Louise Tickle’s article about “Annie” (or Surviving Safeguarding as she is known on her blog) was published this weekend : ‘I saw his fluffy little head going out the door’: one woman’s fight to keep her baby – Annie’s son was removed from her just days after he was born, the third of her children to be taken into care. This is the story of her battle to get him back
You can read about the legal process that went before the publication of the article here : Press Reporting of Care Proceedings.
In the run up to publication there were some interesting email exchanges between members of The Transparency Project committee (which now includes Louise Tickle) about the use of the term “forced adoption”. We thought we’d share those with you.
LR:
[dealing with statistics on adoption which are broken down simply as “opposed” or “not opposed” and use of the term forced adoption] I would suggest that many who are recorded as “not opposing” the final order may simply have had their will to fight ground down during the course of the case, and may have been advised that the evidence against them was strong, but cannot properly be described as having agreed to their child being adopted. Parents who are too distressed or unwell to participate in proceedings may also be recorded as “not opposing”….I prefer “non-consensual adoption” not “forced adoption”.
PM:
In terms of the proper way of describing things, is “unopposed adoption” the acceptable version of “put up for adoption” or does the “putting up” relate not to the parent but to faceless bureaucrats, child snatchers et al? If so, what should one say?
JD :
‘Put up for adoption’ can mean two things. Either the parent giving up the child for adoption (relinquished), or the LA making the adoption decision (adoption is in the child’s best interests) and proceeding to try to match the child with adopters. To me, ‘put up’ sounds as though the LA is exhibiting the child in the market square, like selling slaves, or something.
Writers should never use the phrase ‘put up for adoption’. I don’t personally agree with the use of ‘forced adoption’ in the UK context. ‘Adoption without consent’ is technically the correct term.
LT:
I’m afraid I have gone with ‘forced’ in the article at a certain point. I thought very hard about this in advance of the Family Justice Council debate while I was preparing my speech, and think that ‘forced’ is accurate in terms of how it would feel to the parents. I did an exercise in my head, thinking for instance about slavery. We refer to ‘forced labour’ when people are made to work by an authority without payment. Or we say ‘slavery’. We do not say ‘non consensual working’ or “working without consent”. I know it is not entirely analogous, because the intention behind adoption is to serve the interests of a child, but journalistically, if a parent is forced by the state to lose their parental rights, then although it’s an emotive word, then I think it’s a perfectly accurate way to describe what’s happened to say the adoption has been forced. It is also accurate to say ‘contested’ or ‘non-consensual’ but it removes it from the human experience.
PM:
See what you mean about “forced”. It can be more emotive than necessary but I can see that in the context of how parents feel it can be more accurate than a more objective word. It’s a question of whether you are presenting their side of the case or offering a judgment or conclusion. The problem with a lot of coverage is that it takes an exaggerated view for the sake of it, to make the piece look more interesting or newsy.
SP:
I have actually had a complete turn around on forced adoption. It used to make my teeth itch but it does what it says on the tin. That is how the parents experience it. That is what it is. I think we should use words and phrases as commonly understood.
LR:
I think we should post this exchange as a blog post – do you all agree?
This blog post in its entirety encapsulates what was discussed at the workshop at last years CP Conf.
We as professionals can often use words and language that only the likes of us can understand, its not a foible.
If we cast our minds back to last years court case where a Judge criticised a Social Worker for using “Jargon” that meant the parents were simply unable to understand nor comprehend what the whole case was about.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/08/05/social-worker-criticised-judge-using-jargon-court-report/
The Term Forced.
To me that word paints an image of someone with an arm tied up behind their back, it reads as implying significant pressure is used, square peg round hole!
A simple “Forced” synonym search on google shows this
forced
fɔːst/Submit
adjective
1.
obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power.
“there was no sign of a forced entry”
synonyms: enforced, compulsory, obligatory, mandatory, involuntary, exacted, coerced, imposed, demanded, compelled, required, requisite, stipulated, dictated, ordained, prescribed; More
2.
(of a gesture or expression) produced or maintained with effort; affected or unnatural.
“a forced smile”
synonyms:strained, laboured, unnatural, artificial, false, feigned, simulated, contrived, stilted, wooden, stiff, studied, mannered, self-conscious, overdone, overworked, affected, unconvincing, insincere, hollow;
Can we match the examples found in “Forced” when describing a situation like the permanent removal of a child against a parents wishes.
It will always be a great strain finding the right balance of a term or word to be used when the whole sense of humanity is in question, we have to reach the fact while using compassion.
In reality what happens during Adoption Proceedings, put simply, a parents right to object to the making of an adoption order is over-ruled by a judge, is that “Forced”? is a parent bound and restrained during their objections, as legal professionals we use terms such as Bar Set and Hurdles, if a parent cannot over come the bar or jump the hurdles is that classed as forced.
Consensual or Non consensual again are terms we understand in the legal capacity but would the general populous, should it be simply agreed or not agreed.
Put up for adoption I feel paints a picture of a bunch of kittens who will soon be ready to be “Adopted”, can we honestly use an example like that when we are talking about babies and children.
Put up for adoption is quite simply what happens when placement orders are made, Put up are the words widely known and used, its simply not quite the case, as we know all too well, the L.A are permitted to place the child/ren into an adoptive placement if and when one is found, Place v Put Up, I know the word I would choose.
Do you know that when Placement Orders are made at that point it often is understood by parents that at that time the child is adopted, its game over, for many years when advising parents I have to explain in depth that a placement order is not an adoption order, it is not game over, the confusion lies with again a lack of explanation by professionals including the judiciary, again, a Judge over rules a parents objection and makes placement orders, at that stage how can a parent possibly think differently, during placement period the parents contact is reduced then ceased entirely, given a misconception its game over, is it no surprise at that stage a parent thinks placement is actually adoption.
Words we chose to use should not result in the actions being carried out are softened because of the human element, we do need sensitivity within the words that reach the same point without lessening the actual action.
Forced adoption I feel is quite simply a term we will have to live with, whether rightly or wrongly, personally I have never agreed with it, it is on the same par as the word “Stolen” many parents I see use.
It is forced adoption though inst it which ever way you look at it .In my case i have been gagged may as well of been bound too because as a parent that,s fought long and hard that is how you end up feeling