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?

Well said, Tiggy.

She, you mention other children. What other children do you mean?

Other children, subsequent children, in the cases of sexual abuse where children are removed but no prosecution - any other potential victims, even more so where there has been an unsuccessful prosecution because of course the abuser is "innocent".

Fundamentally we are permanently removing children without conviction at the same time as support services are being taken away.

And I believe any child who says they have been abused.

nick one the initial SW sets upon a path, managers and colleagues - in my limited personal experience - do not like to deviate from it.

I am not a disgruntled parent claiming my children have been stolen from me - I am a victim - I have experienced the lack of service provision, the lack of support, the impact of under staffing on SS and the police and various charities.

It concerns me greatly that we will see more and more of this sort of thing as cut backs strike deeper and harder

So surely we are protecting those children by removing them without the need for conviction? By your initial post you advocate leaving them within these families.

And as we keep saying, sexual abuse and criminal behaviour is only some of the reasons that children are removed.

Believing the children is not part of the debate. No one has said this is an issue.

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.

It really isn't, She. There would certainly have to be good supporting evidence.

I absolutely agree that people need much more support to stop things getting to a pitch where adoption becomes unavoidable. That would need a doubling in the funding that social services currently get, and sadly that just isn't going to happen.

My point she, is one sw with a grudge will not be able to remove children. Bits not that simple. And I'm not a social worker.

It is simply untrue and scaremongering to say 'the word' of a social worker is all that's needed and hey presto a child is adopted.

Only the court makes that decision. After many hearings, where the parents are represented AND the child is represented. The average care case used to take well over a YEAR to complete - the government is now insisting on 26 weeks.

I do wish people would stop saying this. Concentrate on the things we DO know go wrong and we could do something about - like vanishing provision of services, no available therapy for parents who need it etc, etc, etc.

People seem terribly misinformed about the whole process.

A social worker doesn't just turn up and say 'oh we're going to take this child away and put it up for adoption'

We are removing the one specific child/children and leaving ALL others open to abuse - I am not saying leave them there - apologies if that's how it read - I am saying we need to more robustly prosecute and ensure the CJS is working properly and efficiently - so as to ensure a conviction, more people on register - and if something (other than illness) is sever enough to permanently remove a child - it should be prosecutable.

Emotional abuse (drunk alcoholic behaviour etc) is still abuse for example.

Please, read this post, where we try to explain in simple language. Read the case of Re B-S. Then tell me how easy and quick it all is.

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/the-law/key-legal-principles/welfare-stage/

She, that's a totally different discussion. We aren't primarily discussing conviction rates for sexual abuse. And like I keep harping on, evidence is needed. That's obviously not what the victims want to hear but it's an essential part of our justice system. That doesn't mean it is inefficient.

Nursey if you mean me - I know that but I also know once a path is set on it is hard to force a change - most managers back their staff - in one example relating to myself an initial assessment was sent out, signed (electronically) by a manager on annual leave.

Individual SW can be amazing but their case loads cripple them.

The problem with most of my cases is, it doesn't matter how 'robustly' you prosecute, there simply isn't enough evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what are you proposing? Lower the criminal standard of proof? Or send children home possibly to be abused?

You have to pick one option I am afraid. You can't just say 'prosecute more robustly' and expect to have waved a magic wand.

How are you going to get a 3 year old to give coherent evidence by being robust?

Not all abuse is criminal!!

That's the main argument of Hemming et al - only abuse that is a crime merits removing a child. They scoff at emotional abuse for eg and think it means 'possibly shouting at a child at some time in the future'.

shewon No I meant in general

Emotional abuse is a crime, rarely prosecuted (according to local cp officers anyway).

And personally I'd like a lot of change, an investigatorial system, a "judge/magistrate" whose job it is to find the truth. Proper service provision and support for vulnerable children and families, legal representation for victims themselves, higher standards for defence barristers, and various other things, none of which will happen in this country because it would mean a fundamental change to our legal system, doesn't stop me wishing though.

Is it a crime not to hug your child? Or ever praise him? Or constantly be rude to him?

Where do I find this crime? Sorry, I don't think that is a crime, or at least it's not one I have ever come across. But it would get alarm bells ringing for a SW.

It wouldn't get that child adopted though.would it Spero

Emotional abuse is not a crime. I've never charged anyone with it.

She, I appreciate that our own experience colour our viewpoint, but I do fear you are failing to look at the bigger picture. You are concentrating mainly on crime.

Of course it could.

IF the court found that the child was suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm from this abuse and IF the parents couldn't or wouldn't change and IF there were no family members willing or able to care and IF the child was younger than say, five.

Then yes. adoption is an option.

The Chief superintendent of our local CPU told me emotional abuse is a crime - what crime I don't know - because I am not the C Supt in question - but I wouldn't imagine she got it wrong.

Re focusing on crime - if you are going to forcefully remove a child - for life - from an unwilling parent then a crime should have been committed.

However you are right my own personal experiences do colour my view - and my own personal experience is that SS are utterly incompetent and even when they get something blatantly wrong and factually incorrect - they refuse to admit and managers back up the initial SW.

Our case crossed a county - I don't want to go into specifics but there was no communication between the 2 SW departments and it terrifies me that they have the power to remove children. And I reiterate that they were supposed to be helping me I have never donee anything wrong, they were completely and utterly useless, both counties.

I am sorry you had such a bad experience. I know very well that professionals are fallible.

But do you say that this means all SW are incompetent? And you want to replace them with inquisitorial judges?

I would be very grateful to be corrected, but as far as I know, there is no 'crime' of emotional abuse. Or if there is, not one client of mine has ever been charged with it in 15 years. Plenty have been charged with physical or sexual assault.

Emotional abuse is not a crime. I think you have crossed wires. Obviously some circumstances may fall under other offences, but in itself it's not a crime.

I think we have to agree to disagree because if the system worked your way then thousands of children would be living in households where they are suffering. I prefer the way it is at the moment where the child comes first, not the adult.