To think this mother should not have been arrested?

[KeinBock]

Apologies if this has been posted before, but this story is just so heartbreaking. The baby is seemingly being adopted against her mother's wishes. Surely any mother would kidnap their own child to prevent this from happening?

fuse Either you got me mixed up with someone else or I'm being a bit idiotic (and incredibly sleep deprived) here as I can't work out the relevance of your post to me with my posts?

Lol really tbh - are we saying the great British justice system fails victims and successful prosecutions are too rare

She, that's not been said. But can't you understand that some parents are failing children without being convicted?

You do understand the burden of proof is different between criminal and civil courts? Beyond reasonable doubt etc??

No I was having difficulty there too mumof probably mistaken identity

Yes that's exactly part of what I'm saying. A system of "beyond all reasonable doubt" will inevitably result in cases of guilty people being found innocent. It's impossible to avoid, especially in offences of a sexual nature where it's one persons word against another - the word of a vulnerable child for instance.

But we can't have that in a system to protect children, it's just not good enough. We can't send children home to be abused because their word was not good enough for a criminal court. The criminal system needs to er on the side of letting guilty people go, but a child protection system needs to err the other way, they need, in this sexual abuse case I've just made up, to take the childs word for it even if the parents are found innocent.

Also let's not forget that children need to be taken away from parents who haven't done anything criminal but can't parent a chils safely, like the parents I've mentionned who have severe learning disabilities or for some other reasons cannot safely raise a child without causing them significant harm

I think I understand more than most - but I still think a more robust system would be more effective - if we are saying abuse is enough to remove a child - then that should be enough to secure a successful prosecution,

My own personal dealings with SS as a victim of abuse make me aware that they make huge mistakes and in my personal opinion refuse to deviate once they set upon a path - and this is people who were supposed to be helping.

AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THE people the CJS sets free - they are free to go on to abuse whoever because they are "innocent".

It seems to me like we want it both ways - innocent until proven guilty but at same time not - in the sense we want to be able to allow adoption with not even a hint of a prosecution.

In the case of the learning disabled - is disagree they should not have a voice in the future of their child.

Well people can only be convicted if the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.

And like has been said, not all concerns will be of a criminal nature. With respect I don't think you understand more than most necessarily, many of us come to the discussion with different backgrounds and experience.

"Getting it right for every child". Note the key word. "Child".

But we don't get it right for every child, do we. As has already been said conviction rates are abysmal.

We get it right for comparatively few children and as we slash service provision and things like sure start etc what progress was being made is being decimated.

But the main aim is to try to. You have radically suggested children should not be removed without criminal convictions. What's your solution?

In the case of the learning disabled - is disagree they should not have a voice in the future of their child

I never said that. I refer back to a rule i made on a previous thread which is "I do not have arguments with imaginary versions of myself". Ie. I will not engage with people who are making stuff up then saying "but you said that!". No I didnt. The imaginary version of me that you created said that.

I said that it's not a crime to be so profoundly disabled you cannot raise a child and yet that child has to be taken away anyway, so it's another reason why you can't use a criminal system to take away children

That doesn't mean that the mother couldn't express a preference for where her child should go or what she would like to happen

But the decision made needs to be the best one for the child, whether or not it's what the mother would prefer.

I would not want a child to have to rely on their abuser getting a criminal conviction in order for them to have the right to safety.

But without that conviction other children are at risk.

it is my opinion we need to work on those low conviction rates for neglect And abuse and increase education and support for those who are neglectful through ignorance (hollow laugh)

How profoundly disabled would you have to be?

She. Not all concerns are criminal. That's the point. I still believe in a system where the interests of the child take priority over the parents.

And yes, the system fails children We leave them for too long in horrible situations, and in rare cases we remove children where it would have been better to provide more support to keep them in the family

But so far the solution you've suggested is to not remove children unless their parents are criminally convicted of abuse, and that's not a solution at all, that's an even worse system

Oh no wait, someone else might have said that, i apolgise if that isn't your opninion

No, you are right, that was She that said that.

But then we have another issue - is it always a good idea to prosecute someone who abuses their child?

I'm more of the opninion that sometimes it's not a good idea

For instance, social services first goal is usually to reunify the child with their birth parents. If the parents are in prison, that can't happen. So is it a good idea then?

This govt is not trying to help and protect vulnerable children, support services like the police and SS have been slashed to the bone, education programmes are cut, centres at the heart of the community are closing down, services are over stretched and underfunded. The CJS is a joke for victims of abuse.

Charities supporting victims are seeing their work loads rise and funding cut.

We need to support families at their core to prevent breakdown and neglect.

We need to ensure victims adult and child can expect justice.

At the moment none of this happens. I imagine my child being adopted out when I had done nothing wrong and the word of a sW is enough to make it happen. horrifying based on my experience of SWs across 2 counties.

You're talking in hypotheticals, She, but this situation is not unusual. I know a child, now adopted, who had to endure court proceedings against a birth parent. The case failed, but she still insists this abuse happened (and I believe her). Do you really think she should be returned to her birth parents?

But turning your argument on its head: if children could only be taken into care where there was a criminal conviction, then I guess you'd get an increase in prosecutions where currently there is instead a focus on what the child needs - and that is usually not best served by criminalising the parents.

I can think of absolutely no good reason for criminalising my daughter's birth parent. But that doesn't mean she was capable of parenting her children.

I don't think the case should have failed - and that takes resource - all the non prosecutions and failed cases lead to more victims. While I agree is criminalising abusive and neglectful parents is not always Ina child's interests - education and support to stop things getting so bad is.

And what about protecting other children.

She a sw word is NOT enough for your child to be taken from you and adopted. And while police forces are stretched, child protection remains a force priority.

I would disagree with your comments about the cjs. They want convictions but if there is insufficient evidence, what can they do?