Justice For Families

Concurrent planning: birth parent contact can distress babies
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... abies.html

Research by children's charity Coram finds frequent contact with birth parents can disrupt babies' routines
Posted: 02 November 2009 | Subscribe Online

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. (So stop using concurrent planning as a means of forced adoption)

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. (And stops the child bonding with its natural parents- which makes it easier for Coram to convince a Judge to sign the adoption papers)

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. (OMG!! You can see where they're going with this)


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.
Article continues below the advertisement

"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.

Ermmm.... the underlying assumption here seems to be that these babies will not return to their families. That is the only possible way for this perverse research to make any sense and yet that is in itself contrary to the underlying assumption of the Children Act which is, of corse, that children on the whole are better off with their parents.

What a mad world we live in.

Concurrent planning policy and processes require close scrutiny. There are superficial attractions: With chronically treatment-resistant drug addicted parents the prospects of sustained positive change may be low. In such cases placing babies with prospective adoptive parents (rather than interim foster parents) may indeed be preferable for the baby/infant on terms of emotional security (as opposed to a sequence of placements).

However, ‘concurrent planning’ practice often deviates from the underlying theory and policy. In theory and in policy, energetic efforts should be made to promote reunification to the parents of babies in concurrent placements – but the outcomes with regard to this (from concurrent planning services) are that reunification rates are extremely low.

This begs the question: to what extent do social services in practice actually promote reunification in ‘concurrent planning’ cases? How can a pro–adoption agency invest enthusiastically and genuinely in promoting reunification in cases that would result in the agencies’ prospective adoptive parents losing ‘their’ child? Or, to what extent do they set natural parents/families ‘up to fail’ by not providing sophisticated therapeutically-oriented assessment services focuses on promoting parenting potential for change?

In my experience, agencies such as Coram/Cafcass/SSD do not have the experience of working therapeutically with parents/families toward successful reunifications. Most Coram/Cafcass staff have a fostering/adoption background and minimal (if any these days) experience in working therapeutically with children and parents/families in successful renunciations.

It is crucial to have information about the relationship between the Tavistock and Coram before this ‘research’ has any policy impact. This needs to be clarified. Has this ‘research’ been subject to any external academic review? If so, at what level? Bachelors, Masters, PhD? This needs to be made clear.

I have not seen the research report. I note that it is due to be published in the January 2010 edition of the (BAAF) magazine ‘Adoption and Fostering’. To my knowledge, this is not an academically peer reviewed publication. I am concerned that this ‘research’ is being promoted at this stage with a strongly pro-adoption (anti natural family) agenda several months prior to its publication in a BAAF (pro adoption) magazine. Beware.

kiama wrote:Concurrent planning policy and processes require close scrutiny. There are superficial attractions: With chronically treatment-resistant drug addicted parents the prospects of sustained positive change may be low. In such cases placing babies with prospective adoptive parents (rather than interim foster parents) may indeed be preferable for the baby/infant on terms of emotional security (as opposed to a sequence of placements).
The Virus commonly known as Coram have no intention of attempting to even keep contact, although they also run with one of their many partners Tavistock run the Drug ad Alcohol Courts, they remove children for non agreement on contact or residence disagreements, tey do not need to look for a reaosn, they already have them in place.

However, ‘concurrent planning’ practice often deviates from the underlying theory and policy. In theory and in policy, energetic efforts should be made to promote reunification to the parents of babies in concurrent placements – but the outcomes with regard to this (from concurrent planning services) are that reunification rates are extremely low.
The Virus have rewritten the Law when it comes to what they want. The fact that the government has funded and worked with Coram since 2003-2004 all designed for their takeover next year. [color=#0040FF][color=#0040FF]They have also had a consderable input into "Every Child Matters

This begs the question: to what extent do social services in practice actually promote reunification in ‘concurrent planning’ cases?
The Virus have taken most if not all the adoptive workers in the SW and reytained them into their scheme of how adoptions will occur from now on.
How can a pro–adoption agency invest enthusiastically and genuinely in promoting reunification in cases that would result in the agencies’ prospective adoptive parents losing ‘their’ child? Or, to what extent do they set natural parents/families ‘up to fail’ by not providing sophisticated therapeutically-oriented assessment services focuses on promoting parenting potential for change?
They do legitamently do carry out "Court Ordered" assessments albeit at another NHS TRUST Menta Health Clinics again run by yet another partner, Tavistock for adults and Anna Freud for the vulnerable children, Both who agree with drug induced treatments.

In my experience, agencies such as Coram/Cafcass/SSD do not have the experience of working therapeutically with parents/families toward successful reunifications. Most Coram/Cafcass staff have a fostering/adoption background and minimal (if any these days) experience in working therapeutically with children and parents/families in successful renunciations.
That was not on thir agenda when they began their latest rules and regulations for potential adoptions. It is not even involved with their main objective. At the sake of repeating myself - Children are a commodity, WE are just about to find out just how much they have correctly in place, and by what I have ucovered there is nothing they've overlooked.
It is crucial to have information about the relationship between the Tavistock and Coram before this ‘research’ has any policy impact. This is not policy this is almost Law now, The Virus have had a considerable amount of say in "Every Child Matters" amongst many others.
This needs to be clarified. Has this ‘research’ been subject to any external academic review? If so, at what level? Bachelors, Masters, PhD? This needs to be made clear. The Virus have their own very finacially viable research organisation, they are also backed by the Nuttfield Organisation. They are in the process of having two evaluations done at present one from the university of Brunne. Need I say anymore?

I have not seen the research report. I note that it is due to be published in the January 2010 edition of the (BAAF) magazine ‘Adoption and Fostering’. To my knowledge, this is not an academically peer reviewed publication. I am concerned that this ‘research’ is being promoted at this stage with a strongly pro-adoption (anti natural family) agenda several months prior to its publication in a BAAF (pro adoption) magazine. Beware.

Due to the fact that Anthony Douglas is also a trustee in the Virus, in addtion to over 4.5 million pounds per year wages for between 10-15 people, at the sake of repeating myself again - Children are a commodity and as far as can see Coram have it well and truly sewn up.
In addition to the government funding them since 2003-2004 for this transformation plus the reversal back to the forced adoption figures, its all in their favour
xx Husky xx

UKSecretCourt1 wrote:Concurrent planning: birth parent contact can distress babies
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles ... abies.html

Research by children's charity Coram finds frequent contact with birth parents can disrupt babies' routines
Posted: 02 November 2009 | Subscribe Online

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. (So stop using concurrent planning as a means of forced adoption)

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. (And stops the child bonding with its natural parents- which makes it easier for Coram to convince a Judge to sign the adoption papers)

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. (OMG!! You can see where they're going with this)


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.
Article continues below the advertisement

"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.

I love your commentary on these news (propaganda) stories, amazing... I agree with everything you put, often your commentary saves me replying

Yes you can see where they are taking this;

They want it to be that once a child is removed (even if they lose later in court ["oh it was a mistake"]) it can never return because the child is settled, attached, doesn't know you.

Coram have the adoption idea correct.

The problem is that the family courts are guessing the "facts" because their standard of proof is based on probable and not fact.

Family Courts are probably making orders to remove children, in some cases correctly and in some cases incorrectly. In all cases, the parents of the children probably have no chance of convincing a Judge that the local authority was to heavy handed.

Coram isn't as much of the problem as the family courts are. If the family courts got it right most or all of the time, then the coram idea would be more accepted.

Judges pander to local authority's legal representatives. Legal representation for parents and grandparents is useless. There is no case to argue in front of the Judge, so the Judge makes the order that the LA want. Parent's lawyers don't give the evidence to the Judge, in the parent's defense. Lawyers who don't properly represent the parents should not be paid. Parents who receive legal aid funding should have significant influence when the legal services commission has to pay the lawyer. If the parents feel that the solicitor was useless, the parents can inform the legal aid board and the lawyer gets a useless payment. The case should go to an appeal and the withheld evidence be looked at to see if a different order could be made.

If solicitors want to be money hungry, then they should work for their money and represent the parents in a way that lawyers are expected to represent their clients.

Mac1 I have to disagree with your statement that the family courts are the problem. Personally I found the judge in our case listened carefully throughout to both sides, he was prepared to challenge the LA when they failed to deliver paperwork on time and when they made silly requests. In the end the family won.

However, later in your post you say "legal representation for parents and grandparents is useless" and I think you have hit the nail on the head there. If the family has a useless lawyer then when the judge tries to make a fair decision they can't because they are not getting the full case for the family. My first solicitor said just co-operate fully with the LA so I knew she had to go - I needed a fighter.

So it would seem we are in agreement - the most important thing is good legal reprersentation on the family's side.

It is in the solicitors interest for the family to cooperate with the local authority

Sad reading indeed. This is such an informative thread
thanks for your intelligent comments.
Do you think some of the media have a hand in this aswell,
in the way they manipulate us with stories. The last couple of years
they have reallly highlighted all
of the bad parenting examples. aswell as social services bad examples

As in the obvious social services blunders/bludgeoning
whatever you want to call it. For example the recent children killed by boyfriends
neglected by the paid protectors and


these families are presented to us in the muckiest of ways.

Plus people ,like sharon
..... from the sink estate, who kidnapped her own child. So over a period of time the pubilic
are manipulated to have the attitude that looks down on

the poorly educated so when at the

end of that
the government, ( beddies, Coram, cafarse, ) present this new policy and the voters will agree
by now that this " nip it in the bud" system is better for society.

It seems to me that the court consultants are in bed together unless one,
doesnt swing. then there is hope.

To follow up the last line of the post by Keepittogether,
"So it would seem we are in agreement - the most important thing is good legal representation on the family's side."
does anyone have access to a list of "fighting" legal representation prepared to take on a local authority? (And possibly prepared to travel?)

The very bad news is that the current cuts in funding to solicitors and barristers (I am neither of these) being made by the Legal Services Commission mean that many experienced legal professionals who do have the experience, ability and willingness to challenge local authorities are leaving this field of practice.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for legally aided parents in complex and contentious child protection cases to find experienced solicitors/barristers to represent them.

Hi Bitsofwood.

I can recommend:

Brendan Fleming - based in Birmingham and will work across the Midlands
William Bache - based in Salisbury and will travel nationwide.

IF THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT STAND UP TO OUR GOVERNMENT AND STOP THIS ILLEGAL ACT NOW…
THEN IT WILL BECOME LEGISLATION THEN LAW..

FROM THE VIRUS’S OWN MOUTH – I GIVE YOU SOME OF CORAM's STATEMENTS –

They have received in excess of two millions pounds from public bodies and charitable bodies,
A grant from Camden LA of 253.904 to assist with thE "Parents Centre's",
Cafcass pay 50k to oversee their contact sessions and supervised contact sessions.

"Coram has a presence of a number of consortia and networks which include chairing the Northamptonshire Adoption Panel
"Representation on the Care Matters partnership"
"Head of Adoption remains a trustee of the consortium of voluntary adoptions and trains its training groups"
"Coram also participated in the BBC's national recruitment campaign "Families Wanted"
"The reports on which the country reply to make an effective decisions for children in contact cases. In this way Coram is striving to ensure maximum benefits from all we have learned"

"With support of Dept for Children, schools and families (DCSF)
an evaluation has been commissioned to assess the outcomes of the partnership"

"A significant contributor towards the increase in income was due to the placement numbers reverting back to the old trend,
Prior to the effects of the Adoption Act 2006"

"Localisation of service provision increases Coram the complexity of managing multiple funding contracts and relationships within the "Every Child Matters"(ECM) and Compact Framework.
The compact is the agreement between government and the voluntary community sector to improve their relationship for mutual advantage and community gain"



Coram have -
Cafcass with an unlimited access to all the children within the care system
Barristers doing all the Family cases.

If a child/parent have to be assessed
Then keep it in the family.
Adults and Couples - Tavistock NHS TRUST
Children - Same but under Anna Freud.
Both partners of Coram.
Bearing in mind Coram beleive that disagreeing about contact/residence
are grounds for removal of the child.
Although this is not part of the Childrens Act it appears that they
can recommend this,

They are also being well funded for their "New Concurrent Placement" scheme
Theres nothing new about this scheme other than its under 12yrs old in the USA
Where Coram have had the same scheme have had it in place for over 10 yrs old.
So why more funding?

This may explain that whilst Martin Narey stated there was
a drop in children available for adoption
Coram's figures for adoption show and increase in adoptions
in addition to more beneficial partnerships have been brought in.

They train SW's up to "theirs standards" in the Adoption units.
They can provide temporary Adoption Manager/ess whilst one is being trained.
They are retraining SW's about Adoptive procedures.
Work already in our schools, which is to be extended.

The list is endless but our courts right now are sending our children, parents and family members for assessments
by Tavistock and Portman or Anna Freud.
What do you think their recommendation will be?

Keepittogether,
many thanks, I have made a note of the names.
Perhaps a complete list ought to be made, assuming there isn't one already, maybe including comments about successes etc.
Tony