Adopted in the UK

The life of a UK adoptee

Posts Tagged ‘Staffordshire

Taking newborns

with 8 comments

I first started this post in reaction to 6th March’s Daily Wail Mail article, social workers arrived at hospital to take woman’s baby while she was in labour.

A mother is demanding an apology from social services after her baby was taken away from her as soon as she was born.

Kelly McWilliams, 36, claims that social workers arrived at her bedside while she was in labour and took her newborn daughter Victoria into foster care.

I’d already posted about this subject before (AMBER ALERT! Missing child snatched!) and wanted to look at it in more depth. However, due to my entire crapness at getting things done, the post has been sat here as one of my many unfinished drafts.

Friday just gone (5th April), there appeared yet another post about a Social Services (Staffordshire, again) snatching (literally) a newborn from its mom. This time, it’s an extremely harrowing video showing the newborn being snatched from its screaming mom’s arms.

Sadly, this is the same family as appeared in my previous reblog where the SWers were waiting in the delivery suite for the mom to give birth so they could take the baby away from its mom straight away.

While I, like all the other adoptee advocates I know who’re campaigning for changes to the Institution of Adoption, realise there are people out there who’re harmful to the wellbeing of the children they create, I am absolutely convinced that unless a newborn is in immediate physical danger from its mom, then it should not be removed at birth.

Heck, it’s even advised that puppies are kept with their moms for up to the first eight weeks, or else there is a greater risk of separation anxiety, yet Social Services (and especially Staffordshire) – despite all the evidence of the need of babies for THEIR OWN mothers – in their accumulated ‘wisdom’ are happy to wade in and disrupt those very important early weeks.

SWers cite “concerns” for the baby’s welfare for actions such as this, yet unless those “concerns” are that the mom will be an IMMEDIATE threat to the baby’s physical safety, these SWers are acting contrary to scietific research that demonstrates why newborns should NOT be removed from their mother.

I’d already done the following research when I first started this post, and so because I’ve got to go out, and because I want to get this done in time for inclusion in this week’s #WASO hosted by The Boy’s Behaviour, I’m leaving you with the list of posts that I’d already filtered through that relate to those important first weeks in which yes, even people NEED THEIR OWN moms UNLESS that mom is going to be an immediate physical danger to the kid.

The First Hour Following Birth: Don’t Wake the Mother!

The First Hour After Birth: A Baby’s 9 Instinctive Stages

Care Practice #6: No Separation of Mother and Baby, With Unlimited Opportunities for Breastfeeding

Ms McWilliams, from Scawthorpe, Doncaster, says that she was separated from her baby for three months and allowed to see her for only six hours a week under close supervision until a court ordered that Victoria should be returned to her mother.

The Fourth Trimester – AKA: Why Your Newborn is Only Happy in Your Arms

Developmental milestones: Separation and independence

Attachment And Separation: What Everyone Should Know

Margaret Mahler and Separation-Individuation Theory

The Mother-Baby Bond @ Scientific American

Pre and Peri-Natal Psychology: An Introduction Part 1 by Thomas R. Verny MD, D.Psych, DHL, FRCPC

Found some videos by Dr. Thomas Verny on prenatal and perinatal psychology. I found them very interesting. It’s too bad this stuff isn’t common knowledge.

Part 1:
Part 2:

UPDATE: 12 April

There’s been another video released; Father Of Snatched Baby Speaks Out

Paul Roberts and his wife Asha had their one day old baby taken last week by Staffordshire Social Services personnel assisted by the police. He spoke to Brian Gerrish about the circumstances on today’s UK Column Live.

ARTICLE | APRIL 11, 2013 – 5:23PM

UPDATE: 06 September

In an effort to protect their own villainous behaviour, Staffordshire SS attempted to get the first video in this post banned. Thankfully, as reported in the much maligned Daily Fail, I mean Wail, um Mail, sensibility has prevailed, and it’s now no longer banned.

Written by 7rin

Sun, 7 April, 2013 at 3:30 pm

AMBER ALERT! Missing child snatched!

with 2 comments

While this isn’t my re-blog blog, I am re-blogging this particular post as it details the most horrific of crimes, perpetrated by those who are SUPPOSED TO be responsible for protecting the young. The actions demonsrated within this post are abhorrent. For me, today, they are especially appalling, as – for part of my research – I have again been reading some of Nancy Verrier’s words on the neural and limbic connections forming in the newborn, and the necessary dependence of the baby upon its mother.

I simply do not have the words to describe how utterly sickened this action has made me feel, and how horrified I am for the poor baby whose only want, need, and desire is for ITS OWN MOTHER!

This is a heinous crime, perpetuated against one of the youngest members of our planet!!

Staffordshire Social Services

Thi is the picture of  JENNY Sahota social worker waiting in delivery suite to snatch child.      AMBER ALERT mising child snatched from delivery suite at Burton Hospital by Marian Richards et al team denying a child of its breastmilk is against the childs HUMAN RIGHTS justice munby. Image

View original post

Written by 7rin

Fri, 27 April, 2012 at 12:35 am

Aidan Burley, MP letters

with one comment

Back in 2010, I wrote the Let the battle commence post, detailing my quest for adoptee specific psychological support. Well it took over a year, but in December 2011, I finally got myself along to visit Aidan Burley, MP‘s The Help Zone, in order to try to get my local MP on the case.

The following is the reply that I hand delivered to The Help Zone this morning for them to pass on to Aidan, and is answering a letter he sent me.

… … … …

Dear Mr Burley

Thank you for your letter, dated 10 February 2012, in response to my enquiries at The Help Zone, Cannock.

I also offer my thanks to you for writing to the Chief Executive at Staffordshire County Council, to ask him what support Staffordshire County Council may be able to provide. However, I was somewhat perturbed to find that you consider a complete lack of appropriate support for adults who were adopted as children to be able to be passed off simply as me feeling there is “not enough”. Yes, I admit that I do consider the complete lack of appropriate support to be “not enough”.

AB: Current provision focuses on supporting families and children, because if any issues can be addressed early on, this will undoubtedly be beneficial for those children as they become adults.
In which case, perhaps you should be listening to the voices of those who have actually experienced what it is you are doing to these children – if you are as keen to prevent trauma in them as you suggest. Or is it just that you want to avoid the childhood traumas, whilst turning your backs on the traumas experienced by adults as a direct result of what you are doing to the children, since you are only interested in what the children show at that time?

Please understand that my irate tone stems from the fact that you reference children only. While yes, we were once adopted children, we are now adopted adults. And many of us were adopted when the current provisions for children were not in place. Adult adoptees need the support now that was unavailable when we were children. This seems to the point you are missing; the importance of providing counselling to those of us who did not benefit from the “current provisions to support families & children”. We come from the dark ages when we were not encouraged by anyone to talk about our feelings on adoption which is, I believe at least part of the reason that adoption is promoted to such a great extent. If we had been given a voice back then instead of having to get to a certain age before gaining perspective, confidence to speak out about how we feel, maybe people would have started listening a long time ago. Maybe.

AB: I appreciate your wider concerns regarding the approach of this Government to adoption. Given your own experiences, it is only natural that you would be cautious.
I would be intrigued to find out what you believe my experiences to be, given that you think they would make me naturally cautious of this Government’s approach to adoption, if you would be willing to share such fantasising with me? Unfortunately, the truth is far more mundane, as I have experienced nothing more than an average adoption story.

Or is it that you realise that someone who has been legally severed from their own history may actually see through the bullshit of Martin Narey suggesting that abandonment to adoption actually be encouraged amongst pregnant women? Maybe you recognise that as an adoptee, I would not agree to an adoptee so acquiescent to adoptive parents that he puts their needs above those of the adoptee (Martin Gove) purporting to speak for me?

AB: However I would like to reassure you that the Government places the utmost importance on the wellbeing of children…
Only to discard them as adults, it seems.

AB: … it is for this reason that a common-sense approach must be taken towards the adoption and foster care system.
I vehemently disagree that the disorganised, non-systematic “common sense” approach (often subscribing to inarticulate and ineffable knowledge) must be taken towards the adoption and foster care systems (they should be separate systems, not interchangeable). Rather, I propose a more scientific approach should be taken that examines all of the detail available – detail that by necessity includes the narrative of adults who were themselves adopted whilst children. It is only by following the more rigorous models of scientific thinking that the wellbeing of the children who are currently experiencing the system, as well as the wellbeing of the adults they will become, can be maximised. This would further reduce dependency by adults, as contemporary adoptees would then be far less liable to echo the path taken by those like myself who are still suffering.

AB: The Government is increasing transparency of information available to local authorities, to help identify which areas are struggling with children in care, allowing us to challenge their performance, while helping them to learn from councils that are performing better. Under these new rules, tough action is to be taken on local authorities that are failing in their basic responsibilities to deal with adoption cases swiftly and efficiently.
Please explain to me why the Government believes that speeding up the severance of a child from its own history should be commended, whilst preventing such a devastating loss is seen as something to be punished?

Further, I would appreciate an explanation of why under these new rules, adoptees still are unable to have their own adoption over-turned or annulled or abolished or rescinded or obliterated or quashed or destroyed in the same way that their adoption destroyed their original history. See, the problem is that no matter what else happens to us throughout our lives, we remain adopted. Despite the fact that it is now possible to have a new birth certificate issued in a different gender, and despite the fact that it is possible to marry and then divorce, the fact remains that once an adoptee, always an adoptee – which means that we can no longer use our own original birth certificates.

AB: Government policies will increase the amount of money prescribed to each child in the system fourfold over the next three years, ensuring there is much more support available in the future.
Is this support also available to parents who are supporting and caring for their own biological children? If not, is this not simply the Government promoting a false economy of welfare by paying other people more to raise children that could be sustained within their own households, were they to be given the same support?

AB: I support measures to address the current over-complicated system, which puts many families off from adopting, and deprives children of the chance to be part of a loving and stable family.
Unfortunately, you are conflating issues. It is not essential – nor even important – to legally severe a child from its heritage in order for that child to be raised in love, and with care and concern. That adoption is deemed the only choice to be encouraged – even above non-destructive methods such as “legal guardianship” or “parental responsibility” (perhaps the laws governing PR could be widened to provide such permanence, for example) indicates grossly this Government’s intent on destroying families.

Adoption is a cruel and unnecessary legalised lie that enforces gross socialisations on the developing adoptee. Legally annihilating our history is nothing more than punishment of the child for the sins of the parent.

AB: Please do not hesitate to let me know if there is anything further I can do to support you, and I will let you know of any response I receive from the County Council as soon as possible.
Again, thank you for the latter. For the former, I would appreciate it were you to be willing to enter into a dialogue in order that I may help you better understand the dilemmas faced by adoptees – after all, what is the point in ‘saving us’, if the cure is more deadly than the disease.

Yours sincerely

Written by 7rin

Fri, 16 March, 2012 at 9:00 pm

Let the battle commence

leave a comment »

I have, since entering reunion in September 2009, been attempting to get some suitable post-adoption counselling to try to help me cope with all the traumas thrown up by entering reunion.

My first point of call was my local General Practitioner, who forwarded me to the local Community Psychiatric Nurse in order to assess my needs. Luckily for me, I understand much of what I do need, and so was able to be relatively precise in detailing the support I was looking for. The C.P.N. was – as is usual, in my experience – fantastic, and passed me on to a group called Chase Wellbeing.

C.W. is a group created in order to best direct people to the appropriate counselling necessary, however, as was evidenced by my meeting with the counsellor they deemed appropriate for my needs, they have absolutely no clue about how to handle post-adoption support – to the point where I told the counsellor I saw that she should NEVER attempt to counsel post-adoption adoptees needing help, as it’s entirely likely her help would do the opposite, and push them over the edge. As I told her, she appeared to be quoting verbatim the book 101 things not to say to an adoptee. By mutual agreement, it was concluded that C.W. would not be able to help me, and that I should go back to my G.P. in order to find some help that would actually help, as opposed to hinder.

After a couple of months break, I finally got around to going back to my local G.P. the other week. Yet again, I walked in knowing exactly what it was I was looking for, and this time, said G.P. agreed to write to on my behalf.

The wonderful J at Adoption Support telephoned me on Friday – the same day she got the letter from my G.P. – to tell me that she’d had the letter, and had spoke to my local G.P.’s Practice Manager, who was going to be calling her back today to let her know whether or not they (the G.P.’s practice) would be willing to fund the counselling that I know damn well that I need.

J called me back today to say that my local G.P.’s P.M. has decided to refuse to fund the counselling that I need, and so now I’m trying to plot what I need to do next.

The first couple on the list are the obvious:

J has agreed to send me a letter explaining that the funding isn’t going to be made available, so that I’ve got her contact details in order to include them with everything I may have to do in the future in order to obtain the funding for the post-adoption support that I need.

I need to write to my local G.P.’s Practice Manager in order to try to convince them that they really should support me with funding for the post-adoption counselling that I so desperately need. Unfortunately, I can’t see this gaining me much in the way of success, which means I then need to move on to …

Writing to Staffordshire Health Authority, in much the same vein as the letter to the G.P.’s P.M., in order to convince them to fund my application for counselling. Again, I can’t see this working magnificently – especially knowing the startling record Staffordshire have against people in their care.

I’d love to’ve linked you to the Staffordshire Social Services blog @ WordPress in order to demonstrate Staff’s appalling record, unfortunately, the blog’s been locked down now, and so I can’t – but if you’re the owner of said blog, PLEASE get in touch because I suspect you may be able to help me in the future, if things pan out the way I expect them to.

Next option, if writing to S.H.A. fails, is to get in touch with my local M.P. and/or Councillor (I’m not certain on the differences between the two, so if anyone can help clarify if they’re one-in-the-same, or two totally different roles, that’d be appreciated) and see if they can help me, however, I suspect that many of them won’t have a clue about the intricacies necessary in dealing with post-adoption support, and so I suspect I’ll be on my own from this point on, which is why I’m making this list so that I’ve actually got a clue of where I can go and what I can do whilst it’s still fresh in my mind.

From here then, it’s going to be a case of rallying as much support as I can possibly manage, and I’m almost hoping that it does get as far as the stage where I need to take it beyond all realms of decency in my fight to get the appropriate counselling I need, because if I can and do, then I can help spread the word that adoption is NOT all about living in the rainbow-farting unicorn fog, and that adoption DOES hurt the people it is supposed to be there to help – the adoptees … and the louder and more vocal I can spread that word, the more likely I am to be able to help drive the changes needed within the system to help make it better for the adoptees of the future.

Written by 7rin

Mon, 9 August, 2010 at 1:47 pm

%d bloggers like this: