Barnardo's, Access to Care and Adoption Files? Despite the fact that it now has as its president our most famous human rights lawyer, Cherie Booth QC (aka Mrs Blair, wife of our current Prime Minister Tony Blair) Barnardo's policy on access to records remains unpleasant, nasty and unnecessarily restrictive in comparison to almost every other children's charity in the UK. In the first 75 years of the last century Dr. Barnardo's Homes did much wrong to many children and their families. It took children and sent them away from their families often halfway across the world. It separated siblings here at home. It often lied to the children and lied to the parents. When it comes to the matter of what records it holds it is an organisation that is still prepared to lie to protect the Barnardos corporate image.
This page used to contain a copy of Barnardos Policy and Practice, Access to Adoption Records. 5 November 1996.
The Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 require an adoption agency to fully review its policy at least once every three years. Despite numerous requests over the last 6 years Barnardo's have consistently been unable to furnish a more recent Adoptee Access to Records Policy and Practice. Therefore the copy of the policy has been removed as it is believed that the policy which Barnardos actually operates at present differs substantially in some respects from its stated policy of November 1996
My search http://robin.robin.org/search
http://robin.robin.org/policy_and_law
Martin Ruddock. Martin, Ruddock Martin Ruddock 'Martin Ruddock
Update 25 September 2004
I have received the following as part of a letter in response to points that I have asked my MP to put to the Right Hon Margaret Hodge MP the Minister for Children and Families who also has responsibility for adult adoption issues.
"....Mr Harritt also raises the issue of access to adoption agency records in pre-commencement adoptions. Our current intention is that an adoption agency will continue to be able to receive and consider applications for the disclosure of information where the of information where the agency holds the case file for that adoption. Broadly, we would wish the agency to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to disclose information as it currently does under regulation 15 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983. We intend to set this out and the steps the adoption should take in additional statutory guidance. Therefore, a person seeking information to facilitate contact with a birth relative in the context of a pre-commencement adoption will have two possible routes: either through a registered adoption support agency or through the agency that holds the case records. We envisage that the new route through an adoption support agency will be more popular, but for those who wish to, they will still be able to they will still be able to apply to the adoption agency that arranged their adoption..."
All very interesting, but very little to do with the question that I had asked the minister to address, which was:
'.....The Baroness Barker has tabled the following question in the House of Lords (no named day)—“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy towards access to personal information relating to individuals who receive, or have received, social care, or who have been adopted; and whether they have any proposals for change”. Please put the same question to the Minister for Children and Families on my behalf. The matter of client access to files for pre-commencement adoptions seems to have been entirely left out of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 despite the requirement that adopted people be given sufficient information to ‘make an informed decision’.
The following two paragraphs are from a letter that I sent to several members of the House of Lords including Baroness Barker at the final stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
The other proposal in this Bill that worries me is that the adoption agency be made the sole agency responsible for access to records. My experiences with Barnardos have left me exasperated. And you will no doubt have read of the case Gunn-Rosso v Nugent Care and the Secretary of State for Health, fortunately for Ms Gunn-Rosso Liberty took up her case. I have to pay my own legal expenses. I had the late Alan Levy QC look at the problems I have had with Barnardos, he described it as " as like a bad episode of Yes Minister" and "Kafkaresque". I have been confronted with sheer lack of professionalism, professional arrogance of the very worst kind, and outright lies. I have tried the formal complaints procedure it just does not work, you get a fair hearing, but then if no one at the organisation likes it nothing is done about it. Barnardos dithered until my time to take the matter to Judicial review had expired then told me it would not contact third parties for consent, in fact all of the parties in my adoption are either long dead or have been found by me. I am still not allowed to know many of the facts behind my own adoption and time in care. Barnardos feels that it can take child care files put them in with the adoption file and use the Adoption Regulations to deny access. I have recently received a few more of my medical records after a ten-year fight. Agencies like Barnardos and Nugent Care are told by their legal liability insurance providers not to give clients access to any information that might damaging to the organisation. It is this governs what we get to see and not care consideration. Responsibility for client access to records should be taken away from the agencies.
Far too much of my life over the past ten years has been used up in trying to unravel what happened to my family. I would guess that at least three solid years maybe more of my life has disappeared into this. If the law does not change in my favour I will have to fight a High Court battle with Barnardos, which may even cost me my home. All I need to know now is why I was taken away from the family my mother left me with, the family that considered me their son, who had two foster daughters who were also taken away from them, There was no sign of cruelty or neglect. From the records that I have seen, it seems one of Barnardos greatest worries at the time was that house where we were lodging was owned by Jews. When things like that appear in files the organisations like Barnardos start to worry about giving access to them...'Sadly it would appear that Ms Hodge could not even bother to read what I had written and provide a relevant reply that was in context.
In reply to my specific questions about Barnardos Ms Hodge has the following to say:
"...I note that Mr Harritt is currently in dispute with Barnardo's regarding access to his adoption and care records and wishes to know when Barnardo's Counselling Services Project was last inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate. I can confirm that the last inspection of the project by the social Services Inspectorate was carried out between 30 October and 7 November 2000. Mr Harritt asks if the inspection ascertained that the project had reviewed its policies and procedures on access to adoption files. According to the inspection report, "the project had a comprehensive range of policies and procedures for staff, which were updated earlier in the year". My officials have also been in contact with Barnardo's who confirmed that they regularly review their polices and procedures in respect of access to information and will continue to do so as the law changes under the 2002 Act. Mr Harritt also asks if the inspection examined Barnardos provisions for dealing with a situation where adoption files had been lost in the public domain. I can confirm that this particular issue is not covered in the inspection report although the report does note that "case files and other adoption records were stored safely and securely, and could be readily retrieved when required". There are no further comments on this issue..."
So a policy review would have been due early 2003, obviously it is not a policy of which Barnardos arevery proud they continue to keep it closely under raps.
My search http://robin.robin.org/search
http://robin.robin.org/policy_and_law
'Public Interest Immunity'
I recently received a lengthy letter from Barnardo's legal representatives to my lawyer. It was on the whole just another glorified back covering exercise on Barnardos part. It mentions as one of its excuses for continuing to withhold access to various records and correspondence about what was a very dodgy adoption, a 'Public Interest Immunity where matters of the adoption of a child are concerned'. From what I remember of reading the transcripts of the Gunn-Rosso judgement, an agency might claim immunity from laws requiring disclosure in other circumstances because it might undermine the public's confidence in adoption. Other than that it looks to me as if the Data Protection Act 1998 did away with the ‘public interest immunity’ excuse as of March 2000 except where access was sought through the courts
Barnardo's legal advisor says '....Barnardos have an additional [i.e. in addition to the policy it made know in November 1996] duty to ensure in their capacity as holders of adoption information and having been involved in an adoption process, the public interest in disclosing the material is such that it should be disclosed. This is an overriding duty placed by law on Barnardos and one which they take very seriously...'
However it is I would think, debatable whether records of time in care and foster care can legitimately be claimed to be adoption records just for the purposes of avoidance of disclosure.
I suspected it could be disputed that it is an "overriding duty" particularly as Barnardos has always in the past steadfastly maintained that its "overriding duty" was one of care to those involved. Strange then, that when it becomes possible to prove that those who Barnardos were previously exercising a duty of care towards, have deceased, then that duty of care becomes no longer the "overriding" duty, giving way to a 'public interest duty' which in its view presumably overrides its duty of care to me or any other of its former inmates in my position.
Has anyone else here been given 'Public Interest Immunity' as a reason for withholding access to records of an adoption, or of fostering or time in care particularly where care and fostering records have been annexed (probably illegally) to an adoption record in order to deem them un-discloseable?It does leave me thinking that Barnardos must have some pretty strong stuff on my file about me and my foster family 48 - 50 years ago, if to to disclose it to me now would threaten the whole institution of adoption, here, now, in 2004.
See the article; Access to Social Care Records by Peter Garsden at
http://www.abny.demon.co.uk/acal/Newsletter(Oct2000).htm
Certainly Peter Garsden seems of the opinion that local authorities can no longer use PII as an excuse. Perhaps voluntary agencies are different but I would not have thought so.Although Barnardos is of course a bit of a law unto itself. Individual and corporate backside covering are a priority for Barnardos. Got to protect that £100,000,000 figure no matter how much you hurt others in the process.
Whatever has happened to that $400,000,000 class action for lack of fiduciary care, in Canada? Whatever did happen to it, it's not what you'd expect a "caring organisation" to be facing, perhaps that's because Barnardos is not as caring as it likes us all to think. That is certainly how I feel with some fairly agonising questions remaining unanswered. Perhaps I should just feel grateful to have finally been given full unencumbered access to my own medical records after 12 years of fighting with Barnardos for them.
Any further opinion from anyone on what appears here would be welcome. Even from Barnardos to which I would be pleased to give a right of reply.
My search http://robin.robin.org/search
http://robin.robin.org/policy_and_law
Problems Accessing Records at Barnardos
I would advise anyone who experiences difficulty in accessing records of their own adoption at Barnardos, to write to their own constituency MP requesting that he or she enquire of the appropriate Minster of State as to when Barnardo's Counselling Services Project last underwent an inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate and whether in the process of such an inspection it was shown that Barnardos has properly reviewed it policy on, access to records by adopted people adopted through its agency? I would further advise that they seek professional legal advise.
If you do have to take that route, then I hope you have better luck than I have had, it has taken 12 YEARS to obtain personal access to all of the medical records held about me by Barnardos. After 14 years I am still fighting for access to information that I know that Barnardos hold about my first family.
I have had the late Alan Levy QC one of this country's foremost adoption lawyers look at my case. He has described Barnardos' actions as Kafkaresque and like a particularly bad episode of Yes Minister. I have another opinion from the chambers that represented Nugent Care in R v Nugent Care Society (1) and Secretary of State for Health (2) ex parte Gunn-Rosso, that my case is on all fours, should I wish to pursue it through the courts. But why should I or anyone else be put through that?
The reality in my case is simple, Barnardos is not upholding a duty of care or confidentiality to any other party to my adoption as it has claimed. Every other party to my adoption is deceased, much as was the case with Gunn-Rosso and Nugent Care.
Throughout the past 14 years I have been confronted with sheer lack of professionalism, professional arrogance of the very worst kind, and outright lies. I have tried the formal complaints procedure it just does not work, you get a fair hearing, but then if no one at the organisation likes parts of it, like seeking consent, then nothing is done about it. Barnardos dithered until my time to take the matter to Judicial review had expired then told me it would not contact third parties for consent, in fact all of the parties in my adoption are either long dead or have been found by me. I am still not allowed to know many of the facts behind my own adoption and time in care. Barnardos feels that it can take child care files put them in with the adoption file and use the Adoption Regulations to deny access. I have recently received a few more of my medical records after a 12-year fight. Agencies like Barnardos and Nugent Care are told by their legal liability insurance providers not to give clients access to any information that might be damaging to the organisation. It is this that governs what we get to see and NOT duty of care considerations.
Far too much of my life over the past twelve years has been used up in trying to unravel what happened to my family. I would guess that at least three solid years maybe more of my life has disappeared into this. If the law does not change in my favour I will have to fight a High Court battle with Barnardos, which may even cost me my home. All I need to know now is why I was taken away from the family my mother left me with, the family that considered me their son, who had two foster daughters who were also taken away from them, There was no sign of cruelty or neglect. From the records that I have seen, it seems one of Barnardos greatest worries for me at the time was that house where we were lodging in was owned by Jews. When things like that appear in files the organisations like Barnardos start to worry about giving access to them.
My search http://robin.robin.org/search
http://robin.robin.org/policy_and_law
If you want to see Barnardos 1996 policy
http://www.robinjh.co.uk/info/barnardos.html
Robin Harritt
Barnardo's Family Connections, Dr. Barnardo's Charity, Freedom of Information Act 2000 bernardos banados barnados banardos banarders bernardo's, banados, barnados, banardos, banarders. bernado's, banados, banado's, banardo's, BARNARDOS Freedom of Information Act 2000 Data Protection Act 1998 banarder's. Data Protection Act 1998 Martin Ruddock Barnardos Martin Ruddock Freedom of Information Act 2000 Data Protection Act 1998 'Martin Ruddock' Barnardo's Charity, Freedom of Information Act 2000 Data Protection Act 1998 bernados banados banardos banarders benados benado's barbados . Martin Ruddock, Barnardos Kids Charity UK Ann Haigh Barnardos Family Connections UK Cottage No. 1 Tanners Lane Barkingside ILFORD IG6 1QG Telephone: 020 8550 2688 Fax: 020 8551 8914 Email: familyconnections@barnardos.org.uk http://services.barnardos.org.uk/familyconnections/ If they were not legaly adopted but remained in care or foster care through Barnardos then she should contact Barnado's Aftercare After Care Centre, Barnardo's, Tanners Lane, Barkingside, Ilford, Essex, IG6 1QG. Telephone no: 0208 498 7536 Fax no: 0208 498 7017 Email: aftercare@barnardos.org.uk http://www.barnardos.org.uk/whatwedo/aftercare/