I want my baby back - Panorama

[Hels20]

I hesitate to put this on the board but would be interested in the views of anyone who watches this - it's tonight on BBC 1 at 9pm.

I hope it gives a balanced account. Then there is the Channel 4 programme on Wednesday T 10pm on Finding a Mum and Dad.

@spero - you would need a whole weekend to read the linda lewis case (linda lewis is the mother). The child goes by the name Bonnie (Real name Ntah*). The child was kidnapped illegally from the US after misdiagnosis in the UK (false passport issued to social services) to prevent a medical negligence claim - they fabricated a suicide pact note by the mother to take the child (confirmed as fake by another social worker).

Mother hasnt seen her daughter since. 'Child' is now 26 (12 sat the time). Weirdest and murkiest story I have ever seen'

Google 'justice for linda lewis'

ignore last post wrong thread

I understand why children need to be safeguarded, and can fully understand if a child has fractures, it needs to be investigated, and perhaps children be placed with their grandparents, or other relatives (that have been CRB and character-checked) whilst investing. But checking for vitamin D deficiency should be mandatory, given that cases have been proven to wrongly take children from parents.

Unfortunately, it has reached the point, many parents will not send their children to school if they have fallen from their bikes, for fear of it being 'reported' (as school teachers are trained to record/report injuries.)

I have listened as those who have argued that if there is 'any' chance of risk, children should be removed regardless. I think this is worrying. removing small children from their parents is psychologically damaging (to both parties.)

I think if parents have a history of being loving/caring parents, and their children one day sustain an injury, that be accounted for, they should not have their children automatically removed, or it be noted on social service records as suspicious. Children are accident-prone, and many parents are going to worry needlessly because of this.

I think the court system needs to be re-evaluated. Although these cases are in the minority, imagine if this happened to you.

I think what is alarming, is that there is such a thing called 'posed emotional risk' in the UK. Many mothers will not seek help if they suffer depression, for fear of losing their children. I believe this is wrong. Parents shouldn't fear social services, they should be working together.

There are many wonderful social workers, so I don't think it should be a case of condemning social workers, but rather the current system being re-evaluated.

There have been cases in that judges have condemned social services, for making 'bad decisions', but unfortunately by then parents have lost their children. This shouldn't happen. I believe a reform is neccessary, children do not just need to be safe-guarded from parents, but from being failed by the system intended to protect them.

I hope the family courts in the will soon be opened to public scrutiny, I think it would solve many of these problems; investigations would have to then be more thorough - and parents would not feel afraid of social services. Problem solved?!

Towards the end of the programme they quoted the President of the Family Division:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10442315/Top-judge-pledges-to-end-culture-of-secrety-at-family-courts.html

. . . in the absence of the death penalty, removing a child from their parents is one of the most "drastic" actions a judge can take . . .

I think the analogy is spot on. UK Government doesn't yet realise the seriousness of these injustices because of the secrecy of the family courts.

Surely 26 yr old is perfectly capable of seeing her parents if she chooses and presumably has been for some time.

I reiterate the point that medicine is really not a 'great' science yet. They are coming on leaps and bounds with molecular biology and genetics though - a much more exact science that will hopefully soon get rid of 'experts' automatically deducing abuse when it's an underlying medical problem no one seems to know about.

This whole issue is not too different from the cot death one, really, where innocent mothers were put behind bars because no one dared to question one particular expert (what kind of science lets one person go around unchallenged?!?). Yes, there were mothers who were guilty. But just because there were some of those doesn't mean it automatically applied to everyone who had children die for unknown reasons!

Kewcumber - while the child was 'incarcerated' she was told 'lies' about her mother and now doesn't want to see her.

Hi peacejoy, welcome to mumsnet. Justine will be happy with all the new people coming here today just for this one thread! :)

Take away the preen, wrong thread :(

Beyond, I feel like someone has scooped out my brain and replaced it with a wet sock. Juggling multiple threads is clearly beyond me too.

dear wizard. Why would any sane person make a definitive opinion based on a TV programme that presents only one side of a story?

Not very balanced. Surely?

Kewcumber I'm interested because I have a similar problem and a year of sunshine certainly wouldn't have solved my case. And mine wasn't even bad enough to cause bone density problems which I would assume is a much more entrenched problem. I can't imagine how bad such a deficiency would have to be in order to cause fragile bones - what did the medical experts on teh programme have to say about it.

I think it's well-known that a lot of people in the UK have Vitamin D deficiency (people trying to avoid the sun / use sun block due to fear of cancer). Babies growing in wombs of women who have Vitamin D deficiency are therefore at greater risk of not growing healthily within the womb in the first place (which is likely to be much worse than developing Vitamin D deficiency as an adult).

In the program, they briefly showed a picture of another couple who were accused of abusing their baby which had multiple fractures on X-rays. The X-rays did not show the baby had Rickets. Unlike the other cases though, the baby very unfortunately died… meaning an autopsy could take place (and hence, a more through examination). In that one case, the medical expert said, she had never seen bones that brittle (i.e. even baby bones should not break by merely putting the tiniest bit of pressure on them). But the real extent of the 'brittleness' could only really be proven under a microscope - not an X-ray - which was possible as the child was dead. The child was known to have suffered from Vitamin D deficiency. The parents were obviously proven to not be guilty of anything, despite what people thought prior the autopsy. However, had the child lived, you would probably have expected the baby to be removed from their care - because the thorough examination could not have been done.

Anyway, that one case set a precedence, and brings in some change in this whole matter. The medical expert actually said that in something like 50% of the cases, the bone condition seen under microscope is not seen on X-rays (quite disturbing that!). How many medical experts (or even parents) would suggest removing several bone segments from a living baby to examine it? Not many.

That's rather worrying Snowbells, there must be some form of test that could be carried out?

The reason these stories are close to my heart, is because I was in an abusive relationship years ago, and the father of my lo threatened that if I reported the abuse he would cite me as unstable (because I had in my past suffered depression and anxiety), and that I would lose my child. As a result I held-off reporting the abuse. Eventually I had no choice, and now live a happy life, but the fear I endured, of being having my past mental health exploited by the man who was abusing me, has never left me. I was utterly terrified.

The fact is, parents have lost their children for being deemed with 'disorders', so many mothers do live in fear. Just as many mothers won't seek help for post-natal depression. Having spoken to many victims of domestic violence, I'm saddened to say, it seems to be common for perpetrators to threaten mothers in this way.

This is one of the reasons I hope the family courts will be opened to public scrutiny. Another problem, is that contact for fathers is pushed through courts, even when fathers have been found guilty of abuse (because contact is considered the 'best interests of the child' due to fathers rights lobbying), many mothers who have been abused cannot cope with this, and suffer anxiety, and depression as a result. At the same time, many mothers daren't admit to not being able to cope with contact, for fear of psychological assessments, and the prospect of losing their children.

I hope there will be some form of reform. At least with regards to 'future posed emotional risk'. Depression and anxiety shouldn't be a reason for parents to fear losing their children.

It's not just children who need to be protected, I think parents need to be protected also. I was shocked to hear of a program recently advertising children for adoption, it was very bad taste.

I'm not against greater publicity for care cases so long as the identities of children are not revealed, but I do not see it as the panacea for all ills. The trials of Sally Clarke and Angela Canning, being criminal trials, were fully open to the public but that did not prevent wrongful convictions. The downside, as has been pointed out, is that the parents in question will find themselves the target of an awful lot of salacious tabloid publicity and intrusion and are likely to find themselves being pilloried and vilified.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2538255/These-little-boys-taken-THREE-adoption-parties-no-one-wanted-mum-dad-Heartbreaking-events-best-way-find

this saddens me :(

Having watched the programme and having spent a whole day thinking about it, I am not entirely sure it is the Court system that is the problem here.

I agree with the Court system in that it should make the needs of the children paramount and protect the identity of the children.

I see this kind of case as a case of complete lack of education about basic nutrition by medical staff and social services. The questions I have asked myself are:-

Why is vitamin D testing not mandatory at birth for mother and child?
Why are doctors not trained to think of vitamin D in the first instance?
Why are social services involved in making complex medical decisions?

I don't feel the current advice regarding vitamin D helps - currently it is recommended that the minute the sun comes out you slap sunscreen on your child and the higher the protection the better. Any parent who cares about their child now does this unthinkingly; and supplement with vitamin D drops - yes they will help a bit vitamin D drops are not a complete replacement for sunshine and you still need plenty of calcium and exercise to get the benefit of vitamin D drops.

I have believed for a long time that the government advice regarding vitamin D needs to change. In addition to this the medical establishment and social services need to stop thinking they know it all and spend more time studying nutrition during their training. It is ignorance and arrogance that has caused this injustice and I would not entirely blame the Courts.

www.facebook.com/ThisMorning/posts/10152250526647122

it is also being discussed on This Morning

it is also being discussed on BAAF

ww.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2538255/These-little-boys-taken-THREE-adoption-parties-no-one-wanted-mum-dad-Heartbreaking-events-best-way-find

sorry think i posted wrong link earlier lol

worried - my school frown at me as I refuse to put ANY suncream on DS unless he is out at the hottest part of the day for more than say 40 mins. He is dark skinned and has never burnt yet.

Worried I agree a Vitamin D test should be mandatory. Not sure why it's not!

I think the problem with medicine is that it is in its infancy still. Tremendous progress has been made in molecular biology in recent years, and it will probably take years (!!!) for that knowledge to be transferred to people outside the labs... probably the next generation of doctors.

Just join so sorry for going back to the program. The babies in Panorama were all under 10 weeks of age and not toddlers like baby P and Daniel Pelka. None of them was tested to see if there were other reasons for the fractures (one had a genetic disease!!!). No matter how small the sample is, is far too big. I hope that now babies are thoroughly tested before jumping to conclusions. Doctors should be less quick to point the finger and social workers should use their training to assess families rather than believe everything (such as white women don't have vitamin D deficiency, oh yeah?)

Think this can't happen to you? think again. I had never even heard of it till it happened in my family.
I cant be too specific but as a result of someone having mental health problems the baby was removed at birth.
Children's services get paid £40,000 per baby for adoption by the government. Some authorities have made millions. The figures are out there but you have to be persistant in your trawl to find them.
The social workers have ultimate power which they abuse. Notes and meetings were incorectly recorded, and on our complaints, nothing was done to change this. Slurs against the family were fabricated, and heres a challenge, you try and prove them wrong.
The utter desparation, horror and humilation of going through the court system was second to none. This was because of the lies of the social workers involved. Two in particular were verbally aggressive and tried to goad a response which they could then class as the family are hostile.
I offer no apology to social workers reading this post.You need to stand up and out your bad collegues as a child adopted is a cruel unbearable pain on the family that are left bereft of that child. I have worked with social workers myself in other fields and have been astonished at the lack of any professionalism Childrens services social workers display. It is solely about power. And money.
Complaining is ineffective and the hpcp govering body should be there to protect the public but instead protects its members. The account of the social worker is always believed above your own, even when there is supporting evidence.
For those who have critised Mr Hemmings, dont forget he is only human , and where are you going to turn when there is nothing there to help and support you?. Cuts in legal aid mean more families will lose children as they cant afford representation and dont know who to turn to.
You may say aaah, baby removed at birth , this person must have been involved in something. Well this is not true. And we won, the baby is within our family. But I cannot begin to tell you of the trauma,ptsd,financial and physical pain this caused. The cost in all these areas remains, but the thought of losing this child forever is insurmountable.
Yes there will always be some cases where a child is hurt and needs looking after. I know that but we have to wake up to this national scandle of forced adoption.
You have no idea how these young people are going to feel when they reach 18, if they knew they were adopted as a target figure(yes that exsists too) and they could have stayed with their families. Imagine the mental health issues that trauma will cause.I will never forget the cries of a mother being 'interviewed' in the room next to mine, she had post natal depression, and instead of helping, supporting and treating her they were adopting her baby.she was saying,' im sorry I am unwell . I am tring to get better and I have done x number of things to improve things, please dont take my baby' I will never forget it.
Mr Hemming is absolutely right when he says leave the country legally at first hint of something not right, or lose your child. Its a stark choice.
Mums net should know that children are being forceable taken.

I have a lovely collection of pocket walls I can share out amongst you all for convenient head banging.