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.

It was a heartbreaking programme and its interesting to read very defensive posts suspicious of the programme before it was even aired.

Its necessary to take the personalities and the blame out of the equation but in my opinion the Family Courts system and Childrens Panel in Scotland has tried to overcompensate for past failures to identify abuse and is now creating more victims. The current climate of paranoia an polarisation about child abuse means that anyone who even questions the system is seen as an abuser or defending them.

My own experience of dealings with social work is that their staff have a great deal of power without a great deal of accountability. I'm sure that the professionals generally have the childrens interests at heart but without the right level of balance in the system there is a real danger that witch hunts can and will happen. As the QC said in the programme the standard of proof has to be as high as in other courts of law.

I look forward to the system being reformed as soon as possible so children and parents are propertly protected.

That's a sobering post, David.

As the QC said in the programme the standard of proof has to be as high as in other courts of law

Why? Why should say, a 5 year old rape victim, who has been brave enough to speak out, be sent 'home' to be raped more just because the famly court couldn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that she had been raped? Even though on balance of probabilities, she IS a victim

There's a reason probabilities are used

Hello Lilka

Sadly I don't have to imagine seeing my child's photos on national TV without my permission and having her discussed in the media. You're right - it's terrible.

Mistakes are made in very rare cases with very rare diseases; and as other posters have pointed out, this might be a discussion that should be had with doctors rather than social workers. Medical science progresses - and what is known in one year may be disproved a few years down the line - these are difficult lines to call and everyone involved needs to be aware of that because of the consequences - of getting it wrong, but also of getting it right.

My concern tonight is with the coverage once again given to JH MP and his urging of parents to flee the UK to "get a fair trail". Firstly, one would hope that an MP would support and endorse our legal system and democracy - and if he has issues with it, seek to change it from the inside, help people fight injustice, rather than encourage people to avoid it.

Secondly, Mr JH is in a very secure position with the many complaints and allegations he makes. He campaigns for a lifting of what he sees as the "secrecy" of UK family courts; yet lifting that secrecy would allow parents who have, and whose children have suffered, as a result of his misinformed, dangerous and self-serving interventions, an opportunity to give the other side of the case and show how he has personally intervened in cases that have led to the neglect and abuse of children whose parents he has encouraged to flee. Of course, such parents cannot speak out, because of the same secrecy Mr JH MP claims to so abhor.

I wish him every success in his campaign for an end to secrecy in the Family Courts so that those children, parents and families who have suffered as a result of his self-serving interventions and 'advice' can speak out without being in contempt of court.

I'm guessing that JH really doesn't want to see that.

David, do you want to share with us your full name and title?

I only ask because as far as I am aware, doctors are expected to give their full names and contact details if they give advice as a doctor, according to to BMC.

It would be good if you were also prepared to do so.

As far as I can see, David's giving his opinion, not legal advice. He is as entitled to anonymity as the rest of us.

Edam also makes a good point, this is actually about the role and qualification of experts in the court system .

Lilka -the standard in criminal cases is " beyond reasonable doubt" . It's the balance of probabilities in civil cases

Madame, the point David is making is factual. The government is cutting legal aid. On a very wide scale, including for clinical negligence.

Indeed, and for that he is absolutely right to post and point it out.
But on these threads it has been controversial to post as a newcomer as a professional. Just saying.

David did not need to share his profession with us to make his point.

Especially as David has taken care to inform us his has been able to get expert witnesses the challenge doctors who accused parents of abuse on legal aid.

Its a whole bucket of worms there.

I thought it was quite a good programme and not sensationalist. Obviously mistakes do happen as shown by the case of Harrison who eventually came back home.

I think it does show that medical evidence does need challenging. As one poster said what about Roy Meadows who was listened to with such deference and then turned out to be wrong. If people can wrongly go to prison for murder then the family courts with their lower burden of proof can also make errors?

Lilka -the standard in criminal cases is " beyond reasonable doubt" . It's the balance of probabilities in civil cases

Exactly Kristina. No one has ever been able to give me a good reason why it should be otherwise, which is why I made that example up in reply to HappyCat. People say 'family courts should have the same standard of proof as criminal courts' and in reply I point out that that would result in cases like my imaginary 5 year old. Why should that happen?

David was posting as I understand, as a solicitor and not a doctor.

His point, however, about legal aid is extremely important. At the moment the government is cutting legal aid for criminal cases. Family law cases (as I understand - please put me right David if I'm wrong) are protected for the time being.

If you find yourself in a case like this, the idea that you cannot argue your case with good legal representation is a nightmare. Imagine losing your kids simply because you cannot afford a lawyer - yet alone a good one.

The legal aid system in this country is something that we should be as proud of as we are of the NHS - and should be defended tooth and nail. It's one of those things that you only truly appreciate when you need it - like the NHS.

MmD -of course defendants should be allowed to have their own expert witnesses! I cannot imagine why you think this is controversial

Are you seriously suggesting that only the prosecution should be allowed to hire experts?

No. I am only suggesting that a first post claiming to be from a legal expert should be taken with a pinch of salt.

He might say that legal aid will not cover expert witnesses. But I don't know if that is the truth.

I can confirm that the rates of pay for experts under the legal aid system are comparatively low

Anne and Lilka

Forgive me here, cos I'm thinking through your posts and perhaps thinking out loud.

Perhaps the difference in the level of proof for criminal cases and family/child cases is a result of what is trying to be assessed.

In a criminal case, something has happened. Someone has been stabbed, killed, a fire has been startred, a riot, a speeding offence... whatever. Something has undoubtedly happened and the court has to decide WHO did it and (sometimes) why.

In a family case, the court often has to decide what the probablity of something happening in the future is... and there can be no proof for that. If, eg a mother had killed her child, then that would be a criminal case and the prosecution would have to prove she killed the child. In a family case however, if the father showed signs of being likely to hurt a child (but had never hurt another child) then the court, social services, doctors etc are forced to deal with possibilities and probabilities. They cannot prove that the father has (cos he hasn't) or will (cos he hasn't).

As such the level of proof surely must be different. It comes down to possibilities - and therein mistakes can be made.

If a court says mother or father may hurt a child then they will be condemed if they remove the child; if they don't remove the child and that child is hurt - they will be crucified.

Perhaps that is why it is so difficult

Kristina and MmD

As far as I'm aware, legal aid covers expert reports (as agreed from the court) from all parties involved... mothers, fathers, local authorities and CAFCASS Guardians (representing the child(ren))...

It wouldn't be very fair otherwise...

Just so you now there is another thread about this programe at

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/1966251-Panorama-I-want-my-baby-back?reverse=1

For example, It's not that many years since many " experts" such as doctors and social workers would have been likely to suggest in court that a gay man was more ikely to sexually abuse a child than a straight man .

That's why we need proof and not conjecture . We can't assume that any accusations are true.

And that's why there are rules about the competence of expert witnesses. And why we need good lawyers to question them and good judges to weigh the opinions that are presented to the courts

Apparently expert witnesses are not called to testify in defence or in prosecution, but are called and paid for by all parties. see other thread on this. They are witnesses for the court.

So ta for that David. Not.

You are correct that the duty of the expert is to the court. But experts can be appointed by different parties in both civil and criminal cases.

Kristina and MMD

Agree you both you an extent.

But K... how can you "prove" as you say - the future? You can't. I can't prove to you that the sun will rise tomorrow. I think it will, but I can't prove it.

You have to take the balance of risk. I'd wager on the balance that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Courts have to wager on similar balances of risk... and there are terrible consequences if they get it wrong or right.

Its all maths and probablilties.

I think there are real problems in trying to explore complex issues through a few real life cases where we only hear one side of the story. I have no idea whether those families were unjustly accused or not. I would, however, like to see a serious documentary about the role of medical evidence, about how the expert witness system works and whether it needs an overhaul, about the impact of legal aid reforms and how we can make child protection more effective and less devastating for the innocent families who get caught up.

For all that have made comments about My daughter Alyssa McCartan why shouldnt her pictures have been shown? She was stolen from our family, her brother is never going to have the chance to grow up with his older sister. The adopters wouldnt even meet with me and even when my case was taken to appeal they still went ahead with the adoption. My case went to ECHR but they wernt going to let my daughter out of their clutches as they had (what they thought) was a perfect blond haired blue eyed baby. Whether they knew about her vitamin d deficiency/ congenital rickets or not surely they should have asked questions first and found out exactly why this beautiful baby was up for adoption. Panorama was an eye opener tonight for alot of people and i am grateful for all the support i have received, i just hope that it can help parents in the future to save their children and not have them sold in the system

Jill, I'm sorry for all you have been through. I'm going to confine myself to Lilka's point about showing photos of adopted children. As adoptive parents we are charged with helping our children deal with the grief, loss and trauma that they have experienced. It is not easy - I have spent the last couple of days dealing with a high distressed little girl who is beginning to really understand what has happened to her, and the thought of her getting plastered all over TV - and maybe children in her school teasing her about it tomorrow - is awful. Added to which, many of us have security concerns, with birth parents who have made direct threats to us or our children. That is why it is not a good idea to put pictures of adopted children up on national TV. But I am very sorry for your trauma and loss.