Family missing with newborn....

[ChocChocYum]

www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/23233264.bolton-m61-appeal-help-finding-missing-family-newborn-baby/

Where are they? How can they go missing? Hope they are ok

The UK is one of the (fortunately) few countries that can assess parenting before the child is delivered and decide that there is a risk of ‘future harm’.

I’ll almost guarantee that the couple are heading to Europe where a child cannot be removed for a possible future risk. They must present to the authorities of that country who will still visit and assess, but in the meantime the child can remain with them.

Dont get me wrong, our social services work their butts off for rubbish pay and chronic understaffing, but our system isn’t a particularly good or successful one.

I believe they have three other children.

I've fostered DC of couples that couldn't ever have successfully kept their DC. It was nerve wracking supervising contact. It certainly is possible to predict future harm, and step in to avoid it.

I used to work in a role up till very recently that supported families going through allegations of FII (fabricated or induced illness) or ‘risk of future emotional harm’ (there didn’t need to be any proven harm that had already taken place and social services didn’t need to explain exactly what they thought the risk would be in specific terms just ‘risk of future emotional harm’

Prior to that role I thought social services were always correct and only investigated and removed children for proven abuse or where there was evidence or a disclosure. Cases where there was DV or severe drug issues or neglect.

These were often applied to families where children had medical conditions and/or autism.
Common ‘red flag’ conditions were:

-ASD
-ADHD
-EDS
-Allergies
-digestive or feeding issues
-ME
-anxiety / camhs involvement

Often the families were asking for additional support and/or an EHCP and schools made referrals. Low school attendance due to illness was weaponised against these families even with proof of conditions etc

Many had their children removed. We had to help collating evidence for court because these families were broken. In every case we found huge inaccuracies in reports from professionals and were able to counter each allegation or false info with evidence to prove otherwise but this was often deliberately overlooked and was extremely frustrating.
very limited contact was offered and sessions were always wrongly recorded.
in cases of FII the routes you would normally take to clear your name are blocked as they’ve been deemed ‘red flags for FII’ so getting a second or private opinion is going to make the situation worse as is making a formal compliant as it’s seen as attention seeking.

We advised all parents to covertly record all meetings. When we then had reports etc back it was inaccurate and full of false information-luckily we had recordings we could transcribe to use in court.

I don’t doubt in this case that they are probably trying to evade ss. What I want to get across to people that sadly it’s not always clear cut that social services are doing the right thing.

This could be a case of DV or something else and then yes we need SS to step in and help but I think In general people are very ignorant as to what social services currently are doing to a lot of innocent families and we don’t knew the facts here so can’t rule anything out.

Im not saying it is but if this is a case where it’s FII/risk of future emotional harm then i can understand why they have taken this action it’s obviously not right but these families get desperate.

there’s plenty of info re FII/ risk of future emotional harm out there ans children are routinely removed due to it.

The BASW guidance for social workers re FII and perplexing presentations By Cathie Long is a good read

the website ‘not fine in school’ mentions it.

’FIIghtback’ website is another good resource and supports parents

It certainly is possible to predict future harm sometimes. If someone has previously been convicted of violent or sexual offences, or similar.

When SS are saying (as they seemed to be with the case I cited) ‘you might meet someone who might be violent’ I’m not sure that is meeting the so called extremely high threshold needed for removal of a child. Of course, it’s very tricky to always get these things right and care has to be taken with newborns. But I’m not convinced SS always do make the right call, and the fact other countries in Europe do not do this gives me further reservations.

In those cases yes - if there’s a history of DV, a partner with previous convictions. Etc etc

A child who has made a disclosure / bruises noted on numerous occasions or a clear NAI

With the families I’ve worked with there has been NOTHING. No previous harm, DV, convictions nothing.
Parents are repeatedly told ‘FII’ or ‘risk of future emotional harm’ when we ask for that to be specific we get nothing. The term is being abused

My assumption would be baby is going to be removed and they've fled. The pictures of them on the BBC website are police mugshots, so at some point recently both have been in police custody.

I know; I think we are agreeing with one another. I am not claiming there are never reasons to remove a child, particularly at birth, but I am also not at all sure that those reasons are always ones I personally think meet what should be a very high threshold.

Yes I agree with you. If I’m honest before I worked in this area I was very much of the belief that social service only removed in the most serious of cases and had to have evidence and proof of abuse. They don’t need anything they will in these cases I’ve been involved in put opinions in reports which are then repeated and presented in court as fact- despite evidence to prove otherwise they get believed

The wording of the police statements is clearly heavily controlled. I would agree with the majority, that this is likely a case of SS involvement and the mother fearing the child will be taken. She has (on the surface) a very privileged background and is quite accomplished. It's a very odd case but hopefully resolved soon and she and the baby are safe and healthy.

Police mugshots... Or passport photos as pp have said. Important to not present theories as facts.

I saw this towards the end of my role. Initially the majority of families we helped were from deprived areas and with difficult financial situations but it started to change and we had a lot more referrals where families were often professionals themselves and one of the parents had ASD (usually the mother). A lot was always made about ‘language used’ by these parents as if social services / teachers / nhs didn’t like to be questioned by someone intelligent (and often in the case of the mothers with ASD very determined to get support for their dc and well versed on all things legal etc)

Her photo definitely looks like a passport photo. His maybe not, not sure if the clothing being up round his head would've meant that wasn't accepted on a passport?

Very very common for arrests to be made with child protection investigations so it’s possible

How could this baby be taken abroad without a passport unless smuggled onto a ferry?

There is quite a bit online about the mother and her background, but nothing about the father?

I work for social services and remember this case in the media.

Yes the mother came across as a victim of the system but... They pretty much always paint themselves like that. It's rare for someone to admit that they have been in the wrong and take ownership of the decisions that got them into that situation.

Social services can never comment on cases, so you only ever get the "poor me" side of the story. There will have been real and genuine reasons to remove that child. It's always the last resort.

The birth mother could well have had her baby removed for very good reasons, @WhenIAmOldIShallWearPurple , I am not professing myself as an expert at all, but I do have room for doubt. The involvement by the charity in particular seemed to add quite a lot of weight to her claims.

They don't take children at the drop of a hat though, despite what people on social media say.

Possible of course. But the poster was presenting it as a fact.

My sons birth mother has been in the press previously in one of their tasteless “my baby was stolen” stories. She came over as intelligent, calm, caring and a completely normal woman, according to her her children were removed because she had done coke on a night out (when not pregnant). Funnily enough she didn’t mention the class A drugs, witholding food and water from her children, the physical abuse and one of them nearly losing their life.

Yes. That's exactly my point.

Have they been removed from them ?

That’s terrible and I dont doubt it but I have to mention we had a case where the mother was accused of drug taking/substance misuse . All because a nursery manager noticed 1) marks all over the mothers arms and 2) the child had a dental issue she declared ‘this looks like a possible heroin issue’ this was recorded and went back and forth between professionals to the point it became fact and was presented as such .

The poor woman was devastated she had NEVER take drugs. She volunteered for testing and we helped her obtain her dermatology records re her skin condition and her child’s dentist wrote plus we got the records to show she had needed antibiotics during pregnancy and that child had them in nicu to prove what the dentist was saying about the likely cause .

They way in which they latched onto the ‘drug issue’ with no proof was terrifying

I don’t know if I’m being stupid, but how do they know she’s had the baby if she hasn’t had any medical attention?

Its got to be due to avoiding SS