Concurrent fostercarers can adopt babies under 2

Wilson, A (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Kent County Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Kent County Council.

Wilson, A (Account suspended)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for confirming via the whatdotheyknow site that concurrent foster carers have all
gone on to adopt children aged under 2.

This hardly seems to be a service provided for 'parents' unless of
course you were referring to 'adoptive' parents. It seems to be an
excellent way of ensuring that 'adoptive' parents receive a baby or
at worst a toddler rather than an older child languishing in 'care'
as it was designed.

Can you please explain why Kent County Council has such a low age
threshold.

Yours faithfully,

Wilson, A

Kent County Council

Dear A Wilson

Thank you for your email.

I acknowledge your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Assuming we hold this information, I will endeavour
to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later
than 21st August 2009 (20 working days from date of receipt).

I will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for providing
the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/09/827 - in any
communication regarding this particular request.

Best regards
Corporate Access to Information Team, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room 1.94, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 696265 or 01622 694261 - Fax: 01622 694383
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...

show quoted sections

Kent County Council

Dear A Wilson

Thank you for your request for information made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

The East Kent Concurrency Team was developed in 2004 as a direct result of
growing concerns around:

o The numbers and management of `at risk' babies/young children.
o Young children remaining in the care system for a significant time
before the future plan was implemented.
o Where the directorate may have predicted at an early stage (sometimes
pre birth) that adoption would need to be considered as a possible
outcome.
o Lack of work with birth families to prevent repetition of the cycle.
o Early attachment and the impact of attachment disruption.

With the above in mind then the need for an `intense' service for birth
parents was developed and the age range carefully thought out to meet the
needs of this growing number of particularly vulnerable babies and young
children.

The main aim of concurrency is to achieve early permanence for babies and
young children. The concurrency team provides an intensive multi-agency
approach of support for birth parents with the work focussing on
facilitating change. This provides the opportunity for parents to work
towards successfully parenting their children. Two very young children
were returned to the care of their birth parents during 2008 having been
placed with concurrency carers for a period of six months. This clearly is
a risk for the concurrency carers looking after the child; however this is
fully explained prior to their approval as `concurrency carers' and their
role supported by the team.

Concurrency carers are also encouraged to meet birth parents at each
contact. By encouraging this, the outcome for birth parents has been
knowledge of the people who will be adopting their child and a higher
probability of some type of post adoption contact either direct or
indirect.

Misconceptions about birth parents is usually alleviated by these meetings
for the concurrency carers for the child and again through the messages
they receive in later life (through the use of life story work and from
carers themselves) enables the child to hold realistic information rather
than creating `fantasy birth parents' as may be the case in Closed
Adoptions.

If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with legislation, please ask for a review by following our complaints
process; details can be found at this link
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
on our website. Please quote reference FOI/09/827.

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Regards

Michelle Hunt
Access to Information Co-ordinator
Communication & Information Governance
Children, Families & Education Directorate
Kent County Council
Room 2.35, Sessions House
Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XQ
External: 01622 696692
Internal: 7000 6692
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Wilson, A (Account suspended)

Dear Michelle Hunt,

Thank you for confirming that Kent County Council create "fantasy birth parents in Closed Adoptions" as I am sure you are aware, these occur in Closed Family Courts, hidden from the Public's gaze.

Please supply the section of East Kent Concurrency Team's policy which states this service was to be provided for pre-birth /babies/very young children aged under 2.

Which Government directive this was taken from; as this does not appear in-line with Government Policy for OLDER children languishing in 'care'

It is interesting to note that only 2 children were returned to their parents in 2008, can you please explain why this figure is so low,and if this is a reflection of current and previous yearly figures?

Yours faithfully,

Wilson, A

Kent County Council

Dear A Wilson

Thank you for your email.

I acknowledge your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Assuming we hold this information, I will
endeavour to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later
than 21 September 2009 (20 working days from date of receipt).

I will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for
providing the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/09/965 - in
any communication regarding this particular request.

Best regards

Michelle Hunt
Access to Information Co-ordinator
Communication & Information Governance
Children, Families & Education Directorate
Kent County Council
Room 2.35, Sessions House
Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XQ
External: 01622 696692
Internal: 7000 6692
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections

Ms S Foster (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust. Baroness Hale of Richmond. Judgement

34. There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course, the most draconian interference with family life possible.

Although kinship placements are supposed to be the preferred option in this country, only 1 per cent. of social worker-instigated placements ended up with kinship carers, compared with 45 per cent. in Denmark, for example(EVIDENCE given in parliament June 16th 2008 by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)

Mr B Gerrish (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...

Will be interesting to see if Medway Family Court takes any notice of Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall's criticisms, the latter ordered his comments to be circulated to family courts and adoption agencies across the land.
(Could his comments be referring to the Law of the Land)

The Lords appear to recognize that there is a clear difference between the LAW and legal child kidnap; there cannot be Lawful child kidnap.

Kent County Council

Dear A Wilson

Under Section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, an applicant
must provide their real name for a request to be valid and fall under the
scope of the Act. I have been looking at your outstanding requests for
information namely...

Freedom of Information request - Bonds/Liens - lodged with Kent County
Council - our reference FOI/09/917
Freedom of Information request - Percentage of care orders approved - our
reference FOI/09/940
Freedom of Information request - Internal child protection review 2009 -
independent or not ? - our reference FOI/09/964
Freedom of Information request - Concurrent fostercarers can adopt babies
under 2 - - our reference FOI/09/965

... and I have good reason to believe that A Wilson is not your real
name and that you are in fact utilising the name of a Kent Council Council
employee involved in children's social work.

KCC will therefore not proceed to consider the above requests, or any
further requests for information by you, or deal with any requests for
review until you are able to provide me with authentic identification
which verifies you are A Wilson, for example an original utility
bill showing your full name and postal address. On receipt of such
evidence, I will progress your requests and will of course be happy to
return any documentation to you without keeping a copy on file. If your
name really is A Wilson, I apologise in advance for any inconvenience
that providing proof of identity may cause you.

If you are unhappy with this decision, and object to providing proof that
you are using your real name, you can appeal to the Information
Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000. Details of what you need to do, should you wish to pursue this
course of action, are available from the Information Commissioner's
website [1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room 1.94, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 694383
[2]http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...
2. http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...

Wilson, A (Account suspended)

Dear Caroline Dodge,

This really is taking the biscuit,Kent County Council will stoop to
any lengths to avoid answering valid questions.

Please provide valid proof,to back up your conclusions/delusions
and state why you have suddenly made this decision out of the blue
, after having no problem answering others???

Yours faithfully,

Wilson, A

John Harris (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

How sad and shocking, families being destroyed forever in secret,
Are there any decent judges out there, or are the authorities out of control?
It is simply disgraceful.

http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...

MEDWAY COUNTY FAMILY COURT 7th- 15th September 2009

Ex-Tory Councillor grandchildren Elle-May ,Ruby, Lacey, Poppy Williams-Piper being stolen for forced adoption by Kent County Council(Tory run)

Everyone welcome,ring side seats available for the press, come meet your local SS workers, not to be missed ,why not make it a regular event!

Wilson, A (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2qzk8S10

if this is how many families say so-called child protection workers operate, is it any wonder they target babies

T Quinn (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iFSL2u_kgw

this is so sad , another nanna saying good bye to her stolen grandchild

Wilson, A (Account suspended)

Dear Caroline Dodge,

Please note under the freedom of information act a reply is still awaited.

FOIA

Under section 1 subsection (1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all public authorities have a "duty to confirm or deny" the existence of requested information. Any information that does exist must be provided, under section 1 subsection (1)(b), unless exempt from disclosure, in which case the response must explain the reasons for withholding it.

Kind regards

Wilson, A

Kent County Council

Dear A Wilson

Thank you for your four reminders.

For a request for information to fall under the scope of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, the applicant must use their real name. Kent County
Council does not believe you are using your real name and until you
provide proof of your identity as previously requested, KCC is under no
obligation to consider your requests or respond to these or any future
communications. If you believe the Council is acting unlawfully, you
should appeal to the Information Commissioner, whose contact details have
already been provided to you.

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room 1.94, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 694383
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...

References

Visible links
1. http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...

Ms Chadwick (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...

Concurrent planning: birth parent contact can distress babies
Research by children's charity Coram finds frequent contact with birth parents can disrupt babies' routines
Camilla Pemberton
Monday 02 November 2009 10:56
High levels of contact between birth parents and babies in concurrent planning placements should be discouraged due to the stress it causes the babies, finds research by children's charity Coram.

Concurrent planning reduces disruption for children in care by placing them with foster carers who have been approved to adopt if the child cannot return to its birth parents.

Research for Coram by Jenny Kenrick, a child psychotherapist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, found frequent contact with birth parents disrupted babies' routines.

The study, which examined the impact of contact on babies under 10 months, also found that they became distressed when separated from their carers.

As a result, Coram is calling on family courts and local authorities to take a "flexible" approach to the frequency and timing of contact.

“We are committed to the importance of supporting and maintaining continuing contact for babies and their birth families during care proceedings. But in the light of this research we believe courts and local authorities should re-evaluate the impact this may have on emotionally fragile babies that need stability," said Jeanne Kaniuk, head of adoption at Coram.

"The timing and frequency of contact should be carefully considered in individual cases to ensure that the parents maintain their relationship with the baby and can demonstrate their capacity to parent their child, which is essential for the court assessment, whilst also ensuring that the babies’ needs for stability and routine are respected," she added.

Kenrick stressed the importance of considering both the short and long-term impact of "intensive contact" on infants, after the study found that infants who experienced difficulties in concurrency placements found it more difficult to establish routines or start playgroups and school.

"The children are always the most vulnerable in the triad of birth parent, carer and child in contact. An infant is particularly vulnerable and is at the most crucial stage in its emotional and neurological development," Kenrick said.

She said her recent study - which will appear in the January 2010 edition of Adoption and Fostering - presents an opportunity to consider some of these infants' needs and "how any findings may be extrapolated to the needs of infants in contact in the general care population".

In the white paper Care Matters: Time for Change, the Department for Children, Schools and Families said it wanted to see greater use of concurrent planning.
ms hope is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message