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.

Yes I do remember the Webster case, that is one of the cases which is likely to have been a miscarriage of justice, but it's not certain because the evidence has never been weighed up by a court. The final court appeal was not about how credible their evidence was.

I read the original judgement which freed the children for adoption and it was very clear from that that it wasn't JUST a case of fractures, although that was a massive part. There was other stuff going on as well.

Latinmama

Please answer me this. I think it's the third time I asked the question. With only 1 reply that would have put abused and neglected children at significant risk of further trauma.

How do you protect vulnerable children who are being abused and neglected while getting it right 100% of the time?

You say one wrongful adoption is too many. I agree and we must work tirelessly to eradicate it.

But, I think one child left in harms way through failure to act is worse.

I am probably too stupid but I reread your post and the 18 year old quote sounds the same. May be you care to explain?
May be I should have said he did not have any fractures? In case you haven't noticed there is a tiny bit more sunshine in Spain and normal exposure to the sun would have meant that the second baby did not have vitamin D deficiency. And since his bones are normal he did not have any fractures

ooh tea
I'm off to get a real one!

where did Kristina go?

I'm on the

Seems the only way if we're going to go through all this yet again.

Yes Latin, but in case you hadn't noticed, his father, who had already admitted putting the baby at risk, although he later retracted that statement, was not there either.

All it proves is that we don't actually know what the truth is.

The point is that Aylssa's mum proved that in one year the baby that the SS (sounds bad doesn't it, at least for us oldies) wanted to take at birth because she was a danger to him, did not suffer any kind of injuries.

MadameDefarge (I like the name; are you a knitter?) it is worth reading the literature about confessions. People will confess to anything in certain circumstances. Confessions without additional proof don't mean much.

What is with the attitude, I have been nothing but nice to you?

I said her husband didnt see the baby til he was 18 months old. It does need correcting, in that she said she hadnt seen her husband for 18 months, but obviously she was pregnant when she left, so the baby would be younger.

And there has already been a poster here say that severe vit d deficiency doesnt fix itself quickly, so even if the babies levels are fine now, they would probably have still been low at birth, yet no trauma at that time. The only factor that has definitely been removed is her husband. Weird. Especially as he gave a statement saying he hurt the baby, that he withdrew (and before you give me "his reasons" i am aware of the reasons he gave panorama)

The SS? I assume you mean social services, but the "the" certainly does make it sound bad. So why add the "the"?

Sorry . I will answer the second post first. When I wrote the SS I realized the implications of the letters.
Back to the first where there seems to be a misunderstanding. The husband saw the baby before he was 1 year old at least and then when he was one and they went for the Spanish nationality. I do not believe in confessions without supporting evidence (where is the evidence that the dad caused any injuries except because he said so? Actually he tried to give explanations of how he may have hurt the baby, not the same).
If we go back to first baby with low levels at birth, one the mum starts breast feeding the levels will go further down (babies are like leaches in the womb and she would have been taken quite a lot of vita min D inside. Of course if mum has little, even if baby takes 80% this is out of a lower total). Once the baby is breast fed she only takes what is in breast milk so the levels keep going down with time and baby becomes more vulnerable until she starts getting supplements (for instance formula), so in fact the breast fed baby of a vitamin D deficient mother is more vulnerable the longer she is breastfed.
Friends again?

Hmm, I can't comment because I have only joined mumsnet in the last days, after watching the Panorama documentary. I have followed John Hemming's blog in the past though, as a result of stories in the news, regarding forced adoption, and there seems to be statistics on there? For instance, figures show that more toddlers were adopted in recent years than babies.

Okay, I have the feeling his is not popular with some of the regulars on here, but even high court judges have said that removing children from their families is the most serious sentence passable, after the death sentence. The head of the family courts division has said numerous times the courts need to be open to public scrutiny.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413373/Top-judges-war-secret-courts-Family-hearings-exposed-glare-publicity.html

I can understand that stories in the minority lead to fear mongering. It does put the fear of god into parents! But parents do wrongly lose their children, there have been many cases publicised. It's a horrible thought to live in a country that relies on pot-luck.

For every dozen fantastic social workers, there will always be bad ones (in every job sector there are people motivated by power, who don't have the public's best interests at heart.) I think the law needs to change, to protect the public from the bad apples?

If the courts were open to public scrutiny, investigations would be more thorough, surely?

:) i'm quite sure that when they were officiating the spanish residency they said it was the first time he'd visited, for fear of ss following, but im not positive, so will drop it.

Forgot to mention before now, thanks for reminding me, its a bit irresponsible for the bbc not to point out that all pregnant and bf mothers should be taking vit d supplements anyway, its been standard advice for about 5 years? Unless they did and i missed it?

I think the law needs to change

Change to what though, that's the question. What would you like the law to say?

Peacejoy, as youre new, I guess you dont know, but a lot of mners don't click on dailymail links as an adequate reference :)

Mrs BW, both things are equally bad. A child taken from a loving family is also child abuse. In order to avoid as many miscarriages of justice as possible the cases have to be studied more thoroughly. Medical investigations need to be more thorough; mothers can be seen interacting with babies in special units; more and better trained social workers are needed (more than more managers in the public sector where they seem to mushrooms exponentially); families should be supported to see if they can be kept together. I suppose there is much more neglect than physical abuse out there. Families who do not have a record and come with a small baby with fractures should not be treated as criminals until proven innocent. A baby should not be taken at birth just in case without trying other possibilities first (I suppose I would make an exception for a drug abuser mother and a baby with withdrawal symptoms). Each case is different and should be treated as such. There are no magical solutions but I am glad my son was little more than 15 years ago (mother of a teenager).

I disagree with equally bad, how can a child wrongly taken from a loving family and given to another loving family be comparable to a child left to suffer and die?

Ok. Just so we're clear.

You agree...l there is no way to get it right 100% of the time?

Have to go. Will answer later

Latinmama, you say - as do many others - that babies should not be taken at birth just in case without trying other possibilities first. Would you include in this babies whose older siblings have been neglected and abused? Because IME that is nearly always the case.

Your other points - that cases should be thoroughly investigated, that families should be supported, that medical investigations shoudl be thorough: absolutely. But you state this as though it would be a radical deviation from current practice? Do you know in what proportion of cases these things don't happen?

Add message | Report | Message poster Latinmama123 Wed 15-Jan-14 19:13:33
And what possibilities would they. Be

Trying to get the family to make a positive change

Trying to assess family and friends

Asking the child's foster carer to take on the child

Oh wait these are tings that happen already

in country's were 'forced adoption' is not allowed like Ireland children simply sit in care until the age of 18

Is that what your suggesting

We don't have enough foster carers and even if we did children need permanency

peacejoy, that's quite an assertion that this country 'relies on potluck'. What, you think social workers are posted in A&E just playing eeny-meeny-miny-mo on their fingers, and if you're unlucky they just swoop in to nick your kid?

Social services do NOT rely on potluck. They DO investigate. They DO attempt to support families. I completely accept that this doesn't always happen as well as it should. But it doesn't help to pretend that our law and policy just sets it up that way.