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.

if we open up family courts to public scrutiny, then all the parents that do hurt their children in all sorts of horribly ingenious ways will be subject to a lynch mob on every street corner, fuelled by sensationalist headlines in the rags

it's an idea, I suppose

we wouldn't have to worry about the "rights" of birth parents then would we, because dead people don't have them ?

and the children would have that stigma for the rest of their lives

smashing idea

Oh, and Latinmama, you say, "I do not believe in confessions without supporting evidence (where is the evidence that the dad caused any injuries except because he said so)". I understand why you say that. But if you were a social worker, and you saw a child with repeated unexplained injuries, and the doctors could not offer a medical reason (there isn't a test that will detect everythiing), and you kept asking the parents and eventually one of them said he had caused them, what would you think?

And if the mum and baby then fled the country, and the dad then said, "Oh, when I said before that I had done it? I didn't mean it", what would you think then?

Would you say, well the only evidence we have is injuries and someone confessing to causing them, that's not really enough, let's send this baby home? Would you really?

[Hopefully unnecessary disclaimer that I am not saying these birth parents lied - I have no idea whether they are guilty or innocent. I'm just making a pointn to several posters on these threads who seem to believe that a confession is not robust evidence, but a claim of innocence is.]

I've noticed af, that a lot of people who want courts open at all costs also share the view that rape victims who are prosecuting should be named, so its "fair" on the accused. That says it all.

Latinmama - who really knows what all the facts are for the Alyssa case - but very naive to confess if you were intending to continue the relationship with the mother and intending to have another child ("I do not believe in confessions without supporting evidence" you say - but there was supporting evidence…unexplained fractures. Yes, the fractures could have been caused by Vit D deficiency but SS might reasonably conclude that they could have been caused by a person - and then the father "confesses")

And yes - medical investigations DO need to be more thorough, yes, we do need MORE social workers (I actually think a lot of the problems are with the fact that social workers are so stretched - most are pretty good and experienced at their job, yes, it would be lovely if we could put all mothers who are at risk of losing their child in a mother and baby unit - what a utopia that would be! (Actually, a utopia would be all parents being completely competent to parent.)

SS do try lots of other alternatives - every time a child is taken into care (even if the mother has had other children taken into care), they explore whether someone in the family is able to care for them. This costs tens of thousands of pounds and time (and it is the child that suffers with this delay). They want desperately to keep families together - they really, really want to. It is distressing for all to separate a child from its mother/father. I hate the fact that my BM will not know her son for the next 15 years - I have cried over it. But I also know she was given lots of opportunities to get things back on track and she couldn't give up what she had to give up and my DS staying with her would have been catastrophic for him. I still have huge sympathy for her. Yes, if she had had more support from family/partner she might have turned her life round, if she had had more support from the state (but are we expecting the already cash poor state to have to mother everyone?)

We have to act what is best for the child. SS do not want to take a child into care unless they absolutely have to. In 2012, there was a great BBC programme over 3 episodes that followed Bristol social workers around for a year - OMG, I could not believe that social workers didn't take the children into care more quickly. SS kept on trying and trying and trying with the families. Giving them chances, giving them goods (they bought a bed for the 4 year old son who didn't have a bed (but then again, his parents didn't buy him a toothbrush ("WHy does he need a toothbrush?" asked the toothless father. "I don't have one.")It opened my eyes to how reluctant SS are to take children into care because they don't have the money. Try leafing through the fostering section on MN.

Mistakes do happen - but I think they are incredibly rare. Now - with this Panorama programme, at least it should help alert SS/parents who have children in the care system/parents to be - that Vitamin D deficiency is a major issue and might be the explanation for some injuries.

The Government needs to put on a major campaign to alert people to the fact that increasingly, people have Vit D deficiency.

The idea that a random member of the public could read all the details of my childrens early lives without their consent, maybe before even they themselves know it, the idea that some nosy Aunt Petunia could just go online, and take a peek so she has something salacious to gossip and start a forum thread about....well, I find that hard to stomach

At the same time I think having more anonymised (and this is an issue, I've seen quite a few judgements where the childs name has accidently been left in in one or two places!!) court judgements published would probably help the situation a bit

Although the "forced adoption" campaigners would then just say 'oh well everything in that published judgement must be lies, they're still stealing kids"...

Not sure what I want to happen re. more open courts

its not their top priority, nor a huge campaign, but it does exist

madam defrarge reported.

Some people really need to think through the consequences of coming up with these random, knee jerk "solutions" like opening up Family Courts to public view. Just take it to it's logical conclusion, FFS. It's not rocket science.

Yeah, I went back 4 pages to see why she'd been reported then realised I couldn't be arsed to go back anymore.

Wizard PC is on Jill Mccartan's twitter page. Just saying.

Connected again. I will try to answer all the posts. I am new to this but it appears that most of you have adopted a child. Good for you to give homes and love to children that need it. Several of my friends have adopted children and the stories of the BF they tell me are horrible. You may feel threatened by the few in this thread that have a different opinion. I refer to the cases (possibly few) in which doctors and SS had taken babies without proper assessment. I know several cases, some of them were rectified after experts challenged the original reports.
In the webster case for instance, the bruises and haemorhages are explained by vitamin C deficiency (check Wikipedia for symptoms).
Devora there isn' a test that will demonstrate everything but there are numerous tests that can demonstrate something and ALL should be done. Vitamin D deficiency is now in the open and most doctors would test for this not just with x-rays but there are other rare diseases. And even if they may happen to 0.1% of the population, if they happen to you, for you is 100%, so rule them out. And yes, thorough investigation would be a deviation from the norm existing before baby Wray.
Mrs BW yes I agree.
Maryz you are starting to become too to have a proper civilised exchange. Take a break, have a or a valium and whatever you do, do not put the children in a cage

I don;t think the majority of people on this thread are adopters Latinmama though there are more of us gathered on this thread than usual, it being in the adoption section n'all!

None of us adopters deny that mistakes have been made, all of us at some time or other have supported investigation and overhaul of the current system and on the whole, despite the damage some of our children have suffered at the hands of their first parents, I find adopters remarkably supportive of birth parents and understanding of what brought them to that terrible state of affairs. Please do read the many threads on adoption if you don't believe me.

Many of the posters who start posting on threads like this to back up how social services stole their child still have their children living with them - in other words- however traumatic/time consuming/wearisome the process of defending yourself against inaccurate claims of abuse, in the vast majority of cases the right outcome is reached. In my opinion based on an unstatistical number of cases - the very vast majority of cases.

That doesn't mean that every mistake is not an unmitigated tragedy and lessons should be learnt but it seems to me that you cannot avoid children dying at the hands of their carers without taking very seriously all claims of abuse which have resulted in physical damage to a child.

I wish there were some way of making people less terrified of social services and therefore more able to engage with them when this happens and I wish that some social workers were not so pre-programmed by experience of unrelenting examples of horrendous parenting that they tend to assume the worst. I don't know what the answer to that is except that the court system and Spero and her colleagues help to address that balance.

latinmama, despite all the strangeness on this thread I think there is agreement that a child should never be removed from his or her birth family unless there is good evidence of harm. My question is, how does anyone assess that? What system should be used? How do we ensure we never miss another Victoria Climbie at the same time? How do we make sure this all happens at a time when budgets for children's services are constantly under pressure, and increasingly so, with funding cuts to local authorities? Where is the political pressure to increase funding and other resources to social services? And, back to spero's question, why would social services want to take a child into care unnecessarily, when it is so expensive?

Sorry cross posted with kewcumber

but put so much more succinctly!

I wish there were some way of making people less terrified of social services and therefore more able to engage with them when this happens and I wish that some social workers were not so pre-programmed by experience of unrelenting examples of horrendous parenting that they tend to assume the worst. I don't know what the answer to that is except that the court system and Spero and her colleagues help to address that balance.

I agree with this paragraph so much and with regards to making people less terrified of social services, a start would be to make sure reports that quote what others have said should on EVERY occasion be accurate. After all would I be right that in a criminal court such inaccurate reports and wrong names for family members could mean a case being dropped. Also SS should show some care to the family, OK they are there to protect the children, but to be informed of what is happening and really let the family know you are there to help and come to the best solution.This is where a high level of professionalism comes into play to not be guided by horrendous parenting that SS undoubtedly witness on a regular basis

I've been reported?

Meh. Haven't been deleted for a couple of weeks, due for one anyway.

Though not actually sure why...

care to share, Turnwest?

I am not a social worker but I can understand that they are under enormous pressure to make the right assessments and decisions. They undoubtedly experience things which some of us cannot imagine. It is not really a glamorous profession, I don't believe it is well paid. This does not excuse an unprofessional or uncaring attitude, but, as a society, we need social workers. We need them to be properly supported, educated and mentored. We need enough of them to cover the workload safely. We need them to be safe from burnout and loss of compassion. They need the resources and teamwork to be able to make the right decisions to safeguard children. Again, where is the political pressure to enable this to happen?

well, it can't have moved MNHQ in any great way, as I have had no message nor a deletion...

mildly interested tho...

Kwecumber and Pootlinganlong I know how supporting adoptive parents are. I have many examples close to me.

Child abuse is so wrong that we all get immediately very emotional and the protection instinct takes over. However, the professionals (and I am one of them, besides being a mother) have to take a step back and try to be objective in each and every case. It can very difficult I know but we owe to the children.

If you look at all the examples of cases that went horribly wrong, none of them were infants (the subject of Panorama) and all were abused for a long time under the SS noses (yes, completely overworked and unsupported, good scapegoats.

So may be what I am asking is for the professionals to act as such and trying to stay objectives, for the doctors to do all the tests and not jump to conclusions and the SW to thoroughly investigate the family.

The press does not help because if the doctors or the SW miss one case they get it in the neck and then they over react (I can understand that as well). But certain myths have to fade away, like short falls don't cause fractures, all infants with fractures are abused, brain haemorrhages in infants are always abuse. Some are and some are not. Imagine the pain of loosing your child and ending up in jail for a crime that did not exist.

Time to say good night , got to work tomorrow.

Still going through notes (see earlier thread) will post re financial gain for local authorities when I find the info.
Nennypops- yes the cost involved is high but you are under terrific pressure to give up by childrens services and the stress. one s/w even said 'most people give up by now' in a tone impplying we should.
But the local authority and courts dont have to consider cost, they have their own legal departments, they could go on indefinately but as a family, a parent may get a little help, but the recent changes in legal aid will mean they cant appoint a barrister. Also time away from work/other children and family and the insurmountable task of getting appropiate advice and support.
im glad the poster 'beyond the limits... got the support and help she needed and quite rightly.
As I said before I would never have known about this had it not happened to us. We were lucky in finally getting the child back. I fought so hard and it has almost killed me in my health suffering but I never considered giving up. The thought of looking that child in the eye at 18 when they say what did you do to help me and also never ending grief I and my family would feel. Lets not forget the recent tv programmes about young mums pregnant in the 50's60's who had to give up their children for adoption....Now imagine 15 years or so from now, how this forced adoption generation will feel?

peacejoy, if you want a further indication of why John Hemming is viewed with less than enthusiasm round here, have a look the judgment here - www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2355.

Amongst other matters, Lord Justice Wall refers to JH's allegations that the mother's own solicitor had tampered with the file and points out that she could have had no conceivable reason to do so. He says that the "feeling of incredulity" he experienced at the time of the hearing was "not diminished" by the time he came to make the judgment. He goes on to say,

I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.

He also refers to comments about the proceedings on the MP's website that refer to the "evil" of the arrangements for appointing expert witnesses,

In my judgment, these comments are not only wrong and ill-informed; the simple fact remains that they have no foundation in the evidence presented either to the Nottingham County Court or to this court. That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again strikes me as an abuse of his position.......

(the allegation) only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming's position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.

Finally, Wall LJ comments that Mr Hemming's standing in

his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence.

It really is absolutely extraordinary that a judge should find it necessary to say that about an MP who is supposed to demonstrate some sense of responsibility in public life. It should be said that JH apparently put in an official complaint about Lord Justice Wall which was dismissed; he said he was taking the matter further but strangely we heard no more about it.