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.

Look I don't have to explain my PND so you can laugh at that too. My daughter was nt planned, I panicked when she was born, thought I was a crap mum because I could nt feel anything for her. HV said I had PND, after I rang her in tears begging to know how I could have my daughter adopted. She came round immediately, and said I was a good mum etc etc. so yes, I know the system is nt all bad, but the programme frightened me. I m currently pregnant and I m worried that if my PND returns, I ll lose my children. I m scared ok? Is that what you want to hear? The programme scared me, I know it's irrational I m a good mum and I ve got a strong family support network but I m worried. Anyway, this thread is seriously going off topic, partly due to me. I ll leave you alone now. I m not going to even check this thread again do you can all insult me to your hearts content.

And turn west, I am sorry you feel bullied.

But you don't do your position any favours, by coming on the thread and attempting to bully in your turn.

Being a victim of bullying doesn't give you a free pass - I would have hoped it would have made you more appreciative of the impact of your language on others.

Peace - you also say
Imagine if this happened in a care case, it would be devastating. Judges can only make decisions based on what they have in front of them.

Of course. And what they have in front of them is statements from the social worker, statements from the parents, contact notes if applicable, psychiatric/psycological reports if applicable, Guardian's report, assessments of family members, GP notes, hospital records, HV notes, Midwife notes etc, etc, etc.

there is a huge amount of information from a vast variety of sources presented to the Judge.

And yes, the parents get to see ALL OF IT WELL IN ADVANCE.

in the company of their lawyers.

Actually I haven't reported turns posts, I see no need to. And I personally prefer to let all posts stand, abusive or not.

But enough of this nonsense.

Turnwest, i honestly think you are a geniune poster who has just stumbled into an argument here, so although I dont agree with the pm, I can see why you sent it. You saw someone being bullied and pulled up the person you thought was main bully. That is, in normal circumstances, a commendable thing to do :)

The trouble was that the person you were defending was a known troll who was here for neferious purposes, who then went on to be banned for threatening a posters children. People who post a lot get a sense for when someone picking a fight is someone they have spoken to before - deja vu, if you will?

Beyond, that is a very good post, and on reflection, I do agree with you.

Turn, it's often confusing to step into the middle of a long and complex exchange between people. Where there might be history that isn't obvious.

And the post you got deleted on the other thread was perhaps a tad cack handed, for which I did apologise.

peacejoy, you suggest that children should be placed with extended families when there are concerns about them, rather than taken into care.

But that is exactly what happens: normally the extended family will be the first port of call. However, sometimes it isn't possible - they aren't around, they live too far away (bearing in mind that ideally the children shouldn't be taken out of school), they don't want the children, they're not able to look after them for reasons of health or age, or indeed there may be strong suspicions that they're involved in the abuse.

You also say "I don't think the wheels should start in motion, for forced adoption, if there is any chance of doubt, in public law cases, because once children are adopted, there is no turning back." The trouble with that is that whilst overpressed SWs mess around trying to eliminate all doubt, children are being left with violent or abusive parents. Bear in mind that at the moment adoption proceedings take a long time to go through, so that gives more time for investigation before any irrevocable decisions are taken. Yes, I know mistakes are still made, and I know it's absolutely awful if they're not found out in time, but the children still have to come first.

This entire discussion points up yet again that what we really need is a properly funded child protection system. Sadly the government of which Hemmings is a part doesn't appear to have any inclination to put that in place.

Guys… the thing with the whole scaremongering is that while many social workers, etc. are good in doing their jobs and have children's interest at heart… some of them won't be like that. You can hardly deny that there will be a few SWs who are the real-world equivalent of Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. That's really not hard to imagine, isn't it. They sort of exist in many jobs (I've unfortunately met at least a handful of them - both in my career and in private matters), but luckily most of the time they don't matter much. You ignore them, you move on.

However, social services is one of those places where the existence of even just one of them can harm most people's trust in the system. You see loads of reports about people having been approved to adopt eventually - but had real problems with their social workers for the tiniest reasons… examples include the SW being offended at the prospective mum's business suit, being (in the SWs eyes) too posh, etc. If you turned that picture around - i.e. social service just 'threatening' to remove a child from birthparents due to stupid reasons... you will be scared.

lookisnmine:

"if a child is adopted and the parents later proved to be innocent then there must be a middle ground somewhere?

Is a child a package that can be moved back and forth between families? Is that what you believe in? Sorry, but it makes no sense to me. My opinion, of course."

Children are most definitely not packages to be moved back and forth. Nor are they packages to be bundled off for adoption, whilst there is 'reasonable doubt' over whether their parents have harmed them, or are unfit parents.

Tearing children away from their parents is psychologically damaging, it shouldn't happen unless children are in immediate danger. Not 'possible - but we can't be certain immediate danger'. In such instances, surely extended family should be allowed to care for such children?

The adoption process was speeded up last year, now it only takes 26 weeks, from when the cogs start turning. It is a frightening prospect.

Mrs BW:

I could be wrong, but I think Turnwells fears, don't reflect her own experience, but that she is explaining how she feels, that these things do happen. If a sw had handled her case, who was less thorough/compassionate, the outcome may have been very different.

LokiIsmine:

"What you just explained in your post is a very common situation. I shouldn't say this, but welcome to the group of the abused-not-believed women.

DV and abuse in families are widespread all over Britain, yet the common belief is that nobody cares because that will never happen to them.
To change the system, as you asked, we should change how the society reacts to the problem and that abused people are not disbelieved up front. So it is NOT just about family courts, it is about anyone who's abused and then threatened to pay with their children/life/whatever if they report the crime."

The problem is LokiIsmine, is that that often DV happens behind closed doors. Prevention of DV isn't the cure - it happens regardless. Statistically, the majority of mothers who are abused have in their pasts suffered anxiety, or depression: this is because victims are often insecure, due to being bullied or rejected in their childhoods - this is why they find themselves in abusive relationships (perpetrators lead them to feel special... 'initially')

Many people overcome their anxiety, or depression as they grow up and go on to have children, but what happens is perpetrators threaten mothers, that they will reference their past health to cite them as unstable.

This puts the fear of god into victims of abuse. Many mothers want to leave when they have children, because they mean the world to them - but they feel afraid.

Particularly, as parents do lose their children based on accusations, and past mental health. What is also frightening, is that perpetrators also make false accusations about mothers (to sw, and in courts of law.)

So, whereas I agree with you that it's not just the family courts that need reforming, it is causing a big problem at the moment!

If there was no risk of losing children, based on accusations, hearsay, and opinion alone, then victims of abuse would not be in this position.

It's not just DV victims that are vulnerable, however. It is any person whose mental health is compromised: (as a result of grief, stress, worry, anxiety etc.) People aren't seeking help for problems, because they feel afraid they may lose their children, and this is a real worry.

I think it's not just the family courts that need to be made more transparent, I think the way in that mental health is regarded should be re-evaluated. Parents lose their children as a result of being diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (the Fran lyons case comes to mind)- if you look at what borderline personality is, even leading psychologists fiercely criticise it. Any person could be deemed with such a disorder.

Sigh - this subject really takes it out of me. I don't think it happens in the majority of cases, I think as-a-whole social workers have children's best interests at heart, and take an awful lot of stick, unneccessarily. But children have been taken from parents, without evidence of parents harming them, and for wrong reasons. There just needs to be something in place to protect parents (and children) from this happening.

These are just my thoughts.

Yes. We all agree there are some bad social workers out there.

Just as there are bad doctors, bad teachers. And some very bad MPs.

But what we ought to be able to agree upon, in order to have any kind of sensible debate is

1. There are no bonuses paid to snatch babies from otherwise loving homes.
2. There are not thousands of wrongful adoptions every year.
3. Parents get their own lawyers, paid for by the state, and they see each and every bit of evidence against them and get to argue about it.
4. LA do not target the mentally ill
5. When mistakes are made they are most likely made due to inefficiency, overwork, stupidity etc AND NOT BECAUSE the entire system is corrupt.

this debate has been utterly poisoned over the years by the tireless efforts of men - always men!- like JH and IJ who now get air time and radio time to peddle their poison.

And when JH fucks up and publishes the name of a baby on this website in defiance of a court order, how do the newspapers publish it? They have a laugh at the silly drunk man on the laydeez website.

Peace - I do agree with most of what you say.

But remember Fran Lyon was having psychiatric treatment when she was 8 years old. That most certainly was NOT a case about a simple diagnosis of personality disorder.

SnowBells, do you think that the existence of a few ('even one') bad social worker justifies John Hemmings using whatever platform he can find to tell parents that the ENTIRE child protection system is institutionally corrupt, that there is no justice in British courts, that if they are suspected of abuse they should take their child and leave the country?

How many children do you think have endured continuing abuse because of that advice?

Nennypops:

"You also say "I don't think the wheels should start in motion, for forced adoption, if there is any chance of doubt, in public law cases, because once children are adopted, there is no turning back." The trouble with that is that whilst overpressed SWs mess around trying to eliminate all doubt, children are being left with violent or abusive parents. Bear in mind that at the moment adoption proceedings take a long time to go through, so that gives more time for investigation before any irrevocable decisions are taken. Yes, I know mistakes are still made, and I know it's absolutely awful if they're not found out in time, but the children still have to come first.

This entire discussion points up yet again that what we really need is a properly funded child protection system. Sadly the government of which Hemmings is a part doesn't appear to have any inclination to put that in place."

I don't think children should be left with potentially dangerous parents, whilst investigations are carried out, what I think should happen is that care of children is transferred to extended families (the most suitable, based on routine, bond, safety etc.)

Obviously, if there is no extended family, then it changes the situation. But I've heard of cases publicised in that extended families have been dismissed. Cases in that grandparents have been in good health, and had claimed to have unblemished character, and CRB checks?

You say 'children have to come first', when mistakes are made, in reference to adopting them, it saddens me because tearing children
apart from their parents is traumatic, and psychologically damaging, if not immediately, in later life.

Children should be the main priority of cause, but what about parents also? Parents should have human rights. There have been cases that mothers have committed suicide as a result of losing their children. And why are parents imprisoned for daring to speak out?

I do think transparency is needed. I just wish this sort of thing didn't happen.

I do appreciate what you say about funding, you are right, unfortunately many decisions are based on funding. It's a sad truth.

Spero:

"But remember Fran Lyon was having psychiatric treatment when she was 8 years old. That most certainly was NOT a case about a simple diagnosis of personality disorder."

But didn't she overcome her problems, several years prior to falling pregnant? And her former psychiatrist wrote a letter to that effect? Wasn't she also studying neuroscience?

I do think people can overcome their problems. She was obviously a young lady who had experienced a lot of trauma in her life, so her problems could be accounted for, in that they were not biological? She didn't simply have a disease, or brain abnormality - she had experienced trauma in her childhood, and had sought help for it.

I think the term 'psychiatric condition' and 'mental illness' is somewhat defamatory. It almost labels people indefinitely, similar to how actors are type-cast. If a person has an affair, does that mean they are never capable of fidelity?

The term psychiatric disorder sounds extremely serious, and because of how the media conveys it (by linking the phrase to cases of psychopaths who have murdered people), it's a term that causes people to feel fearful.

I don't know Miss Lyon's entire history, but unless there was something, other than her diagnosis - which will always be subjective - such as she had harmed somebody in her past, or evidence that she posed an immediate danger - I don't think it was necessary to threaten to remove her unborn baby from her.

Spero, can I ask, did I read correctly that you work in public law cases? If so, can I ask you what your opinion of public law is? Do you never see injustices? And do parents really have their children taken based on being diagnosed with 'personality disorders', after being assessed by court paid psychologists? (I have read this several times.)

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Spero, can I ask, did I read correctly that you work in public law cases? If so, can I ask you what your opinion of public law is? Do you never see injustices? And do parents really have their children taken based on being diagnosed with 'personality disorders', after being assessed by court paid psychologists? (I have read this several times.)

Yes, I work in public law cases. I represent mainly parents but also represent Local Authorities and Guardians. I have done this for about 15 years so think I have a good knowledge of what goes on.

You would have to define 'injustices'. Have I seen cases where I thought SW were rude, arrogant and high handed? Yes. Or where the Judge made a decision with which I disagreed? Yes.

But 'injustice' to the extent that Hemming would allege - in that the experts are corrupt and say whatever the LA wants them to say, that parents are not allowed to see the evidence against them, that lawyers lie and don't do a good job for their clients. Never.

I have also NEVER been involved with or know of a case where the simple fact that a parent had a 'personality disorder' would result in a child being taken into care.

Children can ONLY be taken into care when they have suffered or are at risk of suffering significant harm or they are beyond parental control.

to show you how seriously the State takes parents rights, I frequently represent parents who are convicted sex offenders, who have had all their previous children taken into care, who are long standing drug addicts, who have committed serious criminal offences of violence... they, and their families will still be assessed. They will still get lawyers and come to court to make their case.

I hope that reassures you to some extent.

Devora and Spero

No, I do not think that the ENTIRE child protection system is flawed… but I do think it's ridiculously inefficient. And that sort of changes my perception of it whether I want it or not. It may just be me, but it's the small things that really, really tend to annoy me in life.

I mean… how often do you get annoyed when you call a random call centre (e.g. mobile phone company), are faced by someone on the other end who is actually stupid beyond belief and completely inefficient (likely due to lack of training and maybe overwork)… and you end up blaming the company as a whole, thinking it's all just bad??? There will be a few gems working in those companies but you just lose faith in them.

In the case of Social Services you have to multiply the emotion by 100 because we can all agree that children are not mobile phones. [Sorry, but this thread needs a bit of humor infusion]

I would obviously not advise doing what John Hemmings says - If I had been one of those parents on TV, I'd get the best lawyer and independent medical expert… just like the woman in the programme who eventually got her baby back. However, that costs a lot money and knowledge of the British legal system where getting an expensive, better-qualified lawyer who really knows their stuff really helps, and (in a way) knowledge of the changing medical field. Note that the independent medical expert the mother turned to was not a medical expert from "old-fashioned" medical fields like the radiologist used previously (who apparently looked at thousands of these cases). It was a Professor of Genetics. How many women who are underprivileged would have that type of knowledge?

I think the system does need a reform. Not sure how. Making Vitamin D (and other tests) mandatory maybe, and updating their 'medical expert' bible drastically to include more modern medical fields - and possibly have a panel of medical experts rather than just one. Look at the history of parents - profiling them properly... if they were not violent in the past, what could have triggered it? Basically, have a proper enquiry rather than what they do now. But that costs time and money. And we'll never get that.

But really… what really should be done is preventing that abuse and neglect happen in the first place. The country's attitude to 'having children' should change. There are a lot of people out there who never think about what a child actually means for their lifestyle (and how much it costs to raise them) before getting pregnant, etc. Some even have a child because of benefits that come along with a child - which is obviously the wrong reason to have them. If you can prevent people having children for all the wrong reasons, we would be halfway there. How you do that though - a fight against human nature almost - is a question that will be very difficult to answer.

It's 'inefficient' because it is starved of resources and support so the SW end up fighting fires all the time, reacting to emergencies instead of working to make sure families can stay together.

What we need are more, better trained and better supported SW. More access to support services for families in the community.

Not absolute craven fools like JH taking public money to advise people to emigrate rather than deal with SW.

Spero, although I still believe there should be more transparency, and as Snowbells as said, more thorough investigations, your post does offer some re-assurance.

Not in the sense that injustices aren't happening, because they are, but what you said regarding mental health. I have read several articles suggesting court paid psychologists deem parents with personality disorders, to remove their children, and that is frightening.

Spero, did you hear of the case of the barrister who fled the country, because she had reported that her daughter had told her her father had been abusive towards her - so sw were getting a care order to remove her child (as they decided the mother was a 'posed emotional risk', because they suspected her of putting words into her daughter's mouth)?

That story was frightening to read, especially for parents who were going through private contact proceeds, and being forced to hand their children to abusive fathers. It sent out the message, to me at least, that if mothers report abuse, they risk losing their children, as it could be turned around that they have put words into their children's mouths!

I like the comparison Snowbells to call centres, that can be exactly how it is. I know of a friend who had terrible experience with a sw, and she lost trust completely in the system. Despite a new, and lovely, sw being allocated to her case, who realised the previous sw had hased-up. When parents see that this can very easily happen - to have a person represent their child and not carry out a thorough job, and actually put their child in danger - it can completely lose parents faith in the system.

To then read stories that children are taken based on hearsay, and wrongfully, it really does put the fear of god into people.

I do have an idea, I think that sw's should be subject to dismissal, if they offer in-accurate information, falsify documents, or miss important facts from court reports. Innocent mistakes, could count as strikes, but serious ones should result in instant dismissal - reports would then be more accurate. I guess what I'm thinking, is hold them accountable for their actions? This wouldn't affect the good ones (the majority) because they do a fantastic job - but I believe it would cause the bad apples to think-twice.
Of course, in relation to funding, this idea would be dismissed, because it would mean new sw's would have to be trained for the posts. I think the social sector needs an injection of capital, quickly! Where can the money come from? I propose re-introducing window-tax ;)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html

Wow… really?

That link above is what everyone has been discussing. Good idea making family courts more public in that way - children and family members remain anonymous, BUT local councils, expert witnesses and social workers can now be published…

I am guessing these local councils, expert witnesses and social workers will now have to step up massively as the spotlight is on them...

Excellent! Just wonderful! My 'only' reservation is the 'unless compelling circumstances' clause, I hope this won't be exploited. It's ambigious? What a coincidence, that we've been talking about this very subject! :)

Judgments in family cases have been published and freely available for years.

The Daily Mail is not a force for good.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ho0

there are thousands of cases here, covering every aspect of family law decisions, should you ever want to read them.

Strangely, few people ever bother.

they would rather get their information from the Daily Mail.

More fool them.