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?

everyone should actually read the case report. There were some minor concerns about the parents so a court case was reasonable, denying the parents AND the child the right to be represented was not.

There are some interesting comments from the judge about some of the lawyers too, not only the social workers who behaviour was cause for concern.

trifle, because a reasonable discussion about using the dishwasher as a form of sterilising wouldn't trigger any concerns amongst medical professionals, would it? Whereas an announcement that you don't believe in sterilizing and that bottle feeding is better for babies suggests you aren't listening to much professional advice about your sick or premature baby.

alreadytaken, depends what you classify as minor. surely if something is minor it's not important enough a reason to take someone's child away

going in to care has caused as much shit in some peoples lives as what staying with their original family would have caused

SolomanDaisy: Thank you for that utterly circular logic - he can't have been suggesting anything reasonable because if he had have been, nobody would have taken the utterly unreasonable step of removing his child!

Except the judge has clearly said the decision was the wrong one. So the unreasonable people in this case were the SW.

Are you always so credulous?

If every child was taken into care because their parents had mental health problems they'd be an awful lot more children in care!

There doesn't have to have been a myriad of underlying problems. They clearly got it wrong in this case.

Also I doubt they 'ignored orders' to settle. More likely their lawyer advised them to not settle out of court. Rightly so. This shouldn't be allowed to be swept under the metaphorical carpet.

The problem is that the judge appears to have been misled in court. That is a criminal offence. If you lie in a witness statement you go to prison. This must never happen again in this kind of case.

Under what circumstamces would you need a court hearing if the LA confirm that threshold for intervention was not met?

Or if you had what you believe to be a valid signed section 20?

It's a shocking disregard of procudure and yes it's dangerious for parents but it's far more dangerious for the system.

trifle, I referred only to medical professionals raising concerns, not to the decision to remove the child. Try reading more closely before applying your logic analysis.

nonsense to believe there wasn't a myriad of concerns in order for this child to be temporary removed

You could read the judgement. That would show you that your view is incorrect

Mother has problems, father is aggressive + unorthodox views on sterilising bottles (did he perhaps say he didn't find it necessary at all?)

In "Call the Midwife" (just read the novel), the protagonist is taught to promote bottlefeeding, then is shocked by the reality of bottles that are used day after day without even washing inbetween.

If the father gave the impression of being the sort of person who would not wash the bottles at all, and the mother as inable to make sure of appropriate hygiene herself, then I can easily see how it was thought better to take the child out of the family.

This court decision is nothing to do with bottle washing. It is about the rules not being followed in a way that must never be allowed to happen again. It is a fundamental principle of English justice that those "accused"know about hearings well in advance, have time to appoint lawyers, the right to attend etc etc. If those rules are not followed then we might as well be in North Korea or China in a police state.

The local authority paid part of the claimants' costs, but not all, primarily because the LA made realistic attempts to settle at a fairly early stage whilst the claimants didn't comply with orders to put forward their own proposals for settlement

Orders for what exactly?

What it says - to engage in the settlement process.

Also I doubt they 'ignored orders' to settle. More likely their lawyer advised them to not settle out of court. Rightly so. This shouldn't be allowed to be swept under the metaphorical carpet.

They weren't ordered to settle, they were ordered to say what they would accept in order to settle. If they didn't want to settle they were perfectly free to set a figure which the other side were never going to accept.

But how do you make out that the lawyer's advice was right? If they'd settled at a figure near to what the defendants were offering, they stood a good chance of coming away from this with some compensation; as it is, they won't see any damages. The case needn't have been swept under the carpet, because clued-up lawyers could ensure that it was publicised.

The case file is interesting- both parents have MLD and there is question over whether the mum had the capacity to agree to some of the early procedural stuff - she doesn't seem to have been well supported within the process.

It seems as though there had been extensive and long term SS involvement with both parents.

Some of the cock ups, like the non involvement of CAFCASS beggar belief. Really poor.

I really hope that the right decision has now been made for that baby - it would be a tradgedy if poor practice by SS had left a family at risk.

Given the lawyer probably did advise them not to settle out of court, and they'd be privy to every scrap of info we aren't, adding to the fact the Judge said ss were wrong and they admitted to lying. Of course their advice was right. An offer to settle out of court is not an order.

It's not always about the damages, it's about making sure people in such positions are held accountable. The parents were obviously were just more than happy to be exonerated.

What it says - to engage in the settlement process.

They did engage though. The fact that they refused shows they engaged right? You don't have to accept the offer.

Some of the cock ups, like the non involvement of CAFCASS beggar belief. Really poor.

This I find unbelievable. I used to work in the family courts. Admittedly I'm a bit rusty since then as it's been a few years but from what I remember, CAFCASS should / would have always been involved.

I read the 'benefits of formula milk' bit as the dad didn't want to bother with sterilising or proper formula and wanted to just give cows milk. This is not unheard of.

I work in this area. There would have definitely been more to it than reported. It is so much work and planning and preparation to get a case together to initiate care proceedings. Obviously mistakes can be made but it is never something done without true concern for the wellbeing of the child.

The daily fail hates public services and will continue to report from this angle. YABU for sharing this on here.

The daily fail hates public services and will continue to report from this angle. YABU for sharing this on here.

Why? It's not private it's in the national newspapers. Ignoring the fact it's the daily fail but still.

It is so much work and planning and preparation to get a case together to initiate care proceedings.

Doesn't it depend what type though. My old Judges have fond memories of being brought to court at stupid o clock in the morning for emergency protection orders.

Obviously the other type have had a lot of planning done and usually there not removed without very good reason but in this case it was clear that rules and procedures weren't followed. If they were I wonder if there would have been a different outcome altogether.

AwayWith, I think you've misunderstood the order made. Sure, an offer to settle out of court isn't an order, but in this case it appears that the parents were ordered by the court to engage with the process by putting forward their own counter-proposals - hence the fact that they didn't get all their costs back.

The parents were exonerated by virtue of the fact that the original decision was reversed and got their child back. This was a separate damages claim. I think they were entitled to compensation, and it's a shame that the failure to engage in attempts to settle means they haven't received it. It also needs to be borne in mind that a considerable amount of public legal aid money has been spent which won't have been recovered from the local authority.

There would have definitely been more to it than reported. It is so much work and planning and preparation to get a case together to initiate care proceedings. Obviously mistakes can be made but it is never something done without true concern for the wellbeing of the child

Bollocks.

Go and read the actual court judgement

NeedsAsockamnesty well I was being polite but yes what you said

Settlements are very common and very sensible in all kinds of legal cases. Everyone I have ever negotiated has a secrecy clause. However sometimes it's important to be able to speak to the perss about a case. Plenty of people would rather not settle because they do not like the terms including secrecy which are offered.

No one can ever be forced to accept a settlement in any court case. Sometimes people are so angry they will spend £1o0k each on arguing with a neighbour over a hedge.

Not entirely correct, Enormous. Legal aid isn't a blank cheque for people to take an expensive case to court for the sake of principle.

Legal aid (in the few cases where it is still available) is I think a loan so eg in divorce cases you would (when it was still available) have to pay it back once you sold the house. You are right that in cases where the state is funding people should consider not costing the state too much but isn't that just another example of pressuring people to be part of a kind of of cover up - settle or else you are depriving others of tax payer revenues and settle on the basis of the case being confidential so no one will ever know the appallling breaches of the law which took place in this case to the detriment of the child and its parents?

No, legal aid doesn't quite work like that, Enormous. If you win a case, there is a charge on any assets that you recover or keep as a result of the action. Hence the fact that this couple won't receive any of their damages. In a divorce case, the charge operates if one of the items in dispute is a house. However, the charge can't extend beyond what was in issue - therefore if you own a house but the case had nothing to do with it, the charge wouldn't extend to it. (But these days if you own a house it's highly unlikely that you would qualify for legal aid anyway).

Solicitors acting for people with legal aid have an ongoing duty to report to the Legal Aid agency if their client is or might be wasting public funds. Therefore, if a reasonable settlement offer were on the table but the client didn't want to take it because they wanted their day in court, the solicitors would have to report that. Frequently it's a condition of legal aid that any offer of settlement at all must be reported. If the Legal Aid Agency thinks the offer should have been accepted, it can and does withdraw legal aid.

Sure, that may put pressure on people, but I guess the government reasonably doesn't want legal aid to be regarded as an open cheque. Essentially the idea is to put you in the same position as a hypothetical person with reasonable means but without money to throw away. So if these parents had been on an income of, say, £40K a year, the question would be whether they would have wanted to spent the costs that weren't recovered (I'm guessing around £50K)for the sake of having their day in court.