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/

IRCL

Evidence of emotional abuse is definateloy a serious crime that parents should be imprisoned for and children taken care of safely with whoever can be found.

However, in cases where they suspect emotional harm may happen in future, don't you think that's ridiculous??
With Trippy, taking her child, as she may emotionally hurt it in future, then 2 yrs later, she keeps another child and is no risk. And with me my first being taken because they thought there was a risk of me emotionally hurting my child. 4yrs later I can keep another child.
And with Fran Lyon they thought she might emotionally hurt her baby, she's happily being a good mum now thanks to being able to flee the country.

What about our cases?

If anyone's going to emotionally abuse their child, theyre hardly going to change in a couple of years.

It's a ridiculous think to say, that they might, because of past or present depression, especially like in my case I have absolutely no depression now, it was just a bad period, which I could have been HELPED WITH.

Dittany - I see what you are saying but why should a child be hurt FIRST in order to be protected thereafter?

Well I know if I was the one being descirbed as dangerous, I would tackle it, not avoid answering questions. But maybe that's just me...

Absolutely dittany.
It's a process of labelling someone as guilty of something they're probably going to do in the future.

They think adoption will stop any possible trauma to a child, but aren't they think? that adoption bring about it's own problems with the way children feel?

IRCL the reason abuse should be shown first, is so children don't have to grow up seperate from their birth parents when actually the birth parents could have looked after them sufficiently, if it wans't for assumptions about what they might do.

Yukoncher, I understand what your saying, perhaps with support maybe you and trippy could've kept your children. With regards to your story (& trippy's) I from what you described it does seem like there wasn't much effort put it in to actually helping you which that in itself is so wrong.

I know for a fact I would not have harmed my child. The ridiculous thing is though, after him being taken, I was then asked by SS to look after my little sister for many 6 month streches throughout her young childhood, which I happily did.
Apparently I was good enough to care for someone aged 6+
But a baby, well that's too adoptable, they'll just take that one.
Crazy fucks.
They're the ones that are guilty of causing emotional distress!

Yuk I understand what you mean, children shouldn't be taken on a "whim" but I was under the impression children were only removed when absolutely necessary.

However don't you think it is a bit wrong that a child should come to harm before they are removed? It is a bit like saying they cannot protect the child until they have been hurt?

thanks, that';s what I'm saying the 'convictions' of what could possibly happen, and consequently the children being adoption, is really unfair

JH, any luck finding the original source and context for those odd looking stats
you posted earlier? No idea whether allegations against you are true or false,
but refusing to answer direct questions or provide proper info does not make
you look like the reasonable party.
The source should be in the spreadsheet, but it is the Department of Education from the SSDA903 return.

IRCL
saying there should be evidence of harm IS a way to protect children, protect them from the trauma of being taken away when not necessary.

Anyway, ppl will come in and say these are incredibly rare cases, so I'll just mention that, incase ppl think I'm saying these misscarriages happen all the time.

The way they treat mothers with learning difficulties I find especially inhumane, they ASSume they won't cope. Actually I think many could with support, then they say well we can't afford to give support.
The system is awful

There should be more done to help people keep their children, I do agree on that, all people need is support and help.

Sorry to hear of your story by the way Yuk, I am glad your ok now, it does seem as the choice really was taken out of your hands.

The system needs to change but how I am not so sure.

Thanks IRCL

Yeah, I agree. It's difficult to think how changes can be make.
Perhaps just the quality of the social workers.
I think the ones who dealthw ith me were incredibly jaded and made assumptions from the very beginning.
I think perhaps maybe only women over 50 should be allowed to be social workers, with a proper knowledge of not just the effects of neglect with parents, but the psychological effects of parent/child seperation.
It was a male social worker, whom I'd met a handful of times who decided I wasn't good enough back then. It's outragious.
They could at least put more effort into spending some real time with a parent, maybe a few of them, and then deciding. Also judging them from how they act in very stressful situations is pretty bad too.
It seems a young mum can't win sometimes when surrounded my a bunch of suits sitting round a table speaking another language.

I really hope SS are improving :(

excuse, me that was sexist, there are men also who've played very caring roles in their lives. Perhaps the requirement should be that they been a main career for children for a good 20 yrs!

I have never had any dealings with John Hemmings but agree with those that say it is good that someone is questioning what is happening as there are some horrendous cases of misjustice. My experience is that what we hear in the media is just the tip of the iceberg. The figures for emotional abuse keep rising according to the stats I have seen but is there any breakdown of what this consists of for example how many more cases of msbp??

I have been in contact with many mothers like myself who have been investigated for msbp some without even having been aware of an investigation. It can be all over your records without you ever knowing about it just because you fit the profile. IRCL you suggest mothers should fight the claims against them but of course this is impossible if you are never accused. Can any figures be obtained on how many investigations are started for msbp and what percentage are followed through and presumably the remainder just remain on files?? It appears there is no comeback on false accusations even when they are to cover up medical mistakes.

I am about to try to access my records but am unsure whether I will be able to as there are clauses in the DPA stating that the information is not available if it might cause harm. If anyone is able to help me with advice on how to get access to the information I would appreciate it.

Mr Hemmings if you are able to advise me of where to go for help now even though I presume the accusations are not being followed any further at present I would be greatful as I want to clear my name!

Please PM me if you have been accused and dont want to post openly but are happy to share experiences or ways to clear your name.

I am about to go on holiday so won't have access to this thread and I suspect it is probably about to die a well deserved death anyway. I have found it very interesting to hear from everyone and I agree that we urgently need a greater degree of transparency so people are less afraid of the system and what it tries to do.

I hope those deleted threads of Johns weren't actually answers to my questions; doubt it.

I will try one last time; JH will you answer my questions?

Dittany - Prof Sir Roy Meadow and David Southall are more sad indictments of the failures of the criminal justice system. They gave evidence in criminal trials which should not have been accepted but was. But justice got there in the end, so even despite them I have faith in the system. I have to.

Because the alternative is someone like JH. Just because parliamentary privilege makes him immune from prosecution it doesn't give him the right to break the law. As Nick Clegg says - if you don't like laws, work to change them, don't flout them.

I will look forward to hearing when you wish to join me in court. Luckily this thread has given me great practice in breath holding.

and yukoncher - your statement If anyone's going to emotionally abuse their child, theyre hardly going to change in a couple of years I am afraid I just don't agree with that. People can change and do - it is very hard work and they have to want to and there has to be proper help which I accept is often not there.

One of the biggest chances can simply be the process of maturing as one grows up from 16 to adulthood.

I think this may be the heart of why you are still so angry and upset - because now you are coping fine and managing well you find it hard to come to terms with the possiblity that maybe you weren't coping so well years ago. Of course I don't know, it may be that you were the victim of a horrible misjustice. You certainly don't seem to have had things explained to you very well or at all.

I hope you can find some peace and enjoy being a mother to the children that you have and not let this trauma eat away at you.

"like CoteDazur you might have to replace your prejudice with facts"

I am not aware of any prejudice, let alone having replaced any with "facts"

'Come to court with me and see how hard I work for my money. Then you have a right to comment.'

Fred the Shred worked hard for his bonuses (we are reliably informed). Does that mean that dittany or anyone else doesn't have the right to comment on Fred?

I don't think anyone here is saying social workers or others in the system don't work hard.

The problem we have is with the system itself.

Have a great holiday, Spero

What hester said :)

'Let's threaten them with prison': MP goes to war with judge

Like the man said we all have two reasons for doing something, good reason and the real reason.

It would appear the extraordinary campaign against John Hemming was because he called for four judges to be locked up for Contempt of Parliament and started the proceedure for doing so, they having issued injunctions to stop people speaking to their constituency MP's, which is a breach of the Family Court regulations as well as Contempt of Parliament.

One was for someone who had complained about a social worker. it is common for councils to do this.

The story is carried in the Daily Mail on April 9th.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html

This appears to be the origin of the hate campaign on here and on other sites as legals can't take criticism of their precious Family Courts or accept it is in system failure.

"Answer this.

Do the failings in the current system mean that you support the position whereby parents under investigation from SS are encouraged to leave the country with their children?

do you accept that all parents in the care system get lawyers paid for by the state who are competent professionals, not lap dogs of the LA?

do you accept that if there is a risk of significant harm to a child that there should be intervention. And that risk of significant harm does not necessarily require evidence of physical harm that has already been done."

Coming Up.

Mothers who are about to have a baby and the SS get interested are strongly advised to flee the country as it will almost certainly mean there will be a long drawn out court case ending with the Forced adoption of the baby.

Another story, that of Vicki Haigh is in the Daily Telegraph after the villainous John Hemming Outed the council which had obtained an injunction.

Nope.

Woof! Woof! Sound of barking from the Advocates Meeting. It's so bad the legals should be lead in to court on leads by the SW's and Guardian.

This is because there are conflicts of interest in all directions, so they will not stand up to the LA and CAFCASS, as they get a lot of work from the LA and CAFCASS and are looking forward to earning a substantial part of their income in the future from them. and at the taxpayers' expense.

This is why parents sack their legals and go to the system of McKenzie Friends set up by Mr. Hemming.

The wording of the 1989 Act is the way it is as a safeguard, as is the idea of "Threashold Criteria".

Do you accept many children are taken into Care for less than significant harm - silly reasons, MSBP allegations, medic makes a claim about MSP or some other contraversial theory, to cover up abuse - yup there's been those -, claims the mother made it up and is thus emotionally abusing the child?

Since Family Court judges believe everthing they are told by the LA and Guardian, the child winds up in permanent Care banned from seeing the mother or is Forced Adopted.