You think you've seen it all. But you won't believe this.

I think there was also drug dependency involved and it complicated the situation.

Can I just ask, as I have been following this with very much interest,
Are the DC and DM seen as both suffering under the threat of death, daily fear of catastrophic consequences?
All I see is that, both are under it, both need the same protection from authorities there to protect them, but the man is free, threatens the woman to go back or else, and so on, even if it's not said.
It's recognised in abuse that women and their DC occupy the same and sometimes lower level of authority than the DC. That's acknowledged, so why is there no recognition of that in legislation?
What I am hearing is a system that badly tries to fit itself around, but not, and clearly failing badly with the death rates remaining constant all these years.

Such a sad story. My concern is that it is highly likely that Sarah won't get the support she needs.

I don’t really know much about this subject -reading between the lines have groups like this basically decided to take vulnerable girls and intimidate their families? Plus groom the girls so if police do attend the girls say they want to be there ie reference to Stockholm syndrome. Would police really do this even when the girls were clearly underage? I’d read about girls in care being taken and raped but not of girls being kidnapped and forced to live with their attackers. Sorry for my naivety on this topic

apologies post above was a reply to Femaledisrespectful

You can't unknow fundamental values and reflective practice!

I found my way into the (very incomplete) understanding I have because of getting into stuff trying to support the women fucked over by austerity. I couldn't understand how so many obvious and outrageous injustices were happening. Have some social workers among friends and family, asked them, read everything I could from judgements to the Children Act.

Now I see why they happen but I also see the absolute political intransigence to even acknowledge the situation, let alone do anything about it.

Absolutely @R0wantrees - one of my reasons for disengaging with the profession actually. That and when I was interviewing someone whose son had been murdered. I couldn't complete the interview for various reasons but mainly because I realised I wanted to work with her on her grief, and not exploit it. I was a shit journalist! Bugger, now I need to NC...far too outing...

The poor media/social care relationship goes back decades,

There is the political element in that relationship too of course.

We are a gift for the media. They will say and report what they wish (within their legal framework) and we will do precisely nothing. I'm a strange hybrid; trained journalist with an MA in social work, hence my interest and study of this area. The poor media/social care relationship goes back decades, and we've done very little to improve our situation. It is deeply unhelpful and damaging to all.

The system needs reform because it is letting down vulnerable women. But it is a good system for children mostly. We need to improve matters for those women but without compromising all the good stuff done on behalf of children.

Not an easy thing to untangle but it's actively obstructed by hopeless media reporting, in my view.

I agree.

There is a lot that might be done to enable a better understanding of social work and the contexts it operates within.

Sigh

So this poor woman was groomed and intimidated into staying with her abusers. She wasn't simply kidnapped for 12 years. During that time she had children which she tragically couldn't care for - probably due to her own trauma and inability to keep them safe from the abusers. That's absolutely tragic for her and the children but they still needed to be protected.

The law very clearly states that birth parents must be consulted and represented in care proceedings. Very often the birth parent turns up and says 'I want x y and z' and the court (the judge, not the social worker) decides that the evidence stacks up that x, y and z are not in the children's interests, so they don't happen.
But the law states that the court MUST hear the wishes if the birth parents want to give them.

And this is why social services get a bad name.the people involved in taking these children away need naming and shaming..then charging and forced to justify themselves in court

This utter bullshit is ignorant, vile crap and makes me furious. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Sorry x post @LangCleg!

No worries.

The system needs reform because it is letting down vulnerable women. But it is a good system for children mostly. We need to improve matters for those women but without compromising all the good stuff done on behalf of children.

Not an easy thing to untangle but it's actively obstructed by hopeless media reporting, in my view.

The reporting makes it sound like he was actively taunting the mother, which would really not be OK. The overall tone is salacious though, so not sure it's in any way a reliable description of what happened, though I have heard of some courts allowing appalling behavior from men on the stand before.

(There was a famous case in NYC of a man who raped and murdered a 12 year old girl - he later went trans and prison married a famous serial killer - and he openly taunted the victim's mother from the witness stand. Have never been able to forget that.)

I would argue that there are plenty of ways in which we could engage with the media, without causing any difficulties around confidentiality but for whatever reason we don't. If more people understood what we did, it would benefit everyone.

I have friends who foster/adopt children (one particular friend has ended up adopting all but one of the long-term foster placement children and the other one was a baby who, with her assistance, was eventually placed back with the mother, with appropriate support).

I'm pleased by some of the nuanced consideration, care, and support that some SS can provide in some areas. I do wish SS could engaged more in public discussions so that decisions and limitations are more readily understood.

Sorry x post @LangCleg!

@AngryAttackKittens Yes, kind of but it's more nuanced than that. It is about fact finding and weighing up those facts in relation to the child. It is always about what is best for the child, and it would be negligent to simply write off the father without first seeking out the facts and analysing them. As abhorrent as he is presented as being, he cannot simply be ignored.

Social Care is absolutely rubbish at explaining themselves and engaging in the media, which is why Social Workers are like sitting ducks. We have a responsibility to educate people about our role, but we don't tend to do it and hide behind the 'confidentiality' argument . I would argue that there are plenty of ways in which we could engage with the media, without causing any difficulties around confidentiality but for whatever reason we don't. If more people understood what we did, it would benefit everyone.

So proven to be a terrible person dad shows up, says his piece, and the courts say "that's nice sir, but we don't care" and ignore him?

Um... more "We need to establish whether or not there is a possibility for this child to thrive in the care of either or both of its parents, so we will need to assess and speak to both the parents. If we then feel that the child's interests would be better served by adoption, the child will be adopted even though one or both of the parents object."

No matter how foul the parent, you can't really adopt out his or her child with no input from that parent.

So proven to be a terrible person dad shows up, says his piece, and the courts say "that's nice sir, but we don't care" and ignore him?

Elizabeth Gordon (who spoke at FiLiA 2018) article & resources about codifying 'non-state torture': artprintspace.net/
(extracts)
"In March 2018 I submitted the text below to the Women’s Resource Centre for the WRC Shadow Report for the UK’s upcoming CEDAW examination in Geneva in 2019. This text was written by Jeanne Sarson and Linda MacDonald of Persons Against Non-State Torture and is currently visible on the WRC website: – Home Page – Our Work – CEDAW – Evidence 2018 -Trafficking: thewomensresourcecentre.org.uk/our-work/cedaw/

“Non-State torture must be specifically criminalised into national law as it is inflicted against women or girls who are subjected to human trafficking and sexualised exploitation. 1, 2 This ensures that the State adopts appropriate legal protection thereby eliminating human rights discrimination against women – Article 2.”

An excerpt from my email to WRC dated 7 June 2018:

“We cannot further the human rights of women and girls not to be subjected to torture unless we face and name the uncomfortable and disturbing reality that women and girls do suffer torture by family, by parents, intimate partners and through trafficking and prostitution. Please do not discriminate by invisibilising the torture women and girls suffer by leaving this population behind.”

Its really worth following the link to read more.

Elizabeth Gordon's artwork, 'Out of the Shadows'

I guess my issue is that I don't believe having a man who was part of a grooming gang in their life could ever be the best thing for a child, or that a man who's abused the mother is safe for the child to be around even if you take the mother's feelings about that out of the equation. I don't believe that men who're abusive to women are safe for children to be around either.

To be fair, neither do the courts. Like I say, hopeless reporting always around child protection.

The child in question was being adopted out. The legislation dictates that the situation of both parents - regardless of criminal convictions, regardless of any abuse between them - be taken into account when determining a) whether the adoption should proceed and b) what contact or information the child should have or be given post adoption.

So yes - the father was "involved". That's the law. But nobody was sitting down, stroking their chin, and taking his "advice".

Reporting of this stuff is so bad. Even Andrew Gilligan, a talented, careful, journalist, managed to misreport the case in which a judge banned the mother from contact with Mermaids. He reported that Mermaids were ordered to not contact the family by the judge, which allowed Mermaids to say they had received no such order. They didn't, because Mermaids weren't a party to proceedings (mother, father, local authority were) and the judge would only issue orders to parties.

See what I mean?

If people understood how it all works better, we could identify the problems and seek solutions. But nobody understands how it works and media reporting gets it badly wrong so we don't only not understand, we're completely misinformed.

And happens all teh time irrespective of the race of the men >> awful case in ?wales recently for example where police said to man is she ok and he says yep fine and they leave again multiple times.

Conducive context can be a useful way of looking at this:

With respect to violence against women and girls one of the earliest insights from feminist research was the challenge the notion of the home/family as a safe place, a ‘haven in a heartless world’. The family turned out to be an extremely unsafe space for women and children.

Theorising about contexts became more significant when successive United Nations, and therefore globally influential, definitions of violence against women conflated forms of violence and the contexts in which they take place. This much cited descriptive definition is contained in the 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women:

(a) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation; (b) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced prostitution; (c) Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.

The elisions that take place here are unhelpful, serving to disguise the ways forms of violence traverse contexts: sexual abuse of girls can take place in and outside the family; rape in households is not limited to those that take place in the context of marriage; family members may be involved in sexual exploitation and trafficking

discoversociety.org/2016/03/01/theorising-violence-against-women-and-girls/

I guess my issue is that I don't believe having a man who was part of a grooming gang in their life could ever be the best thing for a child, or that a man who's abused the mother is safe for the child to be around even if you take the mother's feelings about that out of the equation. I don't believe that men who're abusive to women are safe for children to be around either.

And what I just said is exactly why F4J hates feminists.

Would it have happened to a boy?

If a boy had been kidnapped from a supermarket aged 15 and repeatedly raped by a gang of men would the police have acted?

I think they would.

I think this whole thing is an absolute shitshow of sexist, classist fuckery with the race of the perpetrators used as an excuse not to act to defend these children.

The part about the kidnap being reported to police and the parents reporting multiple times and the police not doing anything needs to be reported as well.

They were complicit as so often they have been >> they see girls who they deem to be of very low value and they support the men. This is very basic sexism. And happens all teh time irrespective of the race of the men >> awful case in ?wales recently for example where police said to man is she ok and he says yep fine and they leave again multiple times.

This all points back at a very subconscious level to females still being the property of males and that should not be interfered with. Old school ideas about "domestics" leave it to the man to sort his woman (girl) out.

Until we change the appalling attitudes in society generally this won't change.

And they fucking took her children. Just unbelievable.