to think that John Hemming is a dangerous man?

[Spero]

For all the Hemming apologists - please read this.

www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/04/27/hemming-an-abuse-of-privilege/

I'm not sure that she was ''threatened with jail'' there's some dispute about that.

There's a lot to take in so I probably won't do it justice, so sorry for that.

thanks for commenting Unity.

Cote - there is a duty upon all LA and the courts to consider family members as alternative placements. But very often the family members have the same problems that the parents have so it is not a cure all.

I don't understand your point about the UK being so unusual in its child protection policies - is it that you object to the UK being proactive? I am not aware that any other first world country is anything other than proactive. How could a civilised humane society be anything else?

Perhaps you and knittedbreast could draw up a handy chart of just how starved Khyra Ishaq should have been allowed to get until she was taken from her mother?

re parents with LD - I have been in cases where serious consideration was given to having support workers on hand, even in the same house, but ultimately was rejected because the child would come to see the support worker as the parent because he or she would be the one doing the actual parenting and that was considered very unfair to the child as no support worker could commit to one job throughout child's childhood.

I agree with everyone who says that the focus always seems to be on the mother. There is a child involved who has a right to a safe and happy life.

I am sorry, I don't mean to be glib about these issues but it makes me so tired and sad. I see one poster is now wanting to join forces with JH about her first child despite us having what I thought was a productive exchange last night. I can't believe anyone can read about him and his modus operandi and feel that is a good idea.

Given that JH is silent on any response to my questions about which part of Ian Joseph's website he disagrees with, can I just assume he accepts it?
Is that right John????

Spero :D
I'm just asking questions, not ready to 'join forces' with the man just yet.
LOL =)

Spero this bit

"Perhaps you and knittedbreast could draw up a handy chart of just how starved Khyra Ishaq should have been allowed to get until she was taken from her mother?"

I don't understand. Khyra Ishaq died didn't she? In these conversations why do people always use children who were failed by the authorities as examples to make their points? Surely these cases show that SS and others involved in child protection sometimes get it wrong?

The secrecy thing scares the pants off people though. People don't go to SS for help when they need it. When SS come calling they lie through their teeth to make them go away. SS are not transparent in their doings, people involved in all of this often have no idea what is going on.

If SS were more transparent and there was some method by which the family courts could operate without total secrecy, it would improve matters across the board. Of course people need to be protected, but there must be a way of maintaining confidentiality while also being able to show that the courts are operating as they should and the decisions they are making are sound.

At the moment it is all secret and people are understandably very afraid. It is not in SS interests to be the bogeyman, it hinders their activities surely.

ada "I'm not sure that she was ''threatened with jail'' there's some dispute about that." Can you remember the name of the woman? I can't for the life of me remember it or the circs, I just saw it on the tv recently.

I think any family who have SS involved, over concern for their kids, should have a family support worker appointed to them, to help them.

For example, if a parent slaps their child and it's seem, police get called, child protection come out, social worker comes out and documents the house not being as clean as it they think it should be.
That family are under a real risk of child being taken into care, but they don't know that's a possibilty, they think the house is fine, they're way of life is giving DC a clip round the earhole when they're being cheeky, they can't believ SS intruded in on them like that, theyre a bit rude to SS and go on as normal.
SS will be watching and waiting and if that child gets smacked again, SS will be round to take him away.

In that situation SURELY they should be some help for the parents, a family support worker, who steps in and speaks to them, invites them onto a parenting course, or even enforces it.

And also, social workers could have a bit more leeway about what they find acceptable. Okay smacking is oulawed, parents should know that by now. But the state of the house, what people find acceptable variews massively.
Unless it's an actual health hazard, then leave off.

IME SS do tend to hide behind confidentiality. It is very hard to engage with them about a child/family you are concerned about and want to support.

Despite repeated calls for information sharing I have found this rarely happens. You are treated as if you are nosey and ridiculous if you want to be kept informed.

Like no one but them can be trusted.

I have dealt personally with a case that would make you sob. The mistakes and lack of communication have been horrendous and far reaching. Its not in my professional capacity but even so I wouldnt put details on here.
Its not one of those big gory stories. Its more mundane and sad and more common. No one has died. Damage has most definately been done.

Sardine - I agree with you about the need for greater openess. It is scaring people and they are more inclined to fall in with JH. but you will have to balance that against the rights of the child to some privacy.

My question about KI's degree of starvation was a serious one. Both CoteDA and Knittedbreast say only PROOF of actual abuse will do before a child is removed. Angela Gordon, KI's mother, removed her children from school. She wouldn't let anyone in to see them. Neighbours saw the little girl forage for food from their bird table.

At what point in that chronology was it right to intervene? Of course mistakes are made. But I would rather that SS intervened too early than too late.

I note CoteDAzure has not retracted or apologised for her comment that a mother should be allowed to kill three children before any further children are removed, so I suspect that is what she seriously believes.

Yukoncher - i can''t think of ANY case in which I have been involved in which there wasn't oodles of help offered to families. Support workers, parenting courses, respite care etc, etc. and if a baby/very young child was removed there was support for a high level of contact.

I recently represented a father with a serious criminal past. The mother had learning difficulties. The LA initially wanted to remove child at birth but were persuaded to agree to a mother and baby foster placement.

I know my anecdotes aren't any kind of proof that the system is perfect and works fine. It isn't and it doesn't. I can only hope they act as some kind of antidote to the lies and distortions put about by JH and IJ, in case someone is lurking here who really needs help.

As others have said much more eloquently than me, why isn't JH using his power and influence to campaign for more mother and baby units? More specialist foster care?

I am really worried he is using people like you for his own self aggrandizement. He won't give a shit about you or your son. There isn't anything now you can do to revisit that past order. I can only guess how much that hurts but I honestly think you would be 100s times better off getting some counselling to deal with your sadness than even thinking for a second that JH is a good person to get involved with.

It is unacceptable for local authorities or courts to threaten parents for talking to their Member of Parliament. END OF.

Spero, perhaps my sense of what's normal with social services is warped because of personal experience (no help offered here at all).

They've only just become involved again, with 4yo DS's developmental delays.
Asked how they could help, nursery suggested more hours there 'sorry no can do, no funds' I asked for relationship counselling, that'd I'd arranged myself and asked if they'd help fund it, because DH and I had some stress. 'sorry no funds no can do'.
I just assigned me and my partner up to a parenting course at the childrens' centre, we came in a week late, but oh well, better late than never.
Nursery have said 'oh that's brilliant' did the social worker arrange it?
Think again, I would have had no idea the course existed if I hadn't enquired myself.

My little sister aged just turned 16, still in school doing her GCSEs.
Mum fell ill as usual so off to the psychiatric ward for a good few months. (I was a teenager myself and living in a different part of the country and regretly didn't help)
My sister was faced with taking care of our 2 younger siblings alone, aged 6 and 11.
All she asked for was for our youngest sister aged 6, to be able to go into an after school club.
'Sorry, no can do, don't have the funds'.- the social worker said.
for about 4 months my 16yr old sister had no time to revise for GCSEs, luckily she managed and coped very well with the kids.
She got all Cs and Ds in her GCSEs when I know she could have done much better.

You, and many other people say there's all this support social workers give.
Where is it then?

Andrewofgg. I agree, it makes me very uneasy. But that isn't the point of this thread at all.

Spero, I'm happy to hear other ppl are being given chances with going into a mother and baby unit.

Counselling, there's a subject. You'd think the SS would get a girl some counselling after telling her that they've decided she can't see her child for another 18 yrs +

Did they offer me counselling? Did they
I agree with my friend who calls them ANTI-social services.

I got myself counselling since then.
Could perhaps do with somemore, thanks.

Yukoncher - one of the biggest problems with the system, if not the biggest is that I think the support comes in at the wrong time, at the wrong end, when it is almost too late.

the LA are spending thousands of pounds a week on my current case; keeping open a mother and baby placement, organising supervised contact for my client, paying for a pyschologist and a psychiatrist to report. In other cases, after proceedings started, they have sent in support workers am and pm, organised parenting classes.

I think there needs to be much earlier, much more focused intervention but as ever, it is a question of no money. As another poster says, no one is agreeing to have their taxes raised to pay for all this.

All the support and intervention gets put in AFTER application for care order is made because the law says every effort must be made to keep children with their parents. But often it is just too late. But it does rather give the lie to what JH says about babysnatchers etc, etc.

I don't know what went on in your case. But I have represented quite a few young mothers and it was difficult to get them to engage with what was on offer. If you are only 16 it is very hard to ask you to cope with a baby and a whole host of other people muscling in and telling you to do this or not to do that. Parents have got to be willing and able to engage or all the support offered in the world can't help.

I have a number of drug addict clients who are told they must self refer to the local drugs counselling services. They can't be helped unless they self refer. The Social Worker can't do it for them. 9 times out of 10 it takes them months to do it, even when LA pays for their travel. What is going on there? I appreciate it takes a lot of insight and courage to face up to your deamons, but SW can't force people to engage.

I haven't said that

What I have said was that taking a newborn from her mother is a very cruel act that should only ever be done where you are certain that this baby will be in danger. For example, the newborn of a woman who has killed her children before should be taken away, because we are certain that this new baby will be in danger.

I'm amazed that you don't want to get this.

Some other examples on this thread were babies whose older siblings were given Class A drugs, forced to live in crack dens, or raped. Yes, there as well, I agree that it is certain that the new baby will be in danger and should be removed.

What I don't agree with is taking away the newborns of parents without a history of abuse, on flimsy fantasies of possible future abuse.

yukoncher - would it be worth contacting adoption support services? I don't know much about what they can offer, but they are supposed to help parents whose children have been adopted. You obviously went through a traumatic experience and it is always good to have someone to talk to.

Cote Dazur - do you retract your example about a mother killing the first three children before the fourth is taken? do you accept that one dead child would be sufficient proof to remove the second at birth, absent any clear evidence that the mother had changed?

Spero cote gave that as an example. I can't speak for her but I know she is a sane and reasonable person and patently doesn't think that this is the only scenario in which a child should be removed.

I still don't understand the Khyra Ishaq point. What happened to her was dreadful. She was failed by social services. They were involved, they were involved early, they had had a lot of reports about the family. They did not do their job properly and a child died. What has this to do with potential miscarriages of justice, where people who are not particularly nasty or abusive are having their children removed. It must have happened, no court system is perfect. And even if it hasn't, there is such fear, that SS work is hampered and families who have contact with them have a really bad time. The root of these fears should be addressed. SS should operate in a more transparent way, parents should know what the processes are and what can happen, how and when. There should be some way of reassuring people that the courts are not acting out of turn. It would only help matters. It might mean that more parents seek help before things go really bad. It might make people more likely to phone in their concerns about things that they hear or see. I think it would be better.

You're right Spero, I do need counselling.
I'll perhaps ask them, or the childrens centre.
Thank you

lots of xposts I type slowly!

"do you accept that one dead child would be sufficient proof to remove the second at birth, absent any clear evidence that the mother had changed?"

Has overtones of that doctor who reckoned everyone was killing their babies. I forget his name. But certainly some of those rulings have been overturned.

Spero - That Was An Example

Good grief, woman. Talk about being unreasonableal. I feel sorry for the women the future of whose families you hold in your hands.

Proof please Cote. Ideally some statistics, rather then some guff about folks on the continent being oh so sophisticated.

Tbh, I'm not sure why I'm engaging with someone who claims that it would be fine for someone to murder three of their children before the fourth is removed.

As someone who has an involvement with child protection cases, I can repeat yet again, that no one takes any joy in splitting up families, it is absolutely the last resort. However, the welfare of the child must always come first and I make no apologies for that.