|










| |
Children taken into care due to asylum policy
31 March 2005
Newborn babies are being taken into care as a result of a government policy
that makes their asylum seeking mothers destitute, it was alleged this week,
writes Simon Vevers and Amy Taylor.
Midwives say infants are being removed from their mothers because of a
policy that means families whose asylum claims are unsuccessfully and who do
not voluntarily leave the UK within two weeks of the secretary of state
deciding they are able to are denied support.
Under the policy, social workers are being forced to remove children from
their families on the basis that they do not have the resources to look
after them.
Community midwife June Walker said that she had worked with a woman whose
asylum claim failed and who had her baby, which was born in Lewisham
hospital, south east London, removed and placed in foster care after she was
found to be living in squalid conditions.
Charity The Maternity Alliance told Community Care's sister title 0-19 that
it is aware of midwives who have dealt with a number of cases where mothers
have had their babies taken away at birth and placed in foster care.
Only single adult asylum seekers were affected by the policy until last
December when it was extended to families under section 9 of the Asylum and
Immigration Act 2004.
It is being piloted for this group in the north-west and several London
boroughs before being rolled out nationally.
Outrage greeted the announcement of the proposed policy last spring. But
immigration minister Des Browne said that he was "satisfied that the purpose
of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2004 is not to take children away from
their parents" (news, page 13, 23-29 September 2004).
British Association of Social Workers director Ian Johnston said the cases
"confirm our worst fears" about the policy.
A spokesperson for Lewisham Council said that it was not the authority's
policy to receive children into care on the grounds that their parents had
been made destitute through the policy and to the council's knowledge they
had not done so
|
|