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 would presume pressured voluntary placements are when SS would like to take children into care but know they don't have enough evidence to do so forcibly. So they put pressure on parents to give them up voluntarily by glossing over the fact that there is any other option at that time. And, I expect, by inferring that they will be dealt with more sympathetically if they're seen to be playing ball.

jiggly

Are you seriously confused as to why a social worker would go down a section 20 route instead of the alternatives?

And how that system may have been a tad abused and misused?

Given that Sir Munby has been quite open about his thoughts on the matter www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/11/10/social-workers-given-new-guidance-section-20-orders-amid-misuse-abuse/
It's obviously not just me who has concerns and has noticed an issue

wouldhave

So would you care to Hazzard a guess as to how a family could demonstrate that a loo described as having dry faeces in, when written in a way that is intended to imply a out of the ordinary shocking loo could be challenged by a parent whose knowledge of the loo meant that they knew that they just hadn't used the bathroom after their child and it was the result of a perfectly normal but rushed morning situation with young children?

WouldHave, do SW's have the qualifications to allege Munchhausens? Isn't that out of their remit?

I believe we call it fabricated illness now since the Roy meadows debacle

But do they? And if they don't, why is their allegation even taken into account?

In all fairness it would usually be something raised by a medical professional and included in a referral.

But it is something I have seen rather liberally thrown about during SEN disagreements and rather more times than anybody should be comfortable with when parents with children on the ASD dx pathway who later go on to recieve a dx come to the attention of children's services and I have personally witnessed several occasions when children with rather obvious formal dx's have the phrase "mother believes child has ASD" usually combined with a quite scathing remark about how the SW feels it's a parenting issue, it an obvious attempt to make people percieve that the parent is piss poor and has made it all up despite a clear nhs formal dx.

However people often think it's a made up issue when it's not.

And a surprising amount of times when this is raised it's done first by a family member. It's one of the things I come across a lot in domestic abuse situations

Thanks for the reply, Needs.

Thanks conserveisposhforjam for your slogan - I will make sure mugs, T shirts etc are available at CPConf2017!

In an attempt to reassure people who are worried that someone's subjective opinion on their bathroom could form part of the picture against them in care proceedings - and also in an attempt to clarify my role as a lawyer in these circs....

First - yes, I completely accept that reports from professionals can sometimes be misleading or inaccurate. It is, in my experience, very rare that they are fabricated but it does happen and there was a case recently where an expert was found to have made up quotes.

How was that discovered? Because the mother denied ever saying what it was asserted she said. Her lawyer demanded and got the expert's original notes which did not contain any record of the mother saying that. The court found he had made up direct quotes by extrapolating from other things she had said. This gave a misleading impression and it was quite rightly challenged.

If a client of mine was told she had a 'disgusting bathroom' and this was a reason to support a case of significant harm, I would want to know
a) exactly what was meant by this
b) I would ask to see the original notes made at the time which were used to inform the written report now before the court
c) I would question the author of those notes in court and challenge their version of events.

However - it is highly, highly unlikely that 'a disgusting bathroom' on its own would ever be part of the case against a parent. If someone really has a 'disgusting bathroom' then it is highly likely the rest of their house is in a disgusting state. And by 'disgusting' sufficient to cross threshold I mean that animals are allowed to crap on the floor and it is not cleared up, there is rubbish everywhere, it isn't possible to cook safely or hygienically in the kitchen.

I am not talking about a bit of mess or clutter.

And I very often do have photographs. Because the cases of neglect involving very dirty houses often come to the attention of the LA because the police have been involved and have taken photographs at the scene with a view to prosecuting for neglect.

Frankly, if the house standards aren't bad enough to interest the police, its not likely that they will form the main plank of any case against a parent. I am not aware of any case where having just a dirty bathroom supported a finding of significant harm.

And to say lawyers are 'useless' in this kind of situation is - I think - really dangerous. It's part of the narrative pushed by Hemming et al that we are 'legal aid losers' and encourages parents not to engage with us or trust us.

I often ask Hemming and his crew - so what DO you propose for parents? That they all just rush off to France? If you get rid of 'legal aid losers' just who exactly is making the case for the parents?

I am glad to hear there is some interest in next year's conference. I will be meeting Dr Lauren Devine of UWE hopefully before Christmas to get the ball rolling and I will post the details here so watch this space - hope to meet some of you in real life!

Spero in real life

Yeah it was recent, most recent being a couple of months ago (though to be fair, I had just moved to a new house and was in the middle of renovation so they would have been really shitty to make a fuss about that!) but I'm not in the UK, maybe guidelines aren't as tight here. The most the SWs have done is ask to see where DD sleeps, but I was never under serious suspicion of abuse or neglect (the SWs had a good idea from the start it was just a case of an ex making malicious reports but followed up on them as is good practice but with a 'good' bias I suppose)

I was interested in knowing if you had published spero? Genuinely interested to know? If you have conducted the kind of research that allows you to speak outside your own experiences (which will not be a broad overview of what's happening everywhere in the country) I'd like to read about it.

heythereconiver - sorry, I didn't engage with you further as both your user name and your use of words such as 'pretending' and 'overreaching' made my hackles rise.

But if you are genuinely interested, then here goes.
I am a full time barrister, I am not an academic researcher. I have undertaken no peer reviewed research, if that is what you need to know.

However, this is a summary of what I have been up to recently
Published frequently short articles in Jordans Family Law, Family Law Week, Pink Tape, Human rights Blog, INFORMM etc.
Trustee of the Transparency Project, blogging frequently and assisting with research by way of FOI to various local authorities. We have produced written guidance on section 20 accommodation and recording interactions with professionals which have been well received. We have published results of research into use of 'targets' to influence decision making about adoption.
I devote a minimum of 10 hours a week to the CPR site; updating, posting, making contacts for guest posts and answering email queries.
I have organised two all day multi discipline events in June 2015 and June 2016 involving about 80 people attending from all areas of the child protection system - social workers, parents, psychologists, lawyers, academics etc.
I am organising a further conference in June 2017, this time with help of Dr Devine of UWE who has published some very interesting research into care proceeidings and coercive state intervention.
I have attended various events in the UK and abroad - at my own expense - to meet with academics and lawyers, such as Dr Clarie Fenton Glynn and Professor Brid Featherstone.
I have formed relationships of mutual trust and respect with a number of parent activists all over the country and I hope to be a part of Annie's work in setting up advocacy services for parents as the experience in NYC and Finland shows this can have real positive impacts for parents.

I am not trying to blow my own trumpet but I am doing absolutely everything I can to broaden my own experience and find out what is really going on. I have no time or patience for misinformed propaganda from any 'side' of the debate.

And I am still pissed off that you use words like 'pretending' when you talk about my experience. If you are genuinely interested in what I am doing - and not simply looking for an excuse to dismiss me as I don't have any academic publications, then I am happy to engage.

But if you have some axe to grind, don't waste my time or yours.

Thank you for that detailed list. You don't need to justify yourself. Your experience as a lawyer wasn't in question and in interested in nobody's ego, deflating it or otherwise! Obviously my use of the word admire was insufficient to persuade you that I'm not in it to get at you - but still an unresolved issue.

What I wanted to know is where you're getting the hard information about the frequency of the incidents being discussed. You have said repeatedly that they happen rarely and justified this with extensive personal experience. While you are clearly a good source of info on what's happening in your area, unless you have carried out research across the country or are basing your claim on research, your opinion is valuable but anecdotal. There are many reasons why this could be happening but it's not coming before you. Hearing from colleagues is still anecdotal.

I do believe you are serious about what you're saying so I would be extremely surprised if you haven't contributed to research nor read research that substantiates your claims. That should not be a difficult question and IMO it is not surprising that someone on the thread would like to do more than take the word of one lawyer on trust. This should be easily available information if it is as cut and dried as you say.

heythereconniver, you're being a bit of an arse. You're basically saying to the most knowledgeable person on this thread: 'Prove this isn't happening'. She has been quite clear that she has not undertaken quantitative research; she is speaking from her (considerable) experience and networks that she doesn't come across it frequently.

It is of course hard to prove a negative. Easier, I would suggest, for Hemming et al to provide proper evidence of the conspiracy they cite. All we get is vague, one-sided anecdotal evidence. I don't doubt some of those anecdotes point to poor practice, but I have seen absolutely no evidence of conspiracy or frequency.

Also, out of interest, you say "This should be easily available information" - what, exactly? How would you undertake research in this area to establish there is no social services conspiracy?

No, I'm not. There's no need to be personally attacking. I'm confident spero will have this info actually which I would like to read. I didn't ask her to justify herself and she isn't under attack. She was quite willing to widen her personal experience out to include the UK generally (it was certainly implied that what she was saying was generally the case) and I doubt she would have done that without some kind of hard evidence. Because good lawyers, which I'm assuming she is, like hard evidence and understands the need for it. So go somewhere else and tug your forelock or start a bun fight as you feel inclined. There's nothing to see here. It's an important issue and too important to get lost in personal insults - or hero worship for that matter!

I'm not personally attacking, I'm criticising your behaviour (big difference). I'm certainly not into hero worship either - I have just been contributing to these threads for a number of years now and am getting really bored with shadow-boxing anecdotes. Lawyers don't tend to get involved with qualitative research, IME - their preferred kind of evidence is case law. So I would expect Spero to know if there had been a flood of court cases in which social services had been found to be maliciously snatching kids. What I do expect, from those who allege conspiracy, is some evidence to back up that claim. Knowing somebody whose kids got taken off them by an evil lying baby-snatcher is not evidence. It's not for spero or anyone else on this thread to have to prove a negative.

So again I ask you: what is the evidence that would convince you, and how should it be collected?

I am just baffled as to what Conniver thinks is actually out there and what other research can be done.

there is loads of good solid research on adoption issues. There is the work of Dr Devine and Andy Bilson about concerns over increased state intervention. There are all the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases AND cases from the European Court. There are all the Serious Case Reviews etc, etc.

Just what else to you need? Sorry to break it to you but I have looked long and hard over two years and I have found NO credible evidence to suggest deliberate, systemic, baby snatching corruption.

Accept this or don't - for me, it is now a fact. And facts don't change just because you don't like them.

I have plenty of evidence - as does anyone with eyes and basic reading comprehension - that the cutting of services to the bone, loading up social workers with more cases than they can safely handle and not providing any extra judges/court rooms etc, etc is going to lead to massive problems in the system.

I neither ask nor expect 'deference'. but if you cast aspersions on my knowledge and experience, don't expect me to take it lying down either.

And one use of the word 'admire' doesn't change the focus of your earlier posts. Bit too little too late I would say. Withdraw your use of word 'pretending' and I would accept you were in good faith.

Spero, I agree that it is important to engage with lawyers (obviously) but I am getting the strong impression that they need to be involved much earlier in the process, because in the it takes to get a case to court:

• some families will have been persuaded to go down the s20 route, or to not challenge
• whether families challenge or not, the family will have been under considerable stress by that time, children suffering from anxiety, possibly removed causing irreparable damage, really not good - and I appreciate that in some cases this is unavoidable, I am not convinced it would be unavoidable in all cases (esp with a lawyer involved)
• memories/changing a course of an investigation - really if a report is factually wrong or the perspective could be challenged it should be done at the time, not months later, and many parents would need help with that

Getting lawyers involved earlier may help ensure due process is followed, may pick up patterns of malpractice, corruption, incompetence and make it easier to address, and might give people more confidence in the system and help them engage.

I am guessing that as well as this being a departure from what is currently done, there would be issues about legal aid funding and there being sufficient lawyers to deal.

Heythere, I am not sure why you were saying that it is a waste of time and money getting lawyers involved. Lawyers would be able to focus on issues that matter without the personal element. I would imagine it would be very difficult to fight a case while very stressed.

BUT you are right. This debate is too important to get sidetracked in hurt feelings.

I have been collecting links to relevant research/reform proposals on the CPR site. This also informs my thinking.

childprotectionresource.online/research-and-reform-proposals/

I suspect Conniver is in error in assuming that Spero only works in one limited geographical area. I know nothing about her practice, but most barristers with expertise in this type of issue take on cases from all over the country, and also regularly work with other barristers in a similar position. People working in the child care field will regularly come up against or on the same side as others in court, meetings, professional conferences and the like, and word would certainly quickly get round if any council was operating a corrupt "baby snatching" policy.

quaidorsay - the section 20 issue is real and serious but the courts have finally woken up to it. There has been in last few years a growing number of cases where the courts have awarded damages under the Human Rights Act for misuse of section 20
childprotectionresource.online/category/claims-under-human-rights-act-1998/

So I just can't stress enough - the courts are NOT blind to this. injustices ARE tackled. Just - I accept - not always quickly enough.
But for that, don't blame the lawyers or the social workers. Blame successive governments over the years who have failed in to invest in services and support for vulnerable people.

WouldHave - I am now on the South Western Circuit which takes me routinely to Cardiff, Newport, Bristol, Bath, Swindon, Salisbury, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Worcester and sometimes Birmingham.
Prior to that I was in London so had exposure to a huge number of local authorities - Hackney, Harringey, Islington, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Camden etc, etc.

But I would have to accept I haven't gone much further North than Birmingham for my own work. However I have made contact with a lot of parents 'Up North' - York, Durham, Tyneside etc.

Spero thanks for replying about s20, there does appear to be judicial recognition for most of these issues. Do you know, why are lawyers not involved as standard at the start of the process, and why does legal aid only kick in once a case goes to court (is that right? it is what someone said upthread) and why is legal representation not permitted up to that point (as someone said upthread)?

Re funding, it isn't just how much money is in the public purse but where the money goes - outsourcing, temporary contracts, and in other areas "private/public partnerships".