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

That site you provided is also quite obviously for people within the legal field or those willing to pay £95 a year to access Family Law cases only. Of course, few people bother!!! OK, there's a 'free email' that tells you all the cases that are in the database…. but you still have to access it to find out what's going on. Unless you are seriously interested in family law cases or are a legal expert you will NOT pay that money.

I'm not a fan of the DM and have never bought an issue. But a lot of their articles are available for free online. People can share articles widely on Facebook, etc. It's all about the general public having access to the information. Do you think charity donations would come in the way they did for the Philippine typhoon victims if NO ONE even reported about their plight? Oh… apart from a small website that charges a £95 fee and specializes on Typhoon Catastrophes only.

And does that website publicize the names of social workers and medical experts, etc.? Because that is very important in terms of accountability. If some medical expert knows millions of people around the country would get to know what they said… they might be a bit more careful with the things they say (with some previous cases having experts with views equivalent to those that were prevalent in medieval times).

It would be foolish to think that niche website is the same as mass media...

Erm - I clicked on a case to the right and didn't have to pay anything.

The cases are free to access. Anyone can click on a link and read a case.

If they can be bothered.

But I accept that judgments in a case, where all the evidence is considered and weighed up, make for more of a challenging read than a Daily Mail front page.

And given some of the comments on my twitter feed of late I can see compelling reasons why professionals should not be named widely.

I clicked on one of the cases, and it asked me to sign in. Weird.

I do think there has to be accountability and names should be published. That comes with the professional territory. On MN, people ask those who claim to be professionals to 'out' themselves all the time. If professionally, you think you've done your best, and in the medical field, you know your theories would be supported by your peers... why not?

In the sciences, publishing a rubbish paper means losing credibility... and you will be academias laughing stock. And yet medical 'experts' can spread false knowledge freely in family courts where people's lives will be affected?

That is weird, it didnt ask me either. In fact I even did a few random searches to check it wasnt just the links on the main page that you could access, and could read all of the results too.

Fine if you are publishing names to secure accountability.

Not so fine if you want to find someone to hurt them.

On twitter over past few days I have been called 'sicko' 'motherfucker' and accused of being friends with people who murder children. These people have never met me.

I wonder how warm and friendly they are feeling towards their SW.

And also fine if you don't mind driving even more people out of the profession.

In fact, lets revisit this thread in a few years shall we?

Then we can all see how happy we are with our Brave New World.

But this is what happens when people tout the Daily Mail as a good source of credible facts.

This is what happens when people prefer a conspiracy theory over the rather more boring and less sexy truth.

We will get the child protection system we deserve, just as we have the politicians we deserve.

But our children deserve so, so much better.

And I've been 'outing' myself for years. Not so pleased the Daily Mail decided to give me a hand, but there you go.

That is because I have absolute confidence in what I do and why I do it and why I am happy for my work to be scrutinised by anyone who would care to.

Lucky me, that will soon be any old random off the street!

Another vote for familylawweek here too - there are some key cases published which even a lay person (like me!) can read and understand. For example:

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed117048

(I don't think that will link as am on the app - apologies)

This is the "RE b-s" case - a recent judgement in which the president of the family division states that adoption can only go ahead when "nothing else will do". It will give an idea of just how high the bar has been raised for adoption to be directed by the court. No one is "stealing children". Contrary to DM/JH/IJ belief - LA's really do have to prove their case and show why "nothing else will do", and the evidence needs to be robustly tested.

I am not a lawyer, I am a birth mum who was faced with "forced adoption" after my newborn was removed from my care on "future risk of emotional harm", I educated myself about the law (using mainly familylawweek and Bailli!), took on the LA and won my case. And that was after JH had told me to flee the country whilst pregnant.

Any birth parent who is reading all of these threads of late and panicking, please read:

suesspiciousminds.com/2012/08/16/what-should-you-do-if-social-services-steal-your-children/

It is a fantastic post full of excellent advice written by a LA lawyer. Feel free to pm me too

Snowbells, as people have pointed out you can access reports on the FamilyLawWeek website without paying anything. But even if you had to pay, the point is that the sums in question are peanuts to the newspapers so it has always been entirely possible for them to publish the details in a format which is accessible to their readers. The tabloids choose note to mainly, I suspect, because the parents and children involved aren't named so it is more difficult for them to produce human interest stories with suitable sadface pictures. Also, in some cases, it is plain they don't report them because they don't suit the agenda: far too many sensible decisions that will not get their readers foaming at the mouth.

thanks for adding your voice to the debate garp - hopefully it is more difficult to dismiss you as a 'stooge'.

I am sorry your efforts have bought you grief spero, idiots.

I am a birth parent who 'voluntarily' relinquished with no pressure from ss. Nothing can be a better outcome than knowing my birth child has a loving family. That is the absolute priority and that is true for the forcibly taken children too. Nothing can disrupt this, adopters are parents it's not a lesser role.

Through work I come into contact with this area and I do see inconsistency, unprofessional actions and changing criteria over time periods and in different authorities but there is no conspiracy. I don't for a minute believe that anyone who sees the children who are affected believe too many are taken. I am sure it is too few, too late and I say that with real understanding of how much those children want to love and live with the families they have known.

The real crime is the lack of resources to support vulnerable families, to support ss and to fund therapy and support for those who are fostered and adopted.

*Through work I come into contact with this area and I do see inconsistency, unprofessional actions and changing criteria over time periods and in different authorities but there is no conspiracy. I don't for a minute believe that anyone who sees the children who are affected believe too many are taken. I am sure it is too few, too late and I say that with real understanding of how much those children want to love and live with the families they have known.

The real crime is the lack of resources to support vulnerable families, to support ss and to fund therapy and support for those who are fostered and adopted*

thankyou for putting my case for me so much more succinctly than I ever managed...

I agree with every word of this.

People can call me 'motherfucker' all they want and make laughable allegations about my association with paedophiles. I can shrug it off. They are not (yet) trying to hit me or run me over with their cars - which has happened to several SW I know.

trofast

Such a beautiful post :)

Yes, lack of funding to improve all services is becoming a plague :(

I think a lot of parents feel afraid of the legal sector, because of things they have read, about lawyers/judges/court-paid experts working together to take children - to grow the adoption industry - and for paedophiles who pay to access children.
Admittedly, this has in the past frightened me. When M.P's say these things, it causes a lot of fear. I have a friend who walked away from their legal aid solictor, after reading such articles, she felt utterly terrified.
I think sometimes fear is one of the most dangerous mindsets, it drives people to take drastic action. Understandable, however, when children are at risk.

Indeed. It is not difficult to prey on those already frightened and vulnerable. What a pity its an elected MP doing it.

Absolutely spero (am thrilled to be called succinct as a well practised waffler).

And yes Loki it really is a plague.

I think the dramatic conspiracy narrative appeals because it is so simplistic and creates defined victims and aggressors. The real story that there is in many cases no clear line between a good enough parent and one not able to be good enough for long enough.

And peace joy there is no adoption industry. If there was we would never have had so many children in foster families and care homes. It is right that these children have an increased chance of a real family. If some children are removed who might not have been a few years ago it will be a considered move in light of improvements in understanding how best to protect children.

I can think of one family where only the youngest was removed within the first year. The others went in and out of care until 8 or so and were then in homes and foster families. It's predictable who had the best outcome.

I can think of a care leaver with a history of self harm and violent relationships, young herself with a child with additional needs. She left him for three days with the partner of a violent rapist despite knowing this woman had seen all of her children taken into care.

At the meeting with the sw about this the care leaver just had to promise not to do it again. She spoke eloquently about her desperation and asked for help. She was told she was fine and no follow ups or help followed.

The system is weighted towards allowing you to be good enough in the absence of red flags and it's not usually able to offer much support.

Waffling now...

peacejoy

When M.P's say these things, it causes a lot of fear.

In fact they shouldn't. I'm probably the only one believing this but all the scaremongering done by Hemming and Joseph is no more or less a form of terrorism against vulnerable people.

When M.P's say these things, it causes a lot of fear.

Yes, that's right. They shouldn't do it, unless they can back it up with facts. Which they don't appear to have.

I think a lot of parents feel afraid of the legal sector, because of things they have read, about lawyers/judges/court-paid experts working together to take children - to grow the adoption industry - and for paedophiles who pay to access children.
Admittedly, this has in the past frightened me. When M.P's say these things, it causes a lot of fear. I have a friend who walked away from their legal aid solictor, after reading such articles, she felt utterly terrified.

I don't doubt you're right, peacejoy, but this is one of the things that makes me angriest about the likes of Hemming, Joseph and Booker. I know and have known lawyers working in that area of law, and they really fought tooth and nail on behalf of parents and children; they were regularly working late and at weekends, despite the fact that they were on pitiful legal aid pay rates. They were also superb lawyers, usually considerably better than their local authority counterparts. I don't claim that is universal, but in general you do have to be pretty dedicated just to be prepared to do legal aid work these days. The assertion that people like this would be in cahoots with social workers to defeat their own clients' cases is therefore particularly offensive - in fact I note that it's one that Hemmings made at least three years ago but he has never yet referred any of these lawyers to the Law society.

But what matters more than the offensive assertion about parents' lawyers is precisely the fact that it scares people away from getting the help they need. Far from helping people, the reality is that Hemmings and Joseph are contributing more to messing up their cases and their children's lives than any of the social workers they castigate. It really makes my blood boil.

But what matters more than the offensive assertion about parents' lawyers is precisely the fact that it scares people away from getting the help they need. Far from helping people, the reality is that Hemmings and Joseph are contributing more to messing up their cases and their children's lives than any of the social workers they castigate. It really makes my blood boil.

Exactly THIS, I agree with every single word you wrote nennipops......

It's such a complicated topic isn't it. Almost a labyrinth. Every solution costs money, money that the government don't have, or prefer to spend elsewhere. The sole priority at present is growing the economy (rather than families well-being.)
I do think that if sw's were held accountable for serious errors, it would lead to more thorough investigations, and accurate reporting. Rather than important information being omitted (forgotten) from reports, and errors being made etc.
I also think that the adoption process should never begin, if there is any reasonable doubt that parents may be innocent, or capable of overcoming any form of mental health problem they may have.
I think extended family should 'always', unless a danger themselves, should be the first port of call, whilst investigations are ongoing.
I don't think children should ever be taken based on hearsay alone, supported simply by opinions of sw's without facts. For ever dozen fantastic sw's, there will always be one who make decisions based on personal preferences, and distaste for parents (it happens in every job centre - people abuse their positions of power.)
I don't think this is happens in droves, but even just the idea it does happen (there have cases publicised in that childen have been wrongly removed, and never returned - it's a frightening prospect, knowing we live in a society that this can happen.
So I think, the system just needs to buckle-up a bit.
Sir James Munby said that social workers who remove children without giving an explanation to parents, should be imprisoned. Oversights do happen, in-accuracies, and injustices.
Opening the courts up to scrutiny, is a real step forward I think, but I think there still could be improvements.
As many of you have said, it's unfortunately down to funding. I hope one day, this topic of conversation will be a thing of the past. This doesn't have to happen, there are solutions.

I would like to add to my above message, I said the 'sole priority is economy growth, not people's well-being'. Obviously, yesterdays decision by Sir James Munby, is a positive step forward; somebody does care about families well-being.

peacejoy: every single one of your proposals pretty much describes current practice.