AIBU to be horrified by the Stolen Children of England

[LivingOnTheDancefloor]

I just watched a French documentary called "England's stolen children" and can't believe this is happening in England. Horrifying, scary, unbelievable, it is like a horror movie...

Basically, social services are taking babies from their parents based on suspicion that abuse might happen in the future, except that the decision is made based on ridiculous things.
A lady had her three children taken from her, including a breastfed baby because she went to the ER for a child's broken ankle and they judged that he must have been beaten by his parents (only based on the ankle). X years later the parents manage to prove the fracture was due to scorbut. And they found out the initial report from the ER says "no sign of fracture".
The judge admitted they shouldn't have taken the children and the parents were innocents. But the children were given to adoption so the parents will never see them again.
That is just one of the stories.
Some women are told while pregnant that their newborn will be taken as soon as he arrives (and thzney do it).
The documentary says it is due to the facts that counties have to reach a number of children given to adoption so they target poor/uneducated parents and find any reason to take their children.
And as fostering costs money to the state they prefer adoption.

AIBU to ask if you heard about it here in the UK? And if yes, what do you think? Could it be true or are they exagerating?

I am really shaken.

www.google.fr/amp/s/researchingreform.net/2016/11/14/englands-stolen-children-controversial-new-documentary-on-forced-adoption/amp/?client=safari

Sorry, no idea how to post links, and I am on my phone

Personally, I find it really difficult to believe they were deliberately missing out important chunks of their story

As I have said, I find this incredibly easy to believe. Because it happens all the time. If you are prepared to accept that lawyers and social workers are corrupt liars, then you must also be prepared to accept that people can lie very convincingly about their situations.

I have been on the receiving end of such 'lies' for two years now. And I am sure 90% of them now genuinely believe what they are saying is true. But it isn't. They usually miss out huge chunks of the information about them. So of course, when they tell the story, it sounds awful. When you read the documents, you get the fuller picture.

I am NOT trying to say that mistakes are not made or that professionals don't lie. Sadly they do, there have been a few reported cases for e.g. where the Judge has explicitly found the SW have lied.

What I am saying is that it is NOT common place. And the scenarios described by some posters are just fantastical. That is my view, not because I am some blinkered apologist for the system but because I have had my eyes and ears well and truly open for the past two years and I have considerable confidence now in the evidence on which I base my opinions.

I absolutely believe there are horror stories where the system has failed, where professionals have lied, but I also do not believe every case where someone says they are innocent is such a case.

And 'child snatching' aside, social services do lots of good things for families that need help. A positive outcome from the horrible experience I went through was finding out that I could get help with my daughter's behavioural problems. She is on an open care plan (not sure what that would be in the UK system but it gives the social workers certain powers and they have access to all the information concerning DD from daycare, health centre etc. but I have to agree with things before they can happen, but both parents don't necessarily need to agree, just one) and its been really good. I would never have realised that I needed help, and could get it, if SS hadn't got involved in the first place. Now DD gets a special ed plan at daycare with all fees paid, and we get a family support worker who visits regularly and talks with me about DD's behaviour and gives me ideas of what to try next and is generally another member of my support network.

humphrey, I agree that social workers can lie, as can other local authority officials. However, taking a child in to care and keeping them there is never their decision, and parents have every opportunity to fight this, including being allowed legal aid automatically.

Personally, I find it really difficult to believe they were deliberately missing out important chunks of their story

They must have been. Because no social worker would recommend removal of a baby because the mother has mild post natal depression. Unless the social worker was a complete renegade piece of shit who was acting on prejudice - in which case
The manager
The head of service
The funding panel
The legal advisor
Would all say 'uh, no' and the social worker would get nowhere.
If by some anomaly all those people said ok (wouldn't happen) then the parents' legal would tear the social worker to shreds and the judge would severely reprimand the local authority for bringing such a spurious case.
It Just. Wouldn't. Happen. Taking children into care costs a fortune. Placements can't be found for lots of children who need them. Why the fuck would any department want to take a baby into care because of mild PND?

They only need to prove a case is 51% guilty before taking children away

Not so, except in the very technical sense that the standard of proof is not the "beyond reasonable doubt" one that operates in criminal courts. But the law is very clear that taking a child into care needs to be in response to a clearly dangerous situation and/or a last resort when everything has been tried to support the parents so that the child can stay with them. An adoption order also can only be made as a last resort. But ultimately everyone concerned in the system has to put the child's safety and wellbeing first, not that of the parents, and therefore can't take risks with it.

Of course professionals can and do lie, but how does it benefit anyone to take a child from its perfectly safe and happy home? It doesn't even benefit the social workers. It benefits no one.
In cases where they are trying to reduce costs and cuts are made to funding then I may be persuaded that some social workers are being cunts, but in cases where it's taking a child into care...that is so far from cost cutting! It's the complete opposite

There have been cases I've been involved in where I 100% believed the parents. And if I hadn't have been in a position where I had access to the evidence from the other side, I probably still would.

Unless you attend the child protection meetings and court hearings, you don't have all the information.

Generally social workers have been sacked for not taking action when children are being abused.

Denial is very very powerful. I don't think they even know they're lying sometimes.

Yes the woman I know who swears the HT conspired to get her kids removed from her because of one tiny incident, seems to believe it. But it is simply not true.

I don't think the system is quite as 'safe' as is being portrayed. As I said upthread, I'm related to an adopting family who were totally stitched up by social workers who wanted a different outcome for reasons relating to the adopting family's relationship to the biological parents. The social workers' notes were not objective or accurate. Why would they lie? Well, they obviously had their reasons. In this instance, the judge saw through it and wiped the floor with them. But what if he hadn't? At the end of the day, it was down to one man's ability to spot a lie, not a system loaded with checks and balances. There was no 'evidence' that he could look to apart from these flawed notes.

Regarding the lady with PND on the documentary, I think it's about the perception of risk and wanting to cover your back. That, and PND is difficult to quantify. From what she said, it sounded like the social worker tried pretty hard to get this parent to confirm that her PND was worse than it was - perhaps this is what she believed based on what the GP thought. They can be wrong too! A faulty report from a GP makes the likelihood of a faulty report from a social worker much greater because they'll be looking for confirmation of what was said, influenced by the opinion of a colleague, and under personal and professional obligation to be seen to respond appropriately. Yes, the system is more likely to work than not work so it is not the most likely outcome. But we're looking at what happens when 'unlikely' mistakes are made.

Once that cycle is started, relying on a lawyer to rip it to shreds in court is risky to say the least, not to mention terrifying and damaging to a parent in a vulnerable place. It could conceivably be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have no doubt that many women who have recently given birth would become very unstable in such circumstances.

how does it benefit anyone to take a child from its perfectly safe and happy home?

Because the home isn't ideal but not actually bad enough to warrant removal of the children but you believe things will deteriorate would like the children to be adopted while it's still a realistic possibility or you're not dealing well with the responsibility of trying to evaluate risk. Or - and I've seen this happen as a foster carer - you've still got a biological parent pegged as inadequate when the situation has changed.

It's interesting that this post has been propelled by a handful of people who have recently name changed or have very limited posting histories. Yeah, I'm sure it's for privacy or whatever. Spero, on the other hand, is a long-standing and well known, well respected MNer who has more knowledge in her little finger than I could ever hope to have in my whole body. Unlike the conspiracy theorists, she actually helps people.

What a strangely aggressive post crash.

I wasn't aware that anyone's authority on these complex issues had to do with their identity on a parenting forum.

Do you regularly check up on posting histories for threads you aren't contributing to? What an odd past-time.

Do you think that the likelihood of threads like these ending up in the daily mail has anything to do with posters name-changing or do you think it's more likely to be Hemming in a range of disguises?

I ask myself what is more likely.

that a kangaroo court exists, that threw out all and any respect for the rule of law, for Articles 8 and 6 of the ECHR, that a Judge and several lawyers sat back and let it happen, that a large number of professions lied and lied and lied again....

Actually I think the story is that only one person lied, and that everyone else believed (and possibly amplified the effect of) the lies.

From what she said, it sounded like the social worker tried pretty hard to get this parent to confirm that her PND was worse than it was

The problem is, like with all these documentaries, it is all what she said. You are never going to get a GP, or a SW on to give their side of the story.

I'm sure on rare occasions it might go horribly wrong, but there are so many checks in the system this would be very rare.

People who say they are too scared to send their child to school, or take them to the doctors because the baby snatchers will get them could possibly do with a SW visit IMO. That cannot be a healthy environment to grow up in.

I find it worrying that people who admit that miscarriages are possible nevertheless strongly believe that every specific case presented is not an example of one, even when the only basis for denial is statistical implausibility.

Aggressive?! Report me if you think I was aggressive.

I have been reading this thread and contributed earlier on, not that I need to justify myself to you.

If you know MN, you will know that it is prime target for GFers and trolls. You can't blame someone for being suspicious. Anyway, I stand by my comments on Spero who goes out of her way to help and support people without casting judgements. She knows the system better than many of us. She is trying to help, perhaps some people need to listen.

Yes, and a baby having scorbut is not neglect of the highest order...

You need to find out a bit more about what you are talking about.

And JH is on it?? Say no more - there's an agenda if ever I've seen one.

Crap, I did not realise there were 24 pages of this already before I posted

Ignore me, while I RTFT

Theoretician I've seen judges throw out cases (not in this area) where there have been miscarriages of justice. Of course fuck ups happen. The judgements are in black and white. That said, perpatuating myths is wrong because it's dangerous for perfectly good parents who don't need to be scared. You don't need to worry if you're depressed after the birth of your baby if you're not neglecting or abusing them. I would hate for someone not to speak to their doctor or health visitor because they are afraid their child will be taken away on a whim. Someone shouldn't be left to suffer with a child who has "bad behaviour" if that child really likely has additional needs and needs an assessment and a social worker.

I find it worrying that people who admit that miscarriages are possible nevertheless strongly believe that every specific case presented is not an example of one

The problem is that we are never going to be privy to all of the evidence in the case. Without evidence, yes it is more likely that the parents in the case did not understand the concerns than there is an army of deliberately child snatching social workers.

I'm one of the name-changers I suspect quite a few people with an interest in this area change names like I do in case an abuser ever tracks us down (or perhaps professional reasons?)

find it worrying that people who admit that miscarriages are possible nevertheless strongly believe that every specific case presented is not an example of one

Because the examples being given are fantastical. And I know them to be fantastical.

You have a choice. Either I - and all the others with knowledge in this field casting doubt on some of the narratives (parents 'not allowed' lawyers, 'not allowed' to rely on evidence etc etc) are a)evil and lying or b)deluded and stupid OR some people are carried away by misguided loyalty to a friend who has given them only 5% of the story.

I know which I think is more likely. And that is not because I am a credulous fool who would shut my eyes to child abuse. It is because I put facts and truth above agenda and propaganda.

Ok.
This has gone in the expected way.
I have nothing to add to all the considered, experienced and patient posters with experience in this field.

Nobody who needs help and support or who has contact with SS should be scared in to not engaging with that help. That is what makes these threads so dangerous