Baby boy taken into care because of father's views on bottle feeding.

[Mlb123]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4231242/Social-workers-took-newborn-baby-parents.html

Yes I know it's the daily mail and it wasn't just about the father's comments, but it has been decided by a judge that it was unfair to remove the baby and the family have been awarded compensation. This is the type of story that is putting people off trusting social workers. I have always thought people have nothing to fear if the cooperate with SS and work with them but this family didn't get the chance as the social workers didn't inform the family of care proceedings and lied to the judge.

This is not the first story and it is becoming worrying that people in positions of trust are sometimes acting in this way. I believe that the people found guilty of abusing their positions of trust should be removed from their role , because of the damage they cause to families and the risk of them offending again would be high. What do others think would be a solution to this small but real risk?

Imthelastsplash I wonder why the court didn't pick up on that during the hearing ? If CAFCASS have to be there as part of the proceedings , you would think a Judge would question their abscence ?

I had my baby in the US (New York) where our paediatrician told us not to sterilise- -she said sterilisation is a thing of a bygone age when people didn't have very hot water readily available and that bottles should just go though the dishwasher or be washed in very hot water. She added that babies don't live in a sterile environment and it's completely unnecessary. None of the Manhatten mothers I knew even had a steriliser. I suspect only part of this story has been told.

I'm sure they do have a huge amount of cases but that is surely more reason to follow procedures. It's not difficult:
Do you have legitimate concerns that the child is at significant and immediate risk of harm?
Have you frankly discussed this with the parents?
Have you informed the parents of the next step?
Have you informed other agencies?

If you answer no to any of these questions then you've not done the job properly (I do appreciate that it's more complicated than that, but surely if we're talking about someone's life that's the least you should expect)

It was part of a much bigger picture around the couple's ability to care for their child.
The Telegraph has a bit more detail: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/parents-had-week-old-baby-taken-away-social-services-father/
Of course, the media like to sensationalise and what better way than to imply that this case is about a breastfeeding gestapo.

This must never happen again. The parents should haveb een told and given time to prepare their case before the hearing and CAFCASS should have been told too.

"The judge criticised “unwarranted expenditure” of the law firms involved in the case, after cost schedules supplied to the court showed that the family had racked up legal aid bills of nearly £80,000, while Kirklees Council had costs of around £40,000."

I hope every penny of that £80k plus the compensation has already been paid to the family of the couple concerned.

Even wiki dont get their facts from the daiily mail anymore and anyold joe can amend wiki

If your view on bottle feeding is: "It doesn't matter if you sterilise the bottle or not" then yeah, thats cause for concern.

Surely that depends on whether you are saying, "I don't personally think the risks are that great and won't be worrying about using water at the correct temperature in clean receptacles" (surely a matter of opinion) or "I refuse to sterilise any bottles at all because I don't believe in science"?

"Unorthodox" could mean anything.

SCBU is full of mothers trying desperately to express and reading about how to prevent their sick baby getting infections. His views on not sterilising are so far outside the norm for people in that situation that I'm not surprised it raised questions. The problem seems to have been that the council lied to the court about whether the parents knew, not whether there were any concerns about their parenting.

Now I've read the telegraph report it's even sadder. A couple who have had regular help from adult services for 10 years, who had no concerns brought against them during the pregnancy and who are obviously accessing whatever support they can get yet it still was rushed through court and upheld to remove their child because the father (who had mild learning difficulties, which are being supported by adult services) had some unacceptable views (to some).

What they did wrong was they told the court that the parents were aware of the hearing and had agreed to the removal and were aware of the hearing. That's very serious, but potentially a mistake based on miscommunication or poor procedure rather than lying.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Court established it was lies

Generally, some people don't want to believe SWs would ever do anything wrong and small-mindedly think if they are involved then they must be in the right the sun shines out their backsides

So it appears that the Grandmother knew of SS plans to remove the child ?

Are CAFCASS not required during these hearings or is it best practice that they are involved ?

Ernormous the family will recive none of the compensation , it will be taken off the legal aid bill .

From the Telegraph report it seems that the ruling awarding compensation occurred well after the baby was returned to his parents , so was there a seperate hearing about returning the baby or did SS decide that the parents were indeed capable after further investigation ?

This is a shocking case and anyone who lies to a court should be prosecuted for perjury.

I used to work in the immigration courts and during my training it was impressed on us that we must never lie to the court, or withhold info that we had. Surely this is part of the SW training too?

Although people are saying that there must be more to this story, it is common in my experience for events to snowball from an original decision.

So for example in immigration, I saw quite a few cases where the original decision maker had accepted credibility ( ie we believe the claim) and accepted that the country info meant we couldn't return the appellant but they'd issued removal directions anyway . Totally illogical but the case just kept moving through the system and no one actually went back to basics and checked if it was right. I can see how the same can happen in CP context.

There are two things going on here, the concern of the medical staff, which imo is warranted. Goodness knows what his "unconventional views" were re sterilising a baby's bottle, but surely the only view is to do it and to do it correctly, especially with a baby who has been in special care.

The other issue is the fact the SS's lied and that is unforgivable.

I think a massive part of the problem though is that some services don't see them as lies - they use the justification that they're understaffed and overworked to push on with what they think is the best way forward.

I'm not going into details but from the inside there were regular 'alternative facts' peddled by social workers who would have justified it as being in the best interest of the child (and I'm sure in some cases it was) and from the outside the same - there is bias from social services towards families who don't tow the party line. And there are unfortunately more and more social workers who are crumbling under the pressure.

I had the misfortune to work with a young social worker who still lived at home with her parents, who had never had children, who adamantly asserted that a family member was being neglectful because she breast fed on demand and hadn't wiped the skirting boards that week.

I also know social workers who tirelessly work with families to give them support, unfortunately they are also overworked and most are leaving the profession.

Regardless of the details of the story,

there are NO CIRCUMSTANCES in which it is acceptable for SS to lie to any Court.

they are NOT above the law and should not behave as though they are.

imthelastsplash

x post. Yes, interesting that they are not seen as 'lies'.

In parts of Scotland, 'possible future emotional harm' is used by Councils/ NHS/and especially, the Named Person scheme as a 'reason' to threaten to remove children.

note: 'possible' and 'future'.

Not lies, not misleading, but 'alternative facts'
All in the 'best interests of the child'.
Whilst children in genuinely great and obvious need
(ie mother a sex worker and alcoholic) are ignored.

Because there is no standardisation and NO accountability.

Never read the Daily Mail

The wright stuff reported that they got awarded about 11k from the court, which isn't even enough to cover their legal fees (20k+)
So they've wrongly had their child taken from them and then had to pay for the privilege of getting their baby back? Something isn't right with the whole story and I'm sure more will be reported soon.
I don't think any amount of money or apologies could compensate for missing your babies first 3 months.

If you stood yourself in court and lied in the ways they have you'd go to prison

There are two things going on here, the concern of the medical staff, which imo is warranted. Goodness knows what his "unconventional views" were re sterilising a baby's bottle, but surely the only view is to do it and to do it correctly, especially with a baby who has been in special care

That is tantamount to saying, "The only way to do anything is to do what SS tell you to do".

Guidance changes. Opinions differ. Risk exists in degrees. A PP explained that, in Manhattan, most mothers no longer sterilise becaise it isn't considered to be necessary. I am not saying there can be no SS judgement that someone's actual behaviour is too risky, but the view that there is the 'correct' way and all other ways breach 'orthodoxy' and are therefore verboten is both authoritarian and dangerous.

Navy, The Telegraph reported that they were in receipt of legal aid. And that the (approx.) £11,000 they received in compensation would go towards that.