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/

okay, glad that is cleared up then.

I think Fran is a polite young lady whose main priority during that time was; remaining sane. She was intelligent enough to know that critising social workers doesn't work in your favour, and perhaps she felt no specific Social worker was to blame.

Social workers involved may have been just doing their job. But the fact that they were going to take her child at birth (this is still correct?) and destroy the mother and child bond, with no clear reasoning, is inhumane.
Wouldn't you agree?

Trippy, am I right in saying you had first child in 2006, when you were 16,
the adoption went through in 2007?
Then you had another child in 2009.
And now you are aged 21 and fully caring for your 2 year old, who they do not think you 'risk possibly emotionally abusing in future due to depression'.
That is a small gap.

Didn't they give you the 3 year rule?
With me they said they can automatically take any baby I have within 3 years of the court ordered adoption.

I had DS in 2001, adopted in 2002 for same reasons you describe.
Told any babies within 3 yrs would be removed.
Had DS2 in 2007, got to keep him :) :) and DS3 born 2010.
Now happy with 2 beautiful babies, aged 4 and 1

With me they said they can automatically take any baby I have within 3 years of the court ordered adoption

BULLSHIT

Complete bullshit. Another pregnancy would trigger a pre birth assessment which may lead to care proceedings only if there was evidence for them

FFS. Which incompetant twats spread this stuff around? There is no three year rule!

It was the same social worker who said if I didn't sign the adoption papers, I wouldn't recieve any letters from adoptive parents.
I met adoptive parents breifly and asked them and they said that was untrue.
I guess the 3 year thing is untrue too, for god's sakes.
I had an abortion during that time which was the worse time of my life doing, I don't even believe in abortion, because she'd told me any baby would be automatically taken at birth and I couldn't go through it again.

Fucking bastards.

:-( oh my god. I'm truly shocked. Please be assured that's not right and not how things are :-(

yukoncher I give birth to my oldest in july 2006, she was placed for adoption in June 2007. I moved area in July 2007 to the area I am in now for a fresh start.

I had my youngest in 2008. (she is 3 in august). I do care for my youngest full time with help from her dad.

I phoned the ss in my new area when I was 4weeks pregnant as I was scared of them removing my youngest at birth, they started the assessments at 12weeks and finished them when my youngest was 3months old. They were not concerned with my depression as they knew I was getting help from a CPN and I was having counseling and I was getting help from a psychologist. My CPN left me end of 2010, and I am still having counseling.

I will say it was different area (200miles between both ss) that did my assessment with my youngest.

I have not heard of the 3 year rule before.

I am another who does NOT work for social services but even I can see he should not be grinding his axe in the way he does. Fact is he is pissed off about an investigation of a referral to social services made by his mistress's GP. The GP was concerned and rightly made a referral to social care. Sovial care rightly investigated as they have a duty to before closing the case. JH has conducted a vendetta ever since and in my opinion places children at risk with his dangerous ramblings. He is a maverick - nothing more and nothing less.

DS's birth mother had him in 2003. He was removed within 8 weeks and the assesement went on for another 18 mths. We adopted him in 2005. She had another baby in 2006.

There was a brief period of monitoring. That was it.

No removal, no CP.

Same mum, same issues, same family.

Different social work team.

Lottery.

There will be professional SS staff and there will be others that are less so. One thing you can be sure of is that if someone says no SS staff can be trusted then they are wrong. But if someone says that you must always trust them then that person is wrong too.

I know nothing about this guy, but in the criticism of him I get a feeling that some think SS can do no wrong. I see a hint that there could be 'consequences' in not obeying them without question. That alone makes me feel that we had better keep someone around who is willing to do some difficult questioning regardless of their personal motives.

In nearly 15 years of work in the family courts I have NEVER heard of the 3 year rule. As far as I know it has no place in statute, case law or practice.

What some might have said is that 3 years is a good period of time to monitor if someone is ok but even then that sounds like crap as almost all the psychologists/ pyschiatrists/probation officers who report in my cases say they want to see parents doing well for 12-18 months before they would consider them a lower risk.

It is this kind of canard that does so much harm. Like Ian Joseph nut fucking about parents are not allowed to read LA documents. Absolute blithering crap. I have NEVER had a case where this happened. Sometimes, on an emergency hearing we would turn up and have to read documents at court, but note that the parents had me, a lawyer paid for by the state to help them understand and to challenge the LA about any inacuracies.

I agree with Maryz - no one with any sense could or is saying that SS don't make mistakes. We ALL make mistakes. But I refuse to believe that SS set about deliberately to steal babies. This is what JH would have you believe. And it is so horribly, dangerously wrong.

yukoncher - re your point about 'clear reasoning'.

Children can only be removed from their parents if they are at risk of significant harm and the parents cannot act to remove this risk within a time frame that is suitable for the child i.e. a baby can't wait a year for his mum to get her act together.

the courts know, because English and international law tells them, that removing a child from his parents is the most serious and draconian act the state can ever endorse so the bar is set deliberately high.

In no case in which I have been involved - say 20 a year over about 15 years, roughly 300 in total - have I ever thought that there weren't clear reasons for the eventual decision to remove a child permanently. But I have thought in about 1/3rd of those cases that SS should have moved a damn sight quicker to get a child out of a situation that was very harmful and very unlikely to change.

'emotional harm' isn't some wimpy waffly phrase trotted out to defend the indefensible. If a child suffers emotional harm that means there are serious concerns about that child's ability to grow up a healthy and functioning adult because of what he or she is being exposed to in the home - for eg, frequent domestic violence where they see or hear their mother beaten, repeated verbal belittlement, emotional neglect... and very sadly, young, vulnerable and/or depressed mothers who don't at that time have it within themselves to love and care for a child because their own needs have not been met.

If you don't break the cycle it goes on and on and on.

Spero, you're saying children can only be removed for if they're at risk of significant harm.
In the case of myself, and a friend (who luckily managed to keep his child in the family), there was no initial act of removing the children. In my case, I asked them for respite care at a low point and agred to DS going into care for what should have been a few days. They made me believe that I wasn't allowed him back until further notice. They then got the intrim care order on the grounds that I hadn't took him out of 'voluntry care' in 3 or 4 months. I was absolutely shocked that it had been volunatary all that time.
In my friend's case the social worker said she was worried about the parenting, and if they signed an agreement for temporary fostercare to happen and saw his DS every day, all day, while doing parenting classes it would be best for everyone. They signed their child over with the veiw of them being helped. Several months down the line they were told their child would be adopted. Got a lawyer and were told it was a big mistake signing the fostercare papers in the first place.

People are saying there's this fair process where children only get taken for serious reasons, which may be true 95% of the time. In my case it wasn't fair at all. So I know what guidelines they're supposed to stick to isn't how they work all of the time.

I think Childrens' services need a massive amount of help so they can function in a fair and supportive way. Where young mums suited for a mother and baby unit placement, can actually go in one, without SS worrying about funds and resorting to adoption instead..

yukoncher - I do not want to belittle your pain or your obvious belief that you weren't treated fairly.

But can you understand how things in your story make me wonder about what else was going on?

What was your 'low point' that required respite care? When they made you believe you couldn't have him back, what did you do? How much contact did you have for the 3/4 months he was accommodated?

When they went to court to get the interim care order, what on earth was your lawyer doing? If you objected to the care order and there were no real reasons, was your lawyer simply incompetent or did you not give him/her full instructions?

I don't want to argue with you, its not going to help and I will not change your mind. But what I worry about is people reading these threads, who may feel panicked, know they need some help, have no loving or supportive family near by and yet they are too afraid to ask for help from SS or to engage with SS because of the pernicious fuckwittery put about by JH and his gang.

Okay I understand that you feel the need to reassure people to work with social services, which is admittedly important. Working with them, I'm sure helps massively (with the benefit of hindsight).
But also, I would get as much advice from other sources if going through it again, to find out what ones' rights are. I would get a lawyer form day one. Work with them, but also get clued up on what exactly is happening.

In my case, if you are curious, I did't have a lawyer, I had just turned 16, was doing okay, but began to struggle after 5 months, everyone said SS will help, tell them how hard it is, they will help.
I called them and asked for help, no they can't really offer any help at the moment. but if it all gets too much ring this number. I rang the number, I said look I haven't slept for days, cannot cope, please help take care of him, take him. We'll be in contact in a few days to discuss what support can be put in place, obviously with me and DS reuniting again.
They said you can't have him back yet, but you're on your way there, you'll have him back soon, saw him every day at first, then they cut it down bit by bit 'due staff shortages'.
Then one day they said we're going to adopt DS out, you don't need to attend, it's just paperwork, the hearing is tomorrow and the intrim care order will go through, but the adoption won't be put through for another 6 months (I think) so get a lawyer ready for then.

I didn't know fighting the intrim care order was an option.

I also didn't have a social worker for myself, and I was told at the end of it all I should have had one supporting me, telling me my rights.

That's why it's so important people in that situation get as much advice as possible and really clue themselves up.
I was an idiot, an actual idiot, not knowing what to do, or how to find out what to do. It never once crossed my mind that adoption could be forced through, until the day they told me.

Amazing the different experiences of the CP system being described here by you both.

yukoncher in retrospect, do you think you were able to care adequately for your DS at that point (just after he'd gone into respite care and they wouldn't return him to you)? Do you think if you'd been older and more confident in pushing to keep seeing him every day, that they might not have decided on the adoption? Was there a court hearing where you were able to tell a judge how you felt and what you'd experienced?

Spero, taking the facts of the Fran Lyon case as far as are known in the public domain, how on earth do you think it could have happened that the decision was made to remove her child immediately at birth? It just seems so utterly arbitrary and brutal. Do you think there was more to it that hasn't been reported?

I am shocked that you were left believing that you could not challenge the interim care order. I can understand how you are left with a deep sense of bitterness and injustice.

There is definitely something wrong with a system that leaves people in that position. All I can say in defence of the system now that there has been in place for a few years now the requirement that a LA send parents a 'pre proceedings letter' before they make the application for a care order, which sets out in clear plain English why they are worried about your child, what you can do about it and underlines the fact that you can get a lawyer to represent you at the government's expense. I hope this system would make sure no one else is left in your position.

But even on the brief facts you give, I hope we can agree that it is not as black and white as JH would have us believe. You were 16, you were struggling and you did need help. There were obviously genuine worries about your ability to be a good parent at the time and this wasn't some sick baby stealing plot by SS.

I am not saying that to make you feel bad - you were only a child yourself, you were a million miles away from clients of mine in their 30s who are making the same mistakes, over and over again despite loads of help and intervention.

ILoveYouToo

With regard to moving Fran Lyon's baby at birth, obviously I only know what I have read about the case and there will be a lot of stuff that hasn't made it onto the internet yet.

But if it helps, the law that would be applied to any case where LA wants to remove baby at birth stresses that the test is extremely high - there must be an immediate risk of very serious harm to the baby. Emotional harm could fall within this definition but it would have to be very, very serious.

I, and all my colleagues, would argue very strenously against any LA argument to remove a baby at birth, for all the obvious reasons. If such removal is sanctioned, great efforts are made to make sure there is as much contact as possible.

I have come across cases where I thought the LA were being over zealous; I successfully argued that a heroin addict mother could take her baby home from hospital because she appeared to be genuine about her commitment to rehab - as I left court I heard the SW saying that they hoped the baby would survive the weekend. That did make me worry but on my analysis of the evidence I did not think the LA had passed the test and the court agreed.

In only one case have I ever felt the court and LA got it so wrong that I appealed the decision.

I am not offering all this anecdotal stuff as 'proof' that the system is great and never fails. But surely it MUST be something for JH's acolytes to ponder; these parents are not thrown to the wolves, they have dedicated competent professionals fighting their corner in court.

I feel very passionately about this because to believe what JH is saying I have to accept that me and all my friends and colleagues in this field are incompetent brainwashed fuckwits who bow down before any LA who wants to snatch a baby. And that is a big mountain of crap.

ILoveYouToo
I do feel I could have coped well with my son if they had placed me and my baby in fostercare together like I'd asked, or a mother and baby unit (like I pushed for in court).
I was a very devoted mother, breastfed him for 5 months, he was my world, I let them take care of him because I felt so low that I couldn't meet his needs at that precise time, I had just blacked out at college that day from sheer exhaustion.
Unluckily for me I was always painfully shy, got bullied badly through high school, could not express my veiws feeling or anything much at all. So they would not have understood me (I've come a long way since then, but I still struggle in real life, I feel far free-er talking online).

There was a court date, a 2 or 3 day one.
Did I feel able to tell the judge my point of veiw and how I felt?
Absolutely not, I couldn't speak when I went to the stand.
The judge saw someone who had willingly placed her child in care and had since self harmed, and decided on adoption.
The only person I connected with was the court appointed child gaurdian and she stood up for me in court and helped me get the mother and baby unit manager to come in and push for me and my child to have a place there, together. I thought that would secure me a place with my child.
Before I went up on stand I was told that the judge would have already made his mind up anyway, so I only need to asnwer yes and no to things.

Thanks Spero.

I can only think now, that people just need to find out their rights.