Baby joy for couple forced to flee the ss

[atlantis]

The mail are reporting that the couple forced to flee the UK after their first daughter was forcibly adopted and plans were in place to do the same to their new child have had a baby boy, good luck to them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251801/Pregnant-Briton-fled-Spain-prevent-social-services-taking-c hild-gives-birth-son.html

[nooka]

I find the report very incoherent. Did the mother have two children removed? The reason given for the removal is that the mother allegedly didn't send her daughter to school, and yet if she was born in 2008, how can that have been relevant?

[JollyPirate]

Ah the Daily Mail again - that journal of unbiased reporting..

Yep good luck to them.... and good luck to the baby if the parenting assessments were accurate as the baby may need it.

[johnhemming]

Spain has a better record in child protection than England in most international surveys (based upon WHO data).

Far fewer children die from child abuse and neglect per age cohort than in England.

[SixtyFootDoll]

If only it was as easy to remove children as the DM would have us believe.
Agree JP, I wish them luck. If the mother has Munchausens then that baby will need it.

[JollyPirate]

That's reassuring to know John.

[johnhemming]

Spain generally comes close to the top in terms of its record of preventing deaths from Child Abuse and Neglect.

I tend to encourage people to go to Ireland because of benefits law and language issues although two refugee babies were born this week in Spain.

Ireland does better than England in terms of protecting children from death as a result of Child Abuse or Neglect.

[NicknameTaken]

That is a legally incorrect use of the word refugee.

[johnhemming]

Generally a refugee is someone who flees for safety. The parents are clearly refugees fearing persecution in England. I would argue also that the child's safety requires that they go.

That is based upon the recent research by Alan Rushton that I have cited previously and can be read on my weblog.

[NicknameTaken]

Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country..."

1. If travelling on UK passports, they are availing themselves of British protection
   
2. They're exercising right of free movement of EU citizens, so not refugees
   
3. I would disagree that they are being persecuted based on the stated reasons.
   
   Empty rhetoric such as this tends to undermine your position.

[NicknameTaken]

That's the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, for clarification.

[johnhemming]

There was a lady once who obtained Asylum in Holland from the USA on the basis of a false allegation of MSbP.

Pretty well cast Iron as a precedent. In practise as EEA nationals they don't need formal Aslyum.

[NicknameTaken]

A precedent only if (a) the allegation can be shown to be false in each new case and (b) the threatened persecution in each new case was based on one of the five grounds in the definition.

[atlantis]

There's also this;

www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1715678&sponsor=

and this;

www.savethechildren.org.uk/caris/legal/srandi/sr_19.php

There's also the convention on human rights where;

countries are bound by European Human Rights law which means that they have a legal duty not to send someone back to a country where they may be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment or punishment.

[NicknameTaken]

Art 3 ECHR does not apply.

[teasle]

It is the frigging Daily Mail ffs.

AArrrgggghhhh....

[OrmRenewed]

Sorry is the baby called Joy then? Odd name for a boy.

[atlantis]

www.sheltercentre.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR_determiningRefugeeStatus.pdf

Page 8 B.

It applies.

[NicknameTaken]

Yes, it applies to determining refugee status. It does not apply to a case where the persecution alleged is removal of a child by social services.

[atlantis]

"Yes, it applies to determining refugee status. It does not apply to a case where the persecution alleged is removal of a child by social services. "

You were arguing the point on refugee status.

If you look at the rights of a child you can then argue under numerous articles that the right to family life, the right to state intervention etc, etc has been overstepped by ss or the uk not making provisions to try to keep the family together ( mother and baby unit, etc) you can even argue that the family are being persecuted because the ss can not come up with a definate diagnosis on the mothers mental status, they change it to suit their own needs and can not get another MH professional to sign off on the diagnosis.

It's all a grey area but then most of the law is a grey area.

[johnhemming]

The point is that they don't need to claim Asylum because they already have a right of residency. That does not stop them being refugees, however.

I refer to them as refugees in my speeches in the House of Commons and no-one has complained about my use of language.

[SixtyFootDoll]

Might have known JH would show up on here

[atlantis]

"Might have known JH would show up on here"

Yes, everyone has the right to freedom of speech unless they don't agree with the ss.

[johnhemming]

The Spanish authorities have been in touch with the other family and have offered them baby milk.

No wonder Spain has a better record on child protection.

[specialmagiclady]

Haven't read intervening posts but was wondering why this 60 year old story was news.

But SS in this case stands for Social Services not Schutzstaffel...

[seeker]

Good luck to the baby - he's going to need it.