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

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.

This.

I disagree with you pacific (and not just because everyone has been relatively patient on this thread, not just those who agree with your point of view!).

What makes the situation dangerous is that there is no public accountability and therefore no way to publicise what may be happening or for the public to know, in a transparent way, what may be happening. Someone disputed the idea that decisions can be taken without the public's knowledge. I dispute the idea that this can't happen.

There is always going to be controversy and divided opinions about removing children from their homes. But as judges have noted, there doesn't necessarily need to be secrecy - it was put in place to children's anonymity and is now functioning to protect social services from accountability. If this wasn't the case, judges wouldn't have remarked upon it in the past.

If social workers didn't present misleading accounts on occasion, judges wouldn't remark on that either. But I know it to be the case that this has happened.

The best way for parents fears to be allayed is for transparency, accountability and appropriate support. At the moment there is a lack of appropriate support, even if parents were to come forward for help. It is sometimes the case that children are taken into care when more resources might have supported parents to address issues while keeping their children at home. But now, like everything else, the threshold for help is often 'what's the worst that could happen? right, let's avoid that by any means available'.

Of course social workers and GPs are unable to comment on individual cases on documentaries. It is still important that they are made and important that those voices are heard because they are an important part of the narrative. What would be more helpful still is if they contributed to a public investigation that social services were able to contribute to. This is pretty much all that such documentaries are calling for.

If you look at the media cases of so called miscarriages of justice,it is full of stories like this.
Woman has 2 kids taken away because she is a heroin addict, the third child taken away after giving up heroin when 7 months pregnant, and the later going back on it briefly.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/familys-anguish-as-they-face-third-forced-1676705

I'm sorry that you feel the need to sneer at other people's pain and cherry pick their case stories to prove your points brasty.

No one is sneering.
Just pointing out that most of the time when parents believe it's a miscarriage of justice, the social workers and the judges actually made the right decisions. Parents wont/can't see that. Of course they don't want to admit that they lost their children because they made mistakes, but in the vast majority of cases that is exactly what has happened.

There is no 'most of the time' when we are talking about something that happens rarely to begin with.

And yes, there is sneering and discrediting of parents in general who have a problem with their treatment by SS, an admittedly small proportion of whom will be correct.

I have seen plenty of parents saying that they can see why they lost their children and agree it was the right decision. Many parents in this position are capable of acknowledging this. Of course some are not, but don't assume that no parents can be correct about this on the basis that no parents could agree when the correct decision had been made.

I'm not assuming that no parent could ever be correct. That's why I put that most of the time the decision is right regardless of what the parents think. In very very rare cases then yes, SS and the judge will make mistakes and a child will be removed when they didn't need to be, but the stuff on this thread? The people ranting and shouting about cases which they just know are miscarriages of justice? Nope. Don't for a second believe it.

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

But that cannot be so in this case. OP mentioned incidents such as a pregnant teacher allegedly being chased by her friend - that could not have come from the headteacher who is the alleged liar; and incidents in the school playground that would have been witnessed by a number of people. SWs would never rely on the testimony of one person who wasn't present on every alleged occasion when other witnesses are available.

This isn't simply a case of denial based on statistical implausibility. If anything, it is statistical impossibility. If the story were true, it would mean a headteacher and other independent witnesses all lied about things that could be very easily disproved, a solicitor who massively failed to do his job, a competent barrister who failed to pick up on that, lawyers on the SS side who didn't do their job of testing the evidence before they took the matter to court and closed their eyes to blatant lies, the Legal Aid Agency inexplicably and unlawfully withdrawing legal aid temporarily in the middle of a case, a judge who totally took leave of her senses, and another lawyer's failure to enter what would have been a cast iron appeal. It would also take OP's friend not bothering to ask about an appeal or get a second opinion. Does anyone seriously believe that all of that happened?

Too many children die because of miscarriages of justice; Victoria Climbie, Peter Connolly, Ellie Butler, Daniel Pelka and more precious children who were murdered and maybe could have been saved. In these cases, the professionals involved are correctly reprimanded, criticised and - in some cases - names. So, I'm afraid I am wary when people say that social workers, schools and doctors etc aren't held accountable.

Read the HCPC website where you will see the names of registered health and care professionals (including social workers) who are standing before a panel to see if they are fit for practice. Community Care often reports on these cases. I know the NMC do this too and the GMC and probably other bodies that I don't know the names for. There is some accountability. You don't get to hold a professsional qualification with that level of responsibility and avoid being hauled over hot coals if you deserve it.

If social workers didn't present misleading accounts on occasion, judges wouldn't remark on that either. But I know it to be the case that this has happened.

Of course it has happened, as has been repeatedly accepted upthread. But the point is that generally it does get picked up. Again, I think it is accepted that occasionally it doesn't. No-one has yet worked out an infallible system, and the current one can always be improved. But the point is that there is NO evidence that SWs are "child snatchers" or that they get paid bonuses for organising adoptions, and in the great majority of cases the safeguards in the system work properly.

I think everyone is broadly in favour of as much transparency as possible, but it still comes back to the fact that the child's welfare is paramount and it isn't in any child's interests to have the facts of their abuse plastered over the newspapers for a prurient public to pore over.

So, I'm afraid I am wary when people say that social workers, schools and doctors etc aren't held accountable.

Yes, they are accountable when the child tragically dies. One would expect that and an awful lot more. One would expect accountability for those charged with accounting for all the children who are still alive - of whom is is reasonable to presume, given the example you mention, some are struggling for life.

it is reasonable

No I am not sneering. I find cases like that desperately sad. Simply pointing out that most miscarriages of justice I read about in the press, I can see from the evidence presented why the child was taken into care.

But the point is that generally it does get picked up.

How do you know that, statistical improbabilities and hunches about is 'likely' aside?

I would have agree with you on that example brat but I cannot see the same in the couple of examples I have mentioned on this thread and in others that I occasionally read about in the media.

Apologies, I have a kitten climbing all over me! I would have agreed with you....but I cannot say the same

that could not have come from the headteacher who is the alleged liar

I'm too lazy to go back through the thread, but my recollection is that the OP said or implied the headteacher was the only source of information, and that if the countless other people involved could have testified they would have contradicted him. That even the alleged victims if incidents he described to SS would have contradicted him.

The thing I understand least in the overall story is why "the truth" could not be heard. "Lawyer/judge said no" doesn't really tell us anything.

the insanely large amount of lies in my friend's case were there for a purpose. A few lies would be easy to complain about or contest. Over a hundred, a very different matter.Nevertheless each complaint was made with attached evidence to disprove. eg: SW said parent had long term mental ill health. Evidence- doctor's letter confirming never had mental ill health. At one point complaints dept put complaints on hold whilst first batch was being dealt with. In the meantime SW sent police with harassment notices due to the large number of letters (complaints). Police investigate, case dropped. Lies never properly investigated so remain in reports and sent to all agencies including Experts, with the added fact that police had been sent to the home and of course, the long term mental ill health still there. MP asks Director to send staff to home to discuss complaints. Director informs MP that staff cannot visit home due to the risk because police had been called. And so it goes on.......this is just one very small example of how they do it. Why? I've no idea.

Oh, and one Spero may be interested in: under risk assessment---parents have made many complaints. Wow! What a risk, eh?

Would Have: your post 5/12, 08.23. This has absolutely nothing to do with Hemmings & Co. This is a real case. Hard to believe, I know. I find it hard to believe that Spero has only seen a few misdeeds but I am going to believe her. She tried to reassure me, she didn't need to do that. I feel we should all start believing in each other because our children in our country are being damaged. Spero is one of the professionals who could fight this corruption against children if he could accept it does happen to some families. Maybe many families, we just don't know because it's hidden.

Theoretician, you don't understand why the truth could not be heard? This is how they did it in my friend's case. First hearing, solicitor only tackled one small lie then said she would leave it there as she wanted to gather everything together for the Final Hearing!! The whole case was based on lies and friend had evidences to prove this. We had been expecting the case to be thrown out! Then the report stated fully contested!! Months later, in new solicitor's office we were having to push her to look at the evidences. She finally snapped that we needed to understand that even with 100% evidence we just couldn't win. She then persuaded friend not to use barrister for a number of reasons. After final hearing which authority won, friend requested all solicitor files. In there she found letters from the barrister saying he was disappointed that she'd cancelled, he was up to speed with the case and had been looking forward to meeting her and husband. Friend broken hearted, at last someone being kind and understanding and hopeful and she'd missed the chance. She also found records of phone calls between her solicitor and authority solicitor. As for all the lies, the Childrens Guardian didn't deal with them either even though some lies were putting other children at risk (can't explain here). Magistrates went along with it all and basically that's how they do it. Oh and by the way, this was before Baby P. I'd never seen anything like it and I hope never to see again.

And the final cruel slap in the face, Guardian, SW and solicitor all promoted.

John Hemings is .... and mentioning him doesn't help your case because people immediately turn off.

Not all social care is bad. Many care. Most of it is fine. If under-funded!!

But there are always bad eggs. A few lie. Sometimes, from the outset the view is not fair and the case is not balanced. Children are removed. Then it turns out there were mistakes, but the child has already been adopted, so there is no return.

Those cases are few, rare but very damaging.

We've had 2 cases locally where it was agreed that the parents had been "victimised and harassed".
Major mistakes and nigh on blatant lying by professionals involved in the case.
So, actual rather then "fantastical"
Not one of Social Care's best cases!!

Haystack - if what you are saying is true about the solicitor then that is behaviour verging on the criminal and easily proved because you say you have seen letters on file. So make immediate complaint to the Law Society or solicitors Regulation Authority etc, Etc.

I am emphatically NOT sneering at people who obviously genuinely believe they have been a victim of something awful.

But what intrigues me about these narratives is that I am often presented with absolute copper bottomed assertions of utterly negligent and unlawful behaviour - but never any complaint or appeal. Why not?