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/

Spero - That was an example of how you can be certain that an unborn baby will run serious risk of abuse. As opposed to "Her ex is violent so baby might be in danger and she was depressed some years ago so she might want to harm baby for attention" and other similar exercises in fortune telling.

Cote DAzur. Please name these countries.

I am surprised becausae it is a pile of crap to say that state should only remove when they have proof on ongoing abuse.

I had a client of 17 with an IQ of 65. She was pregnant with her first child. She could not feed or wash herself very well. She refused to co-operate with SS. She didn't have much by way of loving family support.

There was no actual 'proof' she would hurt her child because she had never had a child to care for.

But lots of really worrying evidence that that baby wouldn't have lasted a week in her care. so you would have left the baby with her? Or paid for a social worker to move in with her? For how long?

COte. words fail me.
You are free to call me a high-handed interventionist, but no way should 3 children have to die before a 4th is protected. I am speechless.

Cote DAzur

re violent exes. I have had plenty of clients who got beaten regularly by their boyfriends. They got non molestation orders then let him back in. Plenty of children who had to hide in their rooms and listen to their mother's scream as they were beaten. Plenty of children who got caught up in the violence as they tried to protect their mother.

the risk of future harm if you let people like this in your life are very real and very serious.

Or are you saying that a baby can just lie back in its Moses basket and gurgle whilst his mum is getting the shit kicked out of her? and that is all fine and dandy?

I really don't know what the fuck you are saying.

I would like to know if you people are aware that it is highly unusual for a Western state to be forcefully removing so many babies and small children from their parents.

Either UK has a very high percentage of abusive households or there is something wrong with the system.

Cote DAzur.

More evidence please. What 'western states' are you referring to.

I can't accept simply your assertion that it is so 'highly unusual'. I would dearly love to know where these countries are and if they are comparable to the UK in terms of population density and areas of social deprivation.

But as this is the second time I've asked this question, I guess I won't hold my breath.

At the very least are you now prepared to revise down your 'three kills and you're out'? Or is that every mother's privilege to kill her first three children. Hey, we've all had bad days.

What I am saying, Spero, is that you don't know that any of that will actually happen. There are a million points after the birth at which you can intervene if you see that the violent ex has (1) returned home and (2) returned to his violent habits.

What I am saying is that you can't do something as traumatic (to both parent and baby) as breaking a family without knowing that the child is at danger. Not imagining that he might be in danger in the future in some way.

''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''

Surely you must be joking. Or immensely foolish. Few things are certain in life tho' assessing risk is something we all do, all the time whether taking on debt or crossing a busy road.

It's blindingly obvious why babies under 2 are particularly vulnerable to harm so why wait until it's a 100% certain risk. 20% of cases of cerebral palsy are already due to non-accidental injury. Why add to this number.

Look into France, for example.

I would like to hold your hand while you educate yourself but I have better things to do.

Cote Dazure

Either evidence your assertion that the UK is highly unusual in its approach to child protection or stop making it in the future.

It is not 'imagining' a risk of future harm to carefully analyse the case in front of you and think ' there is a serious risk that this child will suffer harm in his parents care'.

As human beings we evaluate risk every day in all sorts of situations. The intelligent ones of us usually do it quite well.

What about my young mum with a low IQ? Do you agree with the risk analysis there? Or are you saying, well come on she hasn't actually hurt the child yet, this is just wild theorising on our part. She can't get herself dressed and doesn't understand how she needs to support the baby's neck and not swaddle him in a million blankets, but hey, let pop round next week and see how they are doing??

But of course, it will be fine if the baby is hurt or dead. Anything other than breaking that sacred bond between mother and child eh?

France eh? thanks Cote. That is very helpful. Of course, without you gently holding my hand and steering me through the intricacies of research it may take me some time but rest assured I will be onto it.

Only I'm suspecting that it mght not be all that clear cut and obvious or you might have already included the link to that definitive bit of research already...

i think there should be physical evidence of abuse otherwise its just what if possibly in the future, no crime has even been committed yet.

im not ignorant in thinking that some children are abused and its never known and that some children are taken away uneccessarily-this happens.

i dont know why so many people are so quick to have trust in strangers with a badge of authority, there are some really nasty vindictive people working in ss, people who use their powers abusivly, committing abuse against families and children. of course there should be actual real evidence of abuse, becuase up until its happened there is every chance that other forms of help can and should be offered. we shouldnt be taking children and babies away from their parents before anythings actually occured.

John! gone a bit quiet your end.

Could you answer mine and Maryz questions about Ian Joseph?

thanks for the link Maryz.

John. I would be interested to know if your 'differing views' to Ian Joseph explicitly extends to this statement:

Interim care orders are issued on the basis of written statements from social workers and "hired experts" that cannot be questioned or disputed because these documents are not shown to the parents and in any case the authors are nearly always absent from court ! The parents' are rarely allowed to testify as not only the judge but also their own lawyers nearly always stop them from speaking !

Its from his lovely colourful website.

I mean, come on John, he is quite barking mad isn't he?

I've got to go now and do some work as despite what IJ believes, I do actually have to read every single document in every case and then cross examine the SW.

interesting thread, if only for further proof of the fact that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't adopt by reason.

Will come back later to see if JH has answered my questions or Cote DAzure accepts that the state is allowed to accept a slightly lower standard of proof then three dead babies. But as ever. won't be holding my breath.

Stewie - If you look at mainland Europe, you will see that international adoptions are the norm because there are so few babies and young children available for adoption in their home countries. I remember for example that in Catalan Spain, 120 native and 1,400 foreign children were adopted in one year (2004?). This is because even when parents are actually seen to be abusive or incompetent, state turns to the extended family rather than seeking to rehouse the child with strangers elsewhere.

To those of us looking from the outside, UK authorities' stance on this issue is incomprehensible. I realize that you think it is ok, but I assure you that it is not normal for many other countries.

Yes, Spero, you can do it if you try

yes physical evidence should be presented before anyone even considers taking a child away. what about mothers who have gone to faor once or twice and smacked their child? should they be taken away? or should they be given the benefit of doubt to not do it again?

you just cannot go around taking children away before any abuse has been committed- thats just completly out of order. its steal, the stealing of children and its legal. if i walked over to you and picked up your child and said i dont think you are parenting well enough would you be happy with that? what about if i had a badge saying i was from some service? would it be ok then? of course not.

there has to be proof its already happened, and that evidence should be taken at the time it happens not be attmepted to be created some time after.