well the thing is me and my wife have had our 2 boys taken into foster care and the local authority made us put up our children for adoption we forced to by the courts we had no choice we will never get to see our little boys ever again. and also we have our 3 month old baby in the process of care system and we are fighting to keep him. we are also fighting to go into a residential unit with him to prove that we are good parents. so my point is if the ministry are getting social services to take children off parents for all the wrong reasons just to make up numbers and i think people should stand up to the courts and take it to the higher courts and fight to get our children back we are not bad parents we are just noty given the correct information and we are not given the help that we ask for.

anthony mccallion, retford,nottinghamshire, uk

Why is it that Social Workers are blamed for everything? Damned if they do - damned if they don't. Front line social workers have nothing to gain by "stealing" babies for adoption - they are human being's trying to do a very difficult job with little resources and understaffed. There are many other professionals involved in decisions that are made to remove children from their families and the process for adoption can take over a year. So think about the frontline workers - they are not all bad incompetent liars - would you want to do their job?

Meme, Bucks, England

With all the reports I have encountered over these last months regarding pedophiles in our government, I am sad to say that I would not be surprised if the taking of a child on 'dubvious' grounds has anything whatsoever to do with adoption targets, but may be clandestinely funneling these children into these rings. I truly believe this should be investigated thoroughly, in particular, by third party investigation. Pedophile rings are a hideous menace world wide and must be brought into the light once and for all! I feel the public and the media ought to take their heads out of the sand here. The ignorance on this issue allows these criminals, in all levels of society, high and low, to thrive. Let's all look into this!

Anisha, Shoreview, Minnesota USA

So, what of the judge who over ruled a high court decision that baby was to be left with its mother.There was never a care order given either.
Judges only rubberstamp what social workers bring before them.Most do not bother to study the paperwork- naievely believing the work to be honourable.But most of now know the truth and the lies etc told by social workers in Perjury Palace/court.

All agents are in on the money making legalised child trafficing.

I myself was told- you have done no wrong- but you must learn that WE HAVE THE POWER AND NOT THE JUDGE.

Lilith, London, UK

if just told my daughter i love her for the last time today, she has been adopted. my ex girlfriend got involved with a herorin adict and he beat my fantastic daughter, ive got a full time job, 5 bedroom house and ive never had any bad feedback from the social workers, yet they dont see me as a capable father.
they say a family member is always looked at first but from my experiance that is not the case.
with a bit of guidance i would have been just what my daughter needed, a real family.
in my view the whole system needs to be looked at , to stop people like myself and my daughter loosing out

jw, ipswich,

S.services have a very important job to do. However so sensitive that the right decisions must be made. The affect on parents and children considered. They say a child in s.s care or adopted would be better off. Where's the evidence. Nearly all cases aren't followed to see the effects on the children which is most important. Children's homes are are like school's where a child who is no wiser is subject to crime of all kinds. Theft, street robbery, car crime, drugs, gang culture and if the child doesn't get involved then they are most likely to be bullied. The problem with s.s is the individual s worker and these scandelous targets which some social workers will be keen to meet. There is the s worker who care's visits regular keeps in touch talks in great length to find problems and help and advise the people that they work with. Then the other kind is the heartless don't give a damn who's affected by there very important decisions that they have the power to make. no visits no talks.

kevin brearley, keighley, uk

How can a social worker make repeated visits to a flat in some god-awful london borough and miss the tell-tale signs of abuse where a child is scolded and scarred by dozens of cigarette burns and yet at the same time 'abduct' healthy children without a scrap of evidence.

I blame inept, lazy, demotivated social workers too blinded by politically correct social engineering and idiotic dogmas to use their common sense and exercise a little humanity.

Mark, Birmingham, UK

I don't think the social services can do right for doing wrong!
If they take chilren from a bad situation and place them in a better home then they are said to be unfair and if they leave them and don't have the psychic ability to foresee a tragedy then they are wrong again!
I wouldn't want their job...would you?

Lj, York, UK

Ihad 2 grand-children taken by the system supposed to be neglect but left my daughter with a new born baby and took the 2 oldest childrenwhere is the logic in that it has left the whole family devestated

pat sweet , Hebburn Tyne and Wear, England United Kingdom

No wonder record numbers of people are leaving the UK.

bob henderson, Fort McMurray, Alberta,Canada

My Familey &I have gone through stressful experience with social workers They take the good ones away and leve the bad ones that think they know it all when it comes down to it they know nothing when it comes to some ones fellings but there own half of them do not have childern to know how .what it is like to lose them . alot of theses workers need to clean ther own door steps before they try stepping in to some one elses door the same with the courts but we are jus little people that they kick to the curb. the government is just as bad they dont care what happens to us little people eather As long as thy get what thy wont

ann , regina, SASKATCHAWAN

This is the sort of government excess that eventually leads to uprisings in the populace. I think we need to look back to the Magna Carta, and government excesses and abuses which preceeded it. Government today can act with no regard to the best interests of it's populace, just as a king could, and government administrators can act wrongly for any number of reasons, including corruption. Who is to say that these babies are not being sold, possibly into bad hands, possibly for purposes of exploitation. Are the adopting families politically well-connected and in line for favors? In the US, these foster programs are associated with multi-billion dollar government contracts, as a whole. They, and government itself, comprise an industry, and it is an industry in search of work to justify it's own existance and budget increases. Sad to see that everywhere one turns today, the best of justifications are given for the greatest wrongs and cruelest of deceits.

Jan B, Los Angeles, California, USA

Motive? Why is the driving force left out above?
Money! Each child taken can generate $35,000 to $100,00 for the gang taking the child. In some cases, $250,000 in the event of a drug addict birth. The tentacles that reach out from all directions to get that money are many. Most small business owners struggle to make that amount each year. Child abduction by the state is "A Very Profitable Enterprise." Who gets the lion's share in order?
State run medical Institutions; State appointed physiological councilors; State temporary shelters $125 per day per child; State foster care houses $850 per child per month; State transportation and review corps; State legal council; The list is long and much of the money changing hands is masked under a well-orchesterated network of State, City, and Federal payment networks. I bet you never knew one child could be so profitable. That is; outside of the hands of their parents.

Ernest Wiebe, Plum Coulee, Manitoba, Canada

I disagree with the comments that strict legal critieria is met before adoptions take place. A court can get an order on the basis that a social worker says it is in the child's best interests,I was told. So even if a child hasnt been harmed an order can still be gained.
All parents cannot get legal aid as claimed.many parents can't get legal aid if they are working and have a low income.
Court statements from social workers frequently contain lies and paint the parents in a totally negative light with no redeeming features.Then these court statements go to expert witnesess and they make an assessment based on the lies in some social work statements. Experts tend to be paid by social services anyway.
Court guardians mostly are ex social workers and have loyalty to the local authorities often ,as they have worked in that culture.
It is frightening how quickly a child can be adopted.After they have been in care for 4 months they can then be adopted .
The nightmare of the court

Wendy Johnson, lancs,

Stephen Mannering : "The Child's welfare is paramount."

That slogan is the cause of many evils. The truth is that everybody's welfare is paramount, yes, the parents also. Bizzarely a Catholic bishop, who should be protecting us from such an evil idea, has supported that wicked slogan.

Another issue is the finality of capital punishment being artificially applied to adoption : if there is an injustice then the child should be returned in order to be just. Justice must be served, the expert opinion on the feelings of the child notwithstanding (ie. particularly after a long period of seperation from the true parents).

But the situation is about to get worse, folks. It was reported a few weeks ago that the biological parental link is no longer to be recognised: parenthood will become a matter purely of assumed relationship. This is the divorcing of the human person as the union of body and mind. So officially we are either angels or machines, depending on your point of view.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Only 1300 a month? It should be ten times that amount.
The number of people having children who are totally ill equipped to be parents both emotionally and financially is frightening. We are seeing the depressing results of incapable parents around us all the time. Gangs, gun crime, drug addiction, children murdered by children.
It's unfortunate that a few mistakes are made but then how does one come to be a target of the social services in the first place. There's no smoke without fire.

Ben, Leicester, England

Obviously children must be protected from violent or habitually uncaring parents.
Government "targets" are a sorry and silly excuse to cover up incompetent or unscrupulous social workers.
The secrecy surrounding adoptions, surely assist the adoptive parents but in some cases it may not be in the best interests of the child.
If and when a biological parent files an appeal, why on earth some government worker is allowed to go forward with the adoption?
The courts never learns about the parental appeal, precisely because of the secrecy involved.
It is a very thin line between the legality and the illegality of any adoption.
The government ought to right the wrongs and do away with so much secrecy, which benefits the inadequacy of its own employees.

Mariana Faithful, Athens, Greece

My Familey &I have gone through stressful experience with social workers They take the good ones away and leve the bad ones that think they know it all when it comes down to it they know nothing when it comes to some ones fellings but there own half of them do not have childern to know how .what it is like to lose them . alot of theses workers need to clean ther own door steps before they try stepping in to some one elses door the same with the courts but we are jus little people that they kick to the curb. the government is just as bad they dont care what happens to us little people eather As long as thy get what thy wont

ann , regina, SASKATCHAWAN

No wonder the British government has banned guns.

Now they can act as they wish without fear of any reprisals from the public they are wont to tyrannize.

Tom Paine , Los Angeles, CA

I heard a recording on ther Web. A male Social Worker was talking about taking a baby away from it's mother 3 days after it is born. Apparently she "might" suffer from PND which "might" be considered emotional abuse of the baby. What about the emotional abuse she is suffering? He blithely went on about allowing her to breastfeed (and therefor bond with her baby) before taking her away. Then Social Services would collect her milk and take it to the foster parents as though she was a prize cow.
Apparently she made the mistake of asking for help during PND before. Now she is in a supportive relationship, and should not have her child taken away. So much for this statement!
" government policy had always been that children should live with their parents wherever possible and, if necessary, families should be given extra support to stay together. "
If it was known that the baby was to have Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida, they wouldn't try to steal it, but a healthy baby girl?

Beryl, WINDSOR, England

All i can say is if this is true, this is as bad as child trafficing. The government sets a target and children are snatched from good parents to supply the demad for adoption. If there is no demand from government targets there will be no need for the supply, and then social services will be free to focus on the families that truely would benefit from the services they were set up to provide. OK i know there is a difference with child trafficing but you can see my point!!

Cheryl, Newcastle, Tyne and Wear

Mr. Mannering,

First you argue that there are all kinds of resources for parents who are having their children taken from them, then you suggest that the whole system is hurting from a lack of proper funding. Somehow I believe you have a direct interest in this question. Are you a social worker ?

In my mind, taking a child from their parents in anything but the most extreme circumstances is morally abhorent, period. And don't kid yourself, the needs of the state come before the needs of all children, and everyone else for that matter, as the article points out.

Make no mistake, this is directed against families by a government bent on tyranizing its people. Couple that with state-hired nannies who assess children's development and the argument that obese children should be taken from their parents as well, it is clear the family is under attack and that the state -- which is shown to be corrupt and indifferent to the wishes of its people -- knows best. The future is scary.

David Burns, Calgary, Canada

Well, now that we have gay adoption being given LEGALLY ENFORCED parity with heterosexual couples, we must factor in the demand for this part of the market which has it is already confirmed (by the prevention of the Catholic Church adoption agencies being able to specify only married heterosexual couples be able to adopt babies in their care) have an over-ride over the rights of the birth mother to determine the conditions of who can & cannot adopt her baby.

So hand over the sprog & don't complain. Or we'll brand you a hompohobe.

Adam Ghaznavi, London, UK

My Grandson was taken into care whilst my daughter was going through a nasty divorce, my Grandson has begged and pleaded to be allowed to go home to his mother who he loves dearly, but the Guardian has refused to allow this as she and social services have three couples wanting to adopt him. We are now having to go to the high court to stop them. It will cost us a fortune and my daughter is having to sell her house as she has been refused legal aid. What kind of justice is this?

J.S.Mockridge, Southwick, West Sussex

Nothing is beyond these Nulab fanfatics. They will kidnap your children if you are thick or even thought to be capable of 'emotional abuse'. Something we are all no doubt capable of. Good luck if you ever upset the Gvnt.

Clark, Gen., Switz.

Government targets or not, it is the personal accountability of each and every person involved to act professionally in the interests of the child. 'I was told to do it' is no defence. Any professional who acts in any way other than in the interests of the child should, not be in their job.

Barry Faith, Wimborne, Dorset

How utterly disgusting. A true misrepresentation of service.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

We submitted nine cases studied in private and public law showing the abuses by the State under the noses of social workers/ CAFCASS and blessed by the Judiciary.

The State can only get away with such abuses if the Judiciary have relinquished their independence.

One has to ask why the English Children's commisioner and Dept for children schools and families hvae not replied to our request for an independent investigation.

Yours

Shaun O'Connell on behalf of ELC

Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, Hants

This government has such contempt for the citizens of this country that it even has targets for breaking up families.

Gordon Brown and his minions are a disgrace to society and if they had a shred of decency would resign immediately.

Unfortunately, decency and trustworthiness are not defining characteristics of the Labour government.

Peter, London,

As a reporter in the 1980s I was continually receiving complaints from people that the secrecy and lower standard of proof in the family courts (balance of probabilities) fostered
poor representation, legal administration and judicial decision-making. I have no doubt that stripping away the
discipline of public scrutiny in the family courts combined with the emotionalising cloak of confidentiality that conceals the work of social workers has resulted in a civil rights disaster that will resonate across thousands of families, individuals and generations. Whenever I raised concerns, even at public conferences with leading Family Lawyers and senior professional Social Workers I was patronised and treated as some kind of tabloid media vulture or a strain of viral sensationalism. All credit to your newspaper and all the journalists and lawyers who are now investigating this deeply disturbing issue.

Tim Crook, London, United Kingdom

I wonder what the ratio is between parents that have had their children taken away unfairly and parents that havn't but most definately shouldn't have the responsibility of having their own children? I suspect the latter is many many times more.

Rod Munch, Northampton, UK

this is disgraceful i had a baby adopted in the early 60sand i never recovered from it i also still have to live with repercussions from that time my child has found me recently through genes reunited and blames me for rejecting him i havent met him and dont intend to i dont need this at this time in my life he had good parents and i had no options given me this has affected the whole of my life whoever is responsible for this terrible thing happening should be named and shamed .

marjorie pugh, caernarfon, wales

I don't know why this is coming as a surprise to anyone. When you have a government that is insistent on getting children adopted for the sole purpose of saving money, you are bound to get injustice such as this. With the appalling proposals for the Legal Aid system, this is going to get worse and worse as families will find themselves in a position where their children are being removed and they have no access to legal advice - and yet we are supposed to believe this is a government that supports the family unit.

Helen, Liverpool,

Secret Courts take place in tin pot states.

What mother having just given birth is in a position to defend her child?

For whom or what are our Courts being run? Certainly not for the people they profess to serve. Those people cannot afford the legal greed and its stupid technicalities which work absolutely against any fair minded interperetation of justice.

A revolution in the legal world would see all children protected - as of right - against anyone who tried to work above them. Is that likely to happen?

Not whilst there's 'loads-a-dosh' to be made by barristers and solicitors.

Not whilst jumped up people from the same profession conduct what is known as 'law' in secrecy.

If there are decisions to be made, let them be open and above board. If any Judge violates that tenet, let that Judge be hauled before a public Court, composed of members of the general public, not the legal profession.

It's time accountability was brought back into nominal
'law'

Charlotte Peters Rock, Knutsford,

It is high time that family courts were sorted out.
The reality of it is that lawyers and so called experts carry out a fuedal type of justice with no recourse for parents especially fathers who often are unaware of their rights. The bafoon adjuidicating seemingly wakes up every now and again and calls for more social reports. The session is then closed for another few months where again you see little of your kids.
Explaining this to people who are not aware of the workings of family courts is difficult because it seems so unreal.
Finally it is decided that as a father you are a 2nd class citizen and you will not be seeing much of your children... ever again.

Peter Strange, Manchester,

Anyone remember the film "Brazil"? If you haven't seen it go and get a copy !
The UK is fast becoming a quagmire of bureaucratic procedure most of which defies common sense.
There are thousands of people making a handsome living out of foisting this garbage onto us, and we have to pay their wages like it or not.
Our emergency services are bogged down by it.
Councils use it as a weapon to deflect the need to take meaningful but sometimes costly action.
The buck no longer stops at one person's feet but goes round and round in circles until it loses its momentum and immediate urgency. Until some council official can smile benignly and say
"Oh..Sorry, we made a bit of a mistake but you can't have your children back I'm afraid"
This is democracy in action!
Sometimes it is extremely difficult to be patriotic.

Jeffers, Maidstone, UK

Obviously children must be protected from violent or habitually uncaring parents.
Government targets on the other hand is a silly excuse to cover up "mishandling" by incompetent or unscrupulous social workers.
The secrecy that surrounds adoptions surely assists the adoptive parents and in some cases it may not be in the best interest of the child.
If and when the biological parent files an appeal against the removal of a child, why on earth a government department is allowed to go on with the adoption?
The courts never hear about the biological parent's appeal, precisely because of the secrecy involved.
It is a very thin line between the legality and the illegality of any adoption.
The government and the courts ought to right the wrongs and do away with so much secrecy that in some cases ends up benefiting its "targets" and the adoptive parents.

Mariana Faithful, Athens, Greece

This is shocking but I previously suspected that some of these 'unfair' cases were the product of bad parents not accepting their failures. This was until the recent tragic case of the African lady who went around telling random shopkeepers they were her baby's father, dropped the kid in the street then was deemed mentally fit to raise her child, only to stab her to death a couple of days later. If social services felt it acceptable that a wild woman who ranted at random people was sound of mind surely they can make equally devastating mistakes by deeming fit parents insane or dangerous to their children. WIth the politically correctness steered guidelines that state a preference for children to be adopted by parents of similar heritage I wonder if maybe there were no waiting list for an African baby. Poor little angel.

Lou, Nottingham, UK

This is an appalling story. What kind of country do we live in? No wonder so many people are leaving. Children should only ever be removed from their parents if there is a real and immediate danger to them and open courts are the place to decide this, with the parents having a proper right to a defence. Why should the rules of evidence be different for parents and children? Civil servants in all areas of government have far too much power and far too little accountability. The servants have become the masters, and they are out of control. The idea that these actions are driven by 'targets' is like something from a science fiction horror novel.

Bob Reeve, Brighton,

If any of this is true, then, yet again, this Government has a lot to answer for. On one hand they give out millions of pounds to single parents who produce dysfunctional kids, giving them a good life on benefits and on the other unjustly remove children from their parents. One way or another they seem determined to turn everyone in Britain into a seething mass of psychological disturbance. No wonder emigration is increasing by the minute.

Judy , Liverpool, england

<em>I do not believe that prioritising the interests of parents (or fathers, or mothers) would in the end be advantageous to society..</em>

These totalitarian principles caused enormous human suffering in Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, and many other nations.

gandalf, London,

Dear Sirs,

I am glad that you amongst others are publishing stories about this disgusting practice.

It behoves you to do as much as you can about it doesn't it? It's hardly party political.

SO DO SOMETHING!

Clark, Gen., Switz.

We are once again hearing about the bad practises of Social Workers in connection with children - babies, denied apoption " quotas" and so. There has to be more open judicial intervetion and accountability of Social Workers. This
is one major area were the human rights of he children and their parents cannot be ignored behin closed doors whether these be courts or meetings (yet more!) in Social Services offices.

Rodney Barker, Gainsborough, England U.K.

Your aricles make no mention of the legal requirements that must be met, and the procedure that applies, before any child can be removed permanently from his/her parents.
It is the court (not social workers) that makes the decision, and then only if the strict legal criteria are satisfied AND the court believes it is in the chid's best interests for it to be removed. The Child's welfare is paramount.
Free legal aid is automatically avaialble to ALL parents and children, so they can be represented by specialist solicitors who are members of the Law Society Children Panel. Children also have their own Children's Guardian, appointed by the court, to act as an independent social work voice of the child.
The system is under threat from government imposed budget cuts. If it is destroyed there will be more miscarriages of justice than anyone can imagine.
It is surprising that your article is silent about this. Please wake up, before it is too late.

Stephen Mannering, Nottingham,

Obviously children must be protected from violent or habitually uncaring parents.
Government targets are a sorry and silly excuse to cover up incompetent or unscrupulous social workers.
The secrecy that surrounds adoptions surely assists the adoptive parents and in some cases it may not be in the interests of the child.
If and when a parent files an appeal against the removal of a child, why on earth a government department is allowed to go forward with the adoption?
The courts never learn about the parental appeal, precisely because of the secrecy involved.
It is a very thin line between the legality and the illegality of any adoption.
The government and the courts have an obligation to right the wrongs and do away with so much secrecy, which in some cases may end up benefiting its own inadequacy, through its set "targets".

Mariana Faithful, Athens, Greece

There must now be a Very Public Urgent Government Lead Investigation.
If it is true that even one child has been removed from their natural parents for no good established reason, that would be of extreme concern.
There is a crisis of confidence in child protection, in practice which must be addressed.
On the one hand the public is aware that many children, who have been made known and identified to the relevant authorities, as children who are being abused or neglected within their domestic situations, are in many cases, not being enabled to be helped or 'rescued'
On the other hand we now learn that babies, who have no need to be, could be being removed from their natural families.
For the sake of the children, who do need a child protection ability that is enabled to work well and which can be trusted to make 'judgements' in their best interest, the pubic must have their confidence restored and they must be enabled to see that justice for children is being served.

Darnthesafetynet, London, W111NR

Another bewildering story about the country I used to love. I along with the other 380000 this year will soon be leaving, sad and aggrieved at the fact, but leaving never the less.

What have we let good old Blighty become. Shame on us all and double shame on the authorities and social leaders.

PhilD, Fylde, UK

The biggest threat to our, Sovereignty, Democracy and Freedom, is the system of Taxation in this Country. Believe me.
Because without the secrecy of the "Legal Aid" payments, most of these activities could not take place. Cause, Taxation.

How many people even know that this discusting practice is taking place? Again, think of the extraordinary changes that can be achieved if the system of Direct Taxation was removed from Westminster and placed in the hands of the Parish Council and the Town Council. With the Parish and Town inhabitants deciding their own Rate of Taxation. Just a simple
Low Flat Tax, of 10% on all earnings over £500 each week . A system that allows the working TaxPayer to cover all living costs for theirselves and depndants, paying Taxation only on the remainder.

And while on the topic of cutting back, why not reduce the number of MPs from 646, to about 172 English MPs bought and paid for by English voters and let the others do their own thing.

Anthony Thomas Flynn, Diss. Norfolk, United Kingdom

An intelligent and humane approach to this issue would be to add a clause in the law which prohibits the final adoption of children that are subject to an active appeal, with a bar on adoption within a specific timeframe; one which would allow, say, a woman fresh from the pregnancy to recover and seek legal counsel.

The question has to be asked though, if the original drafters of the laws were intelligent and humane individuals - for it is individual people who create and pass legislation - why didn't they take such dreadful possibilities into account in the first place?

There is a clarity that comes with naivity in these matters...

Bruce Haig, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

The first principle in the Children's Act is that the interests of the child are paramount. It is inevitable that as a result some parents will loose out. I do not believe that prioritising the interests of parents (or fathers, or mothers) would in the end be advantageous to society..

Alan Stears, Halifax,

It is disgraceful if it is true that this is down to targets.

I cannot imagine how it feels to have a child taken from you and adopted, never to be returned when you are found innocent. Shouldn't there be a day fostering service, not unlike a nursery, where children can be monitored but be left in the care of their parents at certain times to see if they conform to what a parent should be?

Obviously any signs of violence and the child needs to be protected and moved but everyone knows these children are like dogs you keep kicking and they keep coming back, they still want and love their real parent(s).

I think retired people need to be recruited to oversee some of these problems, I always wonder where the grandparents when abuse cases come to light.

Christine in Hayes, Hayes, Middlesex, England

Having gone through an unnecessarily stressful experience with social workers and courts in trying to obtain an unchallenged and ostensibly straight-forward application for guardianship of my eldery mother, I can say that government targets do not have to be in place for the social workers and courts to be incompetent and inefficient. These misplacements are as likely to be the consequence of useless social workers. Again, it is my experience that they lie in concert to cover their mistakes up and therefore the statement that they blame targets is, in my opinion, to be ignored by default.

eckythump, Salisbury, UK