Jan Baker's post on family preservation prompted me to closely examine two stories in the news out of Britain today.

Both the article in the Telegraph and one in the Daily Mail focus on an increasing number of babies being removed from biological families, taken into care and made available for adoption.

Saying that there has been a "three-fold increase, with now more than 900 taken and put up for adoption every year" ... although the issue is confused when the Mail reports 1,300 newborns annually, and the Telegraph reports a total of 2,120 ... point fingers at government adoption targets set in 2000.

Confidential figures obtained by the Daily Mail show that £36 million in 'reward grants' has been promised to English councils in an attempt by Labour to increase adoptions of children by 50 per cent.

Apparently, the targets were set in an attempt to cut the number of children 'languishing in foster care".

At great issue is the system itself, where cases are heard in family courts where the rules are different; while criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, these family courts make decisions based on a 'balance of probabilities" to the tune of more than 20,000 cases per year.

Also under debate is the fact that family court operates in secret, and families are forbidden to discuss their cases.

As shocking a concept as it is to most Americans, secrecy is big in British law. The Official Secrets Act has been law in the UK since 1911, and has seen more than one whistle-blower publicly uncovering less-than-savory behavior on the part of government officials do time.

With an acceptance of secrecy ... official secrecy ... as a viable method of conducting government business, it's not surprising that the hush-hush washes over into other aspects of formal British life.

Secrets in family court impacts child custody cases by making it illegal for reporters and members of the public ... often even family ... to attend hearings, review evidence, see documents or obtain copies of judgments.

There was some thought recently that the issue of secrecy was to be addressed, but discussions resulted in a refusal that ended up proposing even tighter restrictions. The person in charge of deciding, Lord Falconer, explained his stance, saying, "The clear message was that the media should not be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy and anonymity."

The head of the British Association of Adoption & Fostering is quoted as saying, "Social services do not take children into care to be adopted unnecessarily. It is dangerous to suggest that this is happening.''

A suspended solicitor and former part-time judge who resigned after being found guilty of "conduct unbefitting a solicitor", and founder of Families Action for Court Transparency and Openness (Facto), says: "It's not the welfare of the child that is being protected - it's the welfare of social workers".

The North Tyneside Council, in response to allegations of "snatching record numbers of babies for adoption" in their area said: "In the past few weeks steps have been taken to protect six babies at serious risk of significant harm. In all cases the mothers have frequent contact with their babies and are encouraged to breastfeed."

At the moment, this is a very big story in Britain, and many are pinning hopes for improvements in the system on the change at Number 10. Gordon Brown and his new cabinet may very well address these issues differently than Tony Blair did.