Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think parents should be able to talk about social services support/meddling

11 replies

oohlaalaa · 03/06/2011 17:12

I don?t know what I?m talking about with regards to cold hard facts, due to the secretive nature of social sercives, but it concerns me, that councils take out injunctions / anonymity orders stopping parents from talking about the removal of their children. The parents may possibly have been wronged, but they cannot disuss their case with the media. We talk about all sorts of uncomfortable things in the media, but not this. Should we?

I have read varying reports on Vicky Haigh?s case, and would love to be able to speak out about it. I?m not though, not because of any injunction, but I don?t know the facts, and may have been misled. Is this right?

OP posts:
scurryfunge · 03/06/2011 17:14

The protection of children has to come first and keeping them anonymous assists this.

SardineQueen · 03/06/2011 17:20

I think it would be helpful if there was more openness surrounding all of this too. I am sure that the courts would be able to respond without revealing anything that would give identities away. The scare stories that go around the press serve to make people really scared of anything to do with these services, which hampers their efforts to help people and children.

Cases of sexual offences against adults and children are reported anonymously, I don't see why this has to be done differently. That way the public could be reassured that the correct decisions are being taken, or it would be shown that things were not as they should be. The secrecy surrounding all of this is scary and it is not helpful for people to be scared of SS.

SardineQueen · 03/06/2011 17:21

Children are people obv Grin you know what I mean.

EricNorthmansMistress · 03/06/2011 17:52

Is it right that confidentiality is maintained in cases of child protection? Umm...yes.

EricNorthmansMistress · 03/06/2011 17:52

What kind of 'facts' about vicky Haigh's case do you think you have the right to know about exactly?

Original poster
oohlaalaa · 03/06/2011 18:09

EricNorthmansMistress

Well you read that her husband sexually abused daughter, but then elsewhere you read that Vicky trained daughter to say this. It is also on the internet that the court injunction is to cover up the council's incompetence and corruption.

If it is true that injunctions are used to cover up mistakes - I think we need to know?

Also, you hear stories about forced adoptions, and mothers moving abroad for childbrith, which are rather frightening - but who's to say what is correct, when we do not get provided with any hard evidence.

I'm just not sure if the secrecy of family courts is to protect children, or sometimes social services staff.

OP posts:
Tanith · 03/06/2011 18:14

It is also on the internet that the court injunction is to cover up the council's incompetence and corruption.

It is also on the internet that Elvis Presley was kidnapped by aliens and that Michael Jackson was an alien.
I wouldn't trust everything you read on the Net, if I were you.

EricNorthmansMistress · 03/06/2011 18:28

I'm just not sure if the secrecy of family courts is to protect children, or sometimes social services staff.

It's to protect children. If you are interested, there was a huge thread titled 'AIBU to think John Hemming is a dangerous man' which a lot of people contributed to.

Family courts do not exist to serve the needs of social workers. Social workers are only part of the many people who stand up in court during care proceedings to give evidence. The final decisions are made by judges, not social workers, and judges are not in social services' pockets. It's in nobody's interests to make mistakes, there are many, many checks and balances along the way to try to ensure that mistakes are not made.

I believe injunctions can apply to people discussing court business outside of family courts, I'm not an expert. But the reason family courts are secret is to protect children. They have done research with children and young people who have said that they want secrecy to be maintained.

diabolo · 03/06/2011 19:06

I think Camilla Cavendish of the Times is a crusader on behalf of this issue - you could try googling her for more in depth background.

Original poster
oohlaalaa · 03/06/2011 20:54

Thanks. When you read the articles belows, it seems that social workers do not always get it right, and the secrecy of family courts, stops the case being scrutinised ? which could be of benefit to families? Surely there needs to be greater transparency in the family courts?

I understand what EricNorthMansMistress is saying, but I find it disconcerting, that there is nothing to squash these suggestions of injustice. The articles make parents frightened of social services.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article675641.ece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3542168.ece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4288255.ece

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1308117/I-stolen-mother-The-deeply-disturbing-truth-forced-adoption.html

OP posts:
OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page