How to Register your case with Justice For Families: Click Here

Information to be remembered when discussing your case: Click Here

Welcome to Justice For Families. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Web Links:

Justice For Families website (For information about Justice For Families)

John Hemming (MP) Blog (Contains interesting posts about Child protection quite often)

John Hemming (MP) Web Site (Contains information about his constituency and news articles some relating to Child protection)

READ>What the uk councils got for meeting adoption targets

READ>What the uk councils got for meeting adoption targets

Postby Help4Mums » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:57 am


Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families which local authorities have received payments from central Government for achieving adoption target levels; and how much each received in each of the last three years. [151067]

John Healey: I have been asked to reply.

30 local authorities have been rewarded for successfully achieving adoption targets in their local public service agreements (LPSA). The better outcomes and amount of ‘performance reward grant’ (PRG) each has received over the three years 2004/05 to 2006/07 in relation to their performance in these targets is set out in the following table. In addition, 13 local authorities did not achieve the adoption targets in their local PSA and hence received no PRG for this target. One local authority is still to make a claim

Local PSAs—which are negotiated between local authorities and central Government policy departments, facilitated by the DCLG—have helped to incentivise local authorities and partners to provide better public services to their citizens around priorities for improvement locally. Evaluation shows they have been successful in doing this, with real benefits in improved outcomes for local people and communities.

Local PSA adoption and placement targets: payments made to date under local PSAs
Local authority Amount of ‘reward grant’ paid (£)

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council 210,173.00

Blackburn with Darwen 307,367.00

Bristol City Council 307,512.00

Buckinghamshire County Council 526,958.00

Bromley (LB) 499,440.00

Camden (LB) 318,916.50

Cheshire County Council 685,134.00

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council 578,333.00

Durham County Council 502,675.00

Enfield (LB) 244,963.00

Essex County Council 2,469,200.00

Gloucestershire County Council 612,209.00

Halton Borough Council 153,938.00

Hampshire 1,675,619.00

Hounslow (LB) 165,019.00

Kensington and Chelsea (LB) 339,117.00

Kent County Council 2,156,583.00

Lewisham (LB) 602,854.00

Liverpool City Council 347,404.00

Luton Borough Council 400,027.00

Manchester City Council 984,877.00

Merton Borough Council 358,708.00

Northamptonshire County Council 1,119,115.00

Sheffield City Council 1,025,000.00

Southwark (LB) 435,242.00

St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council 83,845.00

Wandsworth (LB) 387,627.00

Warwickshire County Council 231,061.00

York City Council 203,620.00

iNFORMATION SUPPLIED BY http://barnsley-nationalists.blogspot.c ... rgets.html
iv emailed a few papers, lets see if they print anything on it.
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:16 pm


Postby NRparent » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:38 am

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... c.151067.h

Written answers
Monday, 3 September 2007
Posts: 1788
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:25 pm
Location: south west.....

Postby Help4Mums » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:18 am

well done ian we make quite a research team :lol:
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:16 pm

Postby PeaveyC30 » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:02 am

I think I've mentioned this before.

The key figures to get are how much LA's got for hitting adoption figures, and how many of those babies/children hadn't been in council care for more than a year, or what percentage of children under (say) three) were amongst those adopted for each LA, preferably a combination of all those factors.

The LA's can legitimately move children from care to adoption and that is laudable if they are doing it to children who have been in care for years. Of course moving a damaged teenager from a care home to adoption parents is a tad harder than simply snatching a new-born baby from a vulnerable mother/family. Babies are so much more attractive to potential adoption parents.

The scandal is those instances when babies/children have been snatched from parents and rolled through the Secret Court system solely to meet adoption targets using children who would not have otherwise lawfully come in the LA's "posession"

What I think we are trying to point out (correct me though if necessary) is that SS are enthusiastically finding means to snatch babies and children using a combination of prejudices and dodgy expert witness assertions, whilst being protected from critisism, complaint or legitimate redress by a corrupted and secret judicial system, simply to hit financial targets/punish women through a patriarchal system/pursue loving families.

I think the key figures have already been collected, and these are the ones to push

In 1995, 1996 and 1997 the number of babies taken into care under the age of 8 days old who were subsequently adopted remained consistent at;

370, 340, 350 babies respectively per year.

Then after 1997 the number leapt up to;

430 in 1998
790 in 2002
and all the way to 920 in 2005 and 2006

An increase from 1995 of 149%.

The total number of babies taken for adoption by social services, under the age of 30 days leapt from a total of ;

540 in 1995
1,400 in 2005
1,300 in 2006
(source DfES, from the Justice For Families site, some % change calculations done by me.)

An increase of 159% between 1995 and 2005 and 140% between 1995 and 2006.

What is needed is the the numbers of babies adopted above, but broken down against each LA, which can then be correlated against the financial rewards given to each LA. The DfES has the break down by LA, because they compiled the original figures.

Then you have your "smoking gun" - if you can find an LA who have gained financially from a substantial increase in adopted babies, all the neat conspiracy theories have legitimacy and there's something rather nasty to put on the banner outside Andrew Brennan's home.


"...there can be no public interest in the adoption proceedings themselves particularly if the birth family have not given up the child for adoption themselves. There should be no presumption in favour of allowing the media or the public or any other category of persons into adoption hearings."
Liberty’s endorsement for the UK's Secret Court system in its response to the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ Consultation: “Confidence and Confidentiality: Improving Transparency and Privacy in the Family Courts”
There should be no presumption in favour of allowing the media or the public or any other category of persons into adoption hearings.
Liberty: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy06/transparency-in-the-family-courts.pdf
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:03 pm

Postby fassitangels » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:49 pm

I like Ian Joseph's comments which is of course totally true. How many times have social workers and managers denied that there were ever adoption targets? How many people in politics or head of the SS or Cafcass have denied that adoption targets ever existed?

This clearly shows that no matter whether these were babies or young adults that there are adoption targets. That is proof positive that Anthony Douglas and that Brennan idiot do indeed lie.

However in terms of the conspiracy theory - Peavey is absolutely correct. We have confirmation of adoption targets and what each LA is paid. We have the figures of babies taken into care.

The final piece in the jigsaw is how many babies were taken by each LA and what were they paid.
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:32 pm

Postby cavvy » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:53 pm

I think there is a much wider issue than adoption targets, I also don't necessarily think that the politicians are lying.
I believe there is no joined up communication in all of the policies and systems and therefore what has been designed to protect and improve by one department is being undermined and sabotaged by the policies of another.
This is leading to the major problems experienced. What is unforgiveable is that Brennan and the likes are so damned facetious they are unwilling to even explore this possibility.

EG. The maximum 40 week until final hearing target, ...the intention is good, children should have their lives stabilized as early as possible, what it doesn't take into account is the length of time for expert reports or even forensic evidence.....more often than not, these are being filed in the final couple of weeks allowing no opportunity to prepare a 'defence'.
Courts want to meet their target so dispose of the case based on what info/recommendations are readily available.

LA adoption targets were well meant, to stop children languishing in care homes or moving from pillar to post. There are also tight budgetary contols on expenditure on family support. Courts want to meet their 40 week target, practitioners are not allowed to spend on family support, expert report arrives at last minute, practitioners pressured into assessments and long term plans sorted within the 40 weeks and plan must not be long term foster care therefore easiest way forward which meets everyone's target is recommend adoption. Understaffed and underskilled Cafcass officers readily conform in order to meet thei target and get the case closed.

I don't subscribe to the theory that children are being snatched for adoption purposes, I think it is cause and effect.
Underskilled practitioners know no other way of managing risk, collective decisions at SCBs mean no one person is accountable for decisions, so the child is in the system and there is 40 weeks to sort everything out. ...adoption is the easiest way forward.
Take a mum with post natal depression, 40 weeks is nothing, any basicv reference source would cite a minimum 52 weeks, ..so by the time mum's better, child has been adopted.
Mum gets pregnant again, history says last child adopted,therefore risk factor...action.remove new baby, 40 weeks for assessments which are now more complex because of history, ..easiest route..adoption.

Add to all this, the cuts in legal funding and we have the current nightmare

The whole system has to be radically overhauled.
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:03 pm

Postby avenger » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:20 pm

Take a mum with post natal depression, 40 weeks is nothing, any basicv reference source would cite a minimum 52 weeks, ..so by the time mum's better, child has been adopted.

It says it can take a couple of years to get over PND.I think its awful that we should be given a few months to get well.

I also agree that you can't blame every adoption on adoption targets. Whilst I do believe that they are perhaps adopting kids too quickly to meet targets whereas they might have worked in the past to keep families together.

There is also the new rules that if a child is going to be adopted it has to be one as quickly as possible to limit the damage.

What happened was children were ending up in care anyway at a later date and they wanted to get them young.

I am not arguing a case for this,Im just explaining the new rules that I read on community care.

I think this is another reason for more children being adopted young as well as the adoption targets and incentives from that.
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:12 am

Postby julie » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:39 pm

Well, we'll see if the adoption targets did fuel this. It would seem on the face of it that it did, but only time will tell. Probably another 10 years. But it is easier for them to adopt yummy babies than older children who come with their own baggage and problems. Hampshie did well out of this as did Sheffield. They'll be sad that that source of revenue is gone.
Posts: 429
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:44 am

Re: READ>What the uk councils got for meeting adoption targets

Postby dormammau1886 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:41 am


Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:22 am
Location: redditch

Re: READ>What the uk councils got for meeting adoption targe

Postby mandy411 » Thu May 22, 2014 2:44 pm

hi is there any way i could find out what newport s services gained financially thru taking peoples kids and adoption as asked s worker if they get anything when achieve the destruction of another family etc she denied there any incentive whatso ever for anybody and who ever had led me beleive there was had completely misled me she stood lied to my face so convincenly she is no more than very good con person i like to find out the figures involved to be able face her with them and show her she not smart as thinks she is
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: READ>What the uk councils got for meeting adoption targe

Postby Chrisg52 » Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:00 pm

Having read this and noted that this was back in 2008, has anyone done recent research into the figures for recent years, (currently 2016) ?
I read the financial report for 2015 of our local council and noted that still £thousands are spent on children in the care of the local authority.
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:49 am

Return to Other

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests