[Robin Harritt]

I would like to contact any one who has approached Barnardos UK for access to either their adoption file or records of their time in Barnardo's care and have found the response that they received unsatisfactory. I would also like to hear of peoples experience with other voluntary sector agencies in order to get a comparison. Barnardos' policy can be seen at :

http://info.harritt.net/barnardos

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

e-mail robin at robin dot org

or leave a message at 01279 813303
international +44 1279813303

[Robin Harritt]

Anyone out there ever seen a more up to date access to records policy from Barnardos than the 1996 version at

http://info.harritt.net/barnardos ?

The Adoption Agencies Regultions 1983 require an adoption agency to fully review its policy at least once every three years. Despite numerious requests over the last few years Barnardo's have been unable to furnish a more recent adoptee access to records policy.

I rather suspect that Barnardos has reverted to its pre 1996 policy of, lets make it up as we go along and change it from day to day, which led to the complaint and its resolution that required it produce a written policy in 1996.

Robin Harritt

http://harritt

[Robin Harritt]

The following question has been tabled in the House of Lords. NO DAY NAMED

The Baroness Barker—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.

It will be interesting to see what answer Lady Barker receives to this question, and whether or not all the evidence submitted made at the committee stages of the Adoption and Children Bills leading to the new Act have been taken any account of, Certainly the Adoption and Children Act 2002 has failed to do much of what might be hoped of it.

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

.

[Robin Harritt]

This morning I received yet another lengthy letter from Barnardo's legal representatives to my lawyer.

On the whole yet another glorified backside 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.

Barnardo's solicitor says '....Barnardos have an additional duty to ensure in their capacity as holders of adoption information and having 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...'

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 become 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 public interest duty which in its view overrides its duty of care to me or presumably 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?

Robin Harritt

*

[Robin Harritt]

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

See the article; Access to Social Care Records by Peter Garsden at

http://www.abny.demon.co.uk/acal/Newsletter(Oct2000).htm

Certainly he seems to think that local authorities can no longer use PII as an excuse. Perhaps voluntary agencies are different but I would not have thought so.

Though Barnardos is of course a bit of a law unto its self. Individual and corporate backside covering are a priority for Barnardos. Gotta 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 feducuiary care, in Canada? Not what you'd expect a "careing organisation" to be facing.

Any further opinions from anyone here would be welcome


Robin Harritt

[kimmy12]

I am sad to read abot the problems that you are having with Barnardos in the UK.
I was adopted through International Social Services and Barnardos Hongkong to a family in the UK. I was given exstensive documentation about my birth parents and my blood grandparents as well as background informaation and the circumstances of why they had to give me away. The bulk of the information was saved and passed on to my parents by Barnardos Hong Kong. What is so shocking reading your posts is that i was adopted in 1967 and my parents were given all this information at that time.
I hope that my story will inable you to ask Barnardos UK why they are behaving so strangley, Barnardos is the same organization all over the world its just the location that is different.
As for the mumbo jumbo about policies and whats best. Here are some points as an adoptee
1) I have had a full and loving life
2) I am a product of an "interracial adoption"and have intergrated well.
3) the information i have got has saved me a lot of heartach and endless searching for my birth parents.
4) The treatment and information given to my parents has helped me no end and my parents celebrate not only my life, their lives withme, my familie as well as my birth parents. in other words for all those concerned we have the best of both worlds.
Goodluck keep me posted as i proberbly still have the mames of the people who helped my parents at Barnardos Hongkong.

[LegalZone]

.
Hi Kim

I am pleased to hear that your experiences with Barnardos have been more satisfactory than my own.

My own experience of adoption would I am sure have been fine but for the fact that my adoptive mother died when I just seven years old after a long hospitalisation so last saw her when I was six. Barnardos gave my parents a lot of information before I was adopted and made them sign an agreement that they would tell me about my adoption. Barnardos has become a great deal more secretive over the years, as it is realised how bad some of its past pratise really was by today's standards. The reasons for my adoption and process by which I was taken into care were probably not entirely legal even in 1954 under the Children Act 1948 and Adoption Children Act 1949.

It is not really true to say that the Barnardos organisations around the world are all the same organisation. Although they share a founder and in some cases trustees. Barnardos in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the UK share a common name and heritage, but the differences in the laws on both child care and adoption and on charitable status mean that they operate autonomously and often very differently from each other. I suspect Barnardos no longer operate in HK.

What I write of above is my experience with Barnardos London Division and specifically 'Barnardos Counselling Services Project' at Barkingside.

The Barnardos projects that deal with postadoption issues in both Scotland and Ireland are believe most professional in their work excellently well run. But both Scotland and Ireland have very different laws to England & Wales, also of course those two projects are dealing largely with adoptions that were not arranged by Barnardos. Hence there is a lot less corporate backside covering to be done.

The Barnardos in Aus and NZ are run separately from the organisation in the UK. I do not know what Barnardos involvement in adoption was in those countries or what its involvement now is with post-adoption practise.

The one thing that Barnardos is very good at in the UK is spin and its own publicity.

If you view this page from an ISP in the UK you will almost certainly see an ad for Barnardos fund raising somewhere on the page. No doubt Barnardos pay for that and could use it as leverage to have anything it dislikes removed from here.

Robin

http://harritt.net

*

[kimmy12]

Hi, Robin,
First I would like to say how sorry I am that you lost your adoptive Mum so early in your life.

It must have been a blow for you and now many years later frustrating to know that the background info on your Birth parents is now hard to come by from the problems with Barnardos. I did call Barnardos in England and told them that I already had all the information on my birth parents plus letters they comunicated with my adoptive parents . They told me that they have all the files on film including those from hong kong and all I had to do was write a letter requesting the info. (I made sure that I told them that I had been to International Social Services and they have already given me my ifo they had received.) The only information I cant have from either agencies is third party information.

Im sure you have done just what I have done, but I wanted to see what the response is so maybe I can try to find a way to help you in your quest. If they give me the info then I can tell you why and if they dont they have to tell me why . I think if I try then
we should be able to gather some insight that can help you enforce your claim to get your records.
Maybe you think this is a crazy and stupid idea of mine but it makes me so angry when I hear your story.

Iwill let you know what happens

[Robin Harritt]

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 have had 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 are very proud they continue to keep it closely under raps.

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net
.

[Robin Harritt]

.

[Robin Harritt]

If you have adoption records or care records being held by Barnardos in the UK do beware.

It really does be beggar belief that a major childrens' charity has so little to say about the fact that it is has committed such a major breach of confidentiality and has been so untruthful about what records it holds.

In December of last year I asked my lawyer to ask Barnardo's lawyers, why in 1992/3 or thereabouts when I was searching for my family Barnardos had claimed that it held no information about my sister other than that my mother had had another female child who was adopted?

In later Barnardos was able pass on to me completely un-requested and as a part of a bundle of other documents, full details not only of my sister's adoption but also of her paternity and details of the circumstances of her conception.

On Friday 25 February 2005, I received in black and white from Barnardo's legal representative a letter via my solicitor outlining amongst much else, why the above had happened. It was because; "at that stage Barnardo's were aware that Mr Harritt had already had a reunion with his sister so this issue had been dealt with".

These people really do beggar belief don't they?

So there you have it then in black and white, all you need do is to have a "reunion" with one of your relatives long lost to adoption or Barnardo's care and Barnardos will automatically and without further ado, let you have all of your relatives most intimate details. Yet when you are actually searching for your brother or sister or any other loved one, it is perfectly good practice, apparently, for Barnardos to claim that it holds no records at all for the person you seek. Even when in fact they do have all those intimate details as well as the information needed in order to trace.

I wonder if Barnardos President Ms Cherie Booth, our current Prime Minister's wife runs her legal office in such a way. Or if her husband runs his country that way?

And Barnardos now want me to sign additional waivers before they will show me more of my own records????? Even those mentioned in them have been dead for at least 15 years.

If it wasn't clear before, it is now, the terms that Barnardos likes to throw around willy nilly, like "duty of confidentiality" and "duty of care" have little or no real meaning to some of its employees. What matters at the modern Barnardos is individual and corporate backside covering.

My search http://robin.robin.org/search

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

*

[Robin Harritt]

Kim if you are still reading this thread did you ever get any further info? Did they ever tell you their definition of third party?

Robin

http://robin.robin.org/search

*

[Robin Harritt]

Another week and still no progress, is anyone else out there having these problems?

Robin

http://www.robin.robin.org/blog

http://www.robin.robin.org/search

[Robin Harritt]

I've just updated the story so far.

http://barnardos.harritt.net/barnard...ords/barnardos

Robin Harritt

http://harritt.net

[Robin Harritt]

Just bringing this back to the top.

Some of the links in the posts above might no longer work, you can see my story on the following links.


http://barnardos.harritt.net/

http://search.harritt.net

http://barnardos.harritt.net/barnardos


Robin

call +44 20 7871 1835 Fax +44 20 7691 9668

*