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?

Well, in the first couple of lines in that article we were told the mother had mental health issues and the father had form for being "aggressive".
It very clearly wasn't just about formula.

Yes, that's right - legal aid has always in that sense been a loan.

However none of this detracts from the issue at the hear of this - that the authorities did not give the couple notice and did not notify Cafcas and the judge has found them wanting so hopefully this will never happen again to another couple.

Well, no, legal aid isn't a loan as such. If, for instance, you get legal aid for proceedings when you're not claiming anything financial or concrete (e.g. judicial review) you will not be asked to repay.

The LA did not deny that they were at fault, so it's a real pity that the parents effectively deprived themselves of the compensation they were due.

The LA lied more then once to push the removal of the newborn through. They failed to work within the law. And they took a newborn child away.

There may have been concerns and if ss had gone through the proper processes and hadn't deliberately deceived a judge, the baby may have needed to be taken into care.

But that's not what happened. As another poster so rightly wrote:

"If social services want to be trusted they should be trustworthy"

I think it was worth the price. |If all the parents' compesnation went to pay legal bills but the judgment is open that is absolutely marvellous. We need many more public judgments so people can see into what is often so very secret. Well done parents. They have served justice rather than their own financial interests.

It does not matter what the actual story is.

The LA stated it did not meet threshold.

If they had not lied in court then the likelyhood of the baby being placed elsewhere is low.

Without claiming the parents agreed and knew about the hearing the threshold criteria in court would/should have been looked at by the judge. The harm/welfare would have been looked into. Because they lied it was not.

Yet the day before the court hearing to obtain a order the LA dropped it and returned the baby because threshold had not been met.

The LA has failed but so has the court.
Mumby has long been aware and been issuing guidance/instructions to familŷ court regarding the misuse and abuse of section 20 agreements used when the LA knows it's unlikely to meet threshold criteria and obtained dishonestly at best and via intimidation at worst.

www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cz-and-others-v-kirklees-council-20170216.pdf

Terribly sad, no amount of compensation can make up for time lost with a new baby, the poor parents lost such precious bonding time😣 mistakes are made and it's worrying just how often they are made, I hope all responsible have been delt with appropriately.

If you read the judgement it seems that there was already an arrangement in place that the paternal grandparents would be heavily involved in the child's care and there were no restrictions placed on the parents' access at all, so although the procedures have been appalling, it's not quite true to suggest that they completely missed out on bonding time etc. The baby wasn't taken off to another family or anything like that. If you look at paragraph 42.

The laughing

Quite true, yes however my opinion is it is very sad that 'although they had lots of access it's not the same as just being alone at home with your new baby, I remember lying awake for hours just watching,cuddling my babies, peacefully with no interruptions and that time is precious. To me anyway!
It's different saying bye to visitors closing the door and settling down just you dh and baby, But in this case they then are the ones saying goodbye I assume as there baby must stay in the care of gran.
so for them to have to even leave there baby or have this intrusion in the first place at all is sad even more so when it was a mistake.

As I say just my opinion not sure why you would pick that out really but anyway there is my answer.

Who would want to have to deal with all that after having a traumatic birth too, they must have gone through hell and back, when if the mistakes were not made they could have just enjoyed there new baby with no interference. So to me all that time wasted took time away from them just being a family with there new baby.

Hope that's readable im full of flu 😷