real mum?" That idea is cleansed from their minds cruelly by the same methods as early as possible.
4.Social worker bureaucrats exposed as incompetent, They were using box -ticking methods to examine prospective adoptors and place children,Many prospective mums were binned because they preferred a one year old. They were taken completely by surprise when the little boy did get placed.
What do others think?
Who is online
In total there are 9 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 9 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 318 on Fri May 28, 2021 9:04 pm