To be shocked and offended by this judges comments.

[ifgrandmahadawilly]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317909/The-chilling-details-judgment-ordered-mother-hand-baby-gay-couple-gagging-order-prevented-telling-story.html

I just read this article in the daily mail about a judge who ordered immediate removal of a 15 month old breastfeeding toddler from its mother.

The judge criticised the mother for bedsharing and using a sling to carry and breastfeed the child in. She actually thinks that this level of attachent will be detrimental to the child!

Now obviously we don't have all of the details of this case and I'm not saying that the judge was wrong to move the child because we only have one side of the story. BUT the judge has made some shockingly ignorant comments which may affect precedent for future cases!

Is it too much to ask that family court judges, people who are making decisions which are supposed to be about protecting the child's best interests, actually have some idea what children need? Maybe some training in child development?

The bit about the toddler being young, so will soon get o er being suddenly seperates from her primary caregiver were bonkers too. This woman has no idea!

We also do not know if any Romanian passports even exist.

If the intention (as it appears to be) that the parents will all hopefully eventually be parenting and a phased removal of one is not intended. It is unusual that a time scale is not included nor a timescale for direct and/or indirect contact is included. That is all I am saying.

it's also not a stretch to suggest that if you have two patents caught up in a huge cycle of conflict that it's a bad move to hand open ended power over one to the other especially after openly stating that whilst one parties behaviour is worse the other parties have done things that do not show them in a good light either

So far as I remember, the judge only criticised the father in relation to one hand-over incident which must have been high tension for all concerned. No-one is perfect, especially in that sort of situation. But in this case the father had consistently demonstrated reasonableness, and indeed he was prepared to offer more access than the guardian was advising. There was, quite simply, no reason to believe that he was going to abuse any power.

I don't see how they could have set a timetable for the removal of supervision: it depended on too many unknowns, particularly the conduct of the mother.

I'm not saying they should relax the supervision at all,I'm saying they should have a clear timetable that says how if and when.

And that if the long term plan is both parents parenting then I was surprised not to see a specification for frequency of contact more frequent than once a month.

Fwiw I think the mother comes across as a total tosser, but I'm not really comfortable with basing that on a daily fail report which is why I havent

They can't have a clear timetable.

Because depends on her starting to act reasonably.

Which she still isn't doing. The only time table that could be set at this time is permanent supervised contact.

How strange that you cannot comment on this story on the dailymail page???

As others have said the judge is absolutely right here so don't believe the press. This mother agreed to have the child for the couple and should have stuck to the bargain.

How can they have a clear timetable if she refuses to accept court orders?

If you compleate xyz with in this time scale then xyz will occur, if you compleate xyz within the next time scale then xyz will occur. If contact goes well then it will be percieved as less damaging and will increase with or without supervision dependant on the steps you take.

That sort of thing.(obviously not meaning that precisely that's just an idea)

The mothers inaction or action would allow the court to make changes as needed because it would have clearly and precisely said what is required.
It can allow a better decision to be made on behalf of the child, I'm not a great fan of children's lives being messed about with whilst the adults involved piss arse around and take forever to do it.

This adult has been given far to long to continue to piss arse about because she's to damn self obsessed to have any comprehension into how her behaviour will impact on the child.

I will give an example of the sort of thing I mean.

Dad goes to court for a CAO to secure contact he is a known violent abuser who abused his child by forcing them to witness violence and placed them at risk of physical harm by being caught up in the violence.

Mum argues he shouldn't have any because of this court say not in childs best interests and award twice a month in a supervised contact center to be reviewed in 3 months with a view to either remaining as that for another 3 months or dropping down to a supported but not supervised contact center.
In the mean time dad gets advised to attend a perp course or parenting class that sort of thing.

That is the sort of thing that I would expect to see as it is what I see far more often.

How do you know that hasn't been done/ arranged?

Because it would be written into the judgement as it would form part of the order, and it is not.

And it is not, there is a reference to the SP course but that is it and I would have thought that given that this situation is considered to be seriously enough to warrent such an instant transfer that far more than the SP course would be needed.

Ah see I thought the ins and outs would be sorted at a later date.

In that case something should have been outlined. I didn't believe it would this judges responsibility.

Yes they are Maryz. Obviously the orders I typically see are not the norm because I only ever have professional contact with parents when one is considered to be abusive but it would in those cases typically be dealt wih with firm directive orders from the court. And obviously the norm is not having an arsehole parent.

The granting of the refusal to make another application to the court without permision is also not one that's typical.

Don't get me wrong I see it so I'm not saying its unheard of but it's usually granted in exceptional quite extreme circumstances and considered to be a very serious step to take. And it's not something I see very often when the conduct relates to a different child when the conduct is not at the same time as the current child,(may not be explaining very well but I expect you will get the jist )

needs Again an apology, I mis-read your POV and it was entirely my fault for not reading properly.

the court order says: There will be an order setting out the time M is to spend with S (s11C (1) (iii) CA) and it would be prudent to have a Monitoring Order pursuant to s 11H.

Which I assumed the detail would be included in and the terms of the monitoring order - ie laying out the timetable as you have suggested.

It's cool carol I wouldn't have even normally mentioned it but I'm not very well today 3 of my children are puking everywhere and I'm unusually sensitive because on another thread ive had someone being an arse.

Tbh, I don't know if it wouldn't be so specific in a situation that is not like the ones I deal with but the ones I do are very very clear and specific indeed so it is what I am used to seeing.

maryz I think removeing the child from her care was the entirely correct decision to make, perhaps if I think about it a bit there may very well have been a missed opportunity to do it sooner and phase her out a bit better but that's not what has troubled me at all about the order.