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/

CoteDazur - your proposition is not necessarily true.

I am very glad that Fran Lyon is now able to care for her child. But her success in doing that now does not automatically mean that SS were 'wrong' in attempting to remove her child at birth. The situation existing just before the child's birth could have been very serious. Maybe she wasn't co-operating because of the great advice from JH. What is a SW to do? Take a risk that it will all be ok? Risk further tabloid demonisation if it isn't ok and the baby dies? Tough call isn't it.

as I have repeatedly said on this thread and others, the bigger problem than over zealous Social Workers who try to 'snatch' babies on no evidence is that children get left far too long in utterly miserable situations because everyone is trying (too hard in my view) to keep a family together and/or lack of resources scares a LA off trying to find foster parents.

Come on John! I've been up and about for hours now, breathlessly waiting for your response about Trippy. As you seem to devote 90% of your waking hours to this subject I am expecting a response shortly.

I am not aware of any case that I have dealt with that coincides with trippy's description.

maybe she changed the details a little,jH??

That's handy eh John?

Perhaps you could answer this question:

Do you agree that your advice to parents facing intervention from Social Services is to refuse to co-operate and to leave the country?

My advice is not to refuse to co-operate. Ian Joseph's advice is to refuse to co-operate. My warning is that a refusal to co-operate in itself has been used as sufficient for a child to be removed and then adopted.

My warning to people is that although leaving the country is likely to get a positive result it is very difficult now to get financial support from foreign benefits systems. Hence people (like Vicky Haigh) need to be self-financing.

It remains that I think trippy's tale is nothing to do with any case that I have personally been involved in. However, I accept that my memory may not be 100% and am open to being corrected if I get sufficient information to check the files.

Do remember that about 50% or so of children under 5 that leave care leave care through adoption.

The fact that FL left the UK is probably a large factor in why her child is safe- because of the distance she put between her child and her ex.

Presumably without the intervention and threat of removal by SS she would not have left the area she was living in and the child may have been at risk from ex?

I think many cases of removal actually come down to this- the failure to protect the children from others (frequently violent ex-partners, but not always). But why isn't there more help for families that are struggling? Why aren't there enough units for mothers and babies, in particular young mothers who having been through the care system who do not have a positive experience of parenting, or perhaps have never experienced life with a baby at all ( eg if all younger siblings removed at birth) and really need practical support?

Money of course, it's always money.

My authority is closing down mother and baby unit there aren't even enough places now, let alone after they're closed.

Yet look how much a care placement in a residential unit costs- upwards from £2k a week! (because let's face it there just aren't enough foster carers, never will be and that situation will worsen as fewer and fewer adults can afford homes of a decent size to foster).

John Hemming - do you agree that Ian Joseph's advice about refusing to co-operate is at best poor advice, at worst, dangerous advice?

Can you confirm to what extent, if at all, you collaborate with Ian Joseph?

I am interested to note on various internet fora that you pop up together with alarming regularity.

the reason I ask is that I wish to inquire of the Liberal Democrats as to whether or not your activities in this field reflect that party's current policy towards issues of child protection issues. Hitherto I have always voted LibDem so would be interested to know what is their response.

Ian Josephs and I talk about issues. We have differing views. I am not responsible for his actions and he is not responsible for my actions.

There are other people who have left the country who I could get to comment about their experiences if people are interested.

ive never knowingly spoken to him, however if he helps mums keep their babies i support him.

Even abusive mothers KB?

Would you have approved of my half-sister being allowed to keep her children (story upthread)?

Is the only thing that matters the mother-child bond?

What, any mums? Even abusive ones?

Knitted breast. Should Peter Connolly have stayed with his mother?

John Hemming - I would be very interested to know how many people you have actively assisted to leave the country following planned or actual social services intervention.

And by actual assistance I mean - telling them this is the right thing to do and/or offering financial help.

and please would you answer my question about Ian Joseph. You are not responsible for his actions I accept. But I asked if you agreed with his stance about refusing to co-operate. Does 'differing views' mean you disagree with his stance? Grateful for clarification.

Knitted breast. Should Khyra Isaq have stayed with her mum?

www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2010/02/25/khyra-ishaq-death-child-starved-to-death-surrounded-by-food-97319-25913512/

I am genuinely interested in your response.

Do you seriously believe that by virtue of a genetic link mothers can't harm their children and children are always better off with their mothers, no matter what their mothers do or fail to do?

if there is physical proof you have beaten abused your child fair enough, if its flimsy evidence based on not much at all i absolutuly support him helping mothers to keep their children.

there seems to be two extremes those who really hurt their children and get away with and those who havent done any wrong at all and still get their children removed, if there is one person out there trying to prevent the latter that is no bad thing. but then i dont have much regard for ss at all, them seem to do more harm than good and i dont think they should have as many rights as they do.

I dont know about the stories above mentioned, im not denying there are some instances where children are being abused and thats wrong but what bout the families ripped apart when theres little to no evidence? thats child abuse too

"in fact most children are left with their mothers"

And you think we should be grateful for that?

"the child may have been at risk from ex?"

"May have been"?

Do you really see no problem with removing newborns from their mothers because of a possibility that they might be abused in the future? Even when Philip K Dick dreamt up Minority Report, he was working with the assumption that the future was known with certainty and even then there would be questions of "What if she doesn't actually commit the crime?".

Severing a baby from her mother is a very cruel act that should be done only where you are certain that the baby will be in danger. Like, a mother has killed her three children and now is pregnant with the fourth.

How visible do the bruises have to be to constitute physical evidence for you?

My half-niece and nephews were never beaten.

Knitted breast - so, are you saying that Social Services have to wait until a child turns up at hospital with a broken bone, or is found dead at home? That only with cast iron 'proof' of abuse the state can act?

Do you not understand why the legal obligation upon social serices is to act if a child is at risk? Because if you don't act on risk of future harm, then children like Khyra can die. And she died a horrible, slow death.

Her mother was mentally ill. She took the children out of school and wouldn't let anyone see them. What Birmingham City Council were doing I don't know. What a shame they didn't get the police to kick the door down and rescue all those children.

Social Services don't always get it right. Sometimes they are too heavy handed. But how is the answer to this to support parents to leave the country with vulnerable children? How is the answer to this to tell parents that they should refuse to co-operate with Social Services?

that any parent, any person can think JH is a righteous man (and I am still reeling from the earlier comparison with him and Mandela) is almost beyond my powers of comprehension.

Obviously, Peter Connolly should not have stayed with his mother.

There, SS and doctors who examined him (once, when he had a broken back) should have seen signs of the actual and ongoing physical abuse.

This is very different than "may happen in the future" kind of fantasy scenario.

there seems to be two extremes those who really hurt their children and get away with and those who havent done any wrong at all and still get their children removed

well that shows how ignorant you are.

All this reassurance that there is a very high test before removing children and SS do everything they can to help to support mothers and babies (and older children) is great. But it doesn't always work like that. Sadly there are cases where things go terribly wrong, either way - failing to protect children who are in need and in wrongly removing children.

One example - Nottinghamshire social services took a baby, by force, at birth. Without bothering to get a court order. That is clearly illegal. Yet they did it anyway. They were eventually held to account by a judge, but it was a bit ruddy late by then.

Another example - a woman with learning disabilities who gave birth. SS bullied her into a mother and baby unit because they didn't like her partner. Everything was seen through a prejudicial lens and interpreted as dangerous. When her partner visited the mother and baby in hospital, he was described as 'over-involved'. SWs said quite clearly, amongst themselves, that they wanted her in the unit in order to keep her partner away and split them up. There was no evidence against this man, no reason to think he was a danger. Just prejudice. And once that prejudice was in place, everything he did was interpreted negatively.

Wow. Cote Dazur. So a mother gets to kill three children before we accept there is the teensiest risk she might kill the fourth?

Edam - Nottingham were granted a care order. They were idiots in removing without an order. But when they finally applied, they got it because the evidence was there that the baby was seriously at risk.

Yes, the state should only be able to remove children from their parents when they have proof of actual ongoing abuse.

That is how it is in many Western countries. I don't know why you are so surprised.

Ok, the JH cheerleaders are out in force.

Anwer 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.