Is all this really happening?

[rosylea]

Sorry can't do links, but is all this real? YouTube "cps corruption US" and "Nancy Schaefer's Senatorial report The Corrupt Business of Child Protection Services" and "Denise Robertson UK social services".and "Wanted by The State". And there's more. Can't all be false, can it? Would appreciate views please.

This is an infographic to help you work out what is real and what is fake: twitter.com/_eavi/status/885505969815511040?s=21

No, social services are not removing children to sell them as slaves. That’s bonkers. It’s paranoid and delusional. It falls into the “conspiracy theory” section of the infographic.

Better link: eavi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/beyond-fake-news_COLOUR_WEB.pdf

apologies, have not yet read entire thread but got email notification of this
There again there was that family law barrister on MN last year (spero) who said the emphasis is on removal rather than support

As ever, its a bit more complicated than that. My thinking and understanding certainly underwent an evaluation after the Great Mumsnet Debates of end 2013/early 2014 which (thankfully) culminated in John Hemming being banned from this platform after attempting to 'out' the real life identities of several members, including me.

I think there are many reasons why the system doesn't work as well as it should but I don't believe any of those reasons are underpinned by deliberate corruption and plots to remove easily adoptable babies. I considered some of the nuances in the debate here if anyone is interested in reading further childprotectionresource.online/forced-adoption/

this was one of the first posts inspired by the Mumsnet debates

In precis I think there are considerable pressures on social workers, an increasingly risk averse environment (due in part to the largely hysterical and innacurate reporting by the media which calls for social workers' heads on plates when anything goes wrong) and increasingly cuts to services so that the support that some parents need just isn't available.

I am organising the 3rd Multi Disciplinary Conference about using risk of future emotional harm as basis to remove children on 15th September at the Conway Hall in London and am hoping to have parents and professionals come and discuss what is going on. All of this is as a direct result of Mumsnet and the people and ideas I was exposed to over time, so I am glad whatever else happens to see that the internet can be used as force for good.

If you are interested in these issues and can get to London on Sat 15th, please come!

www.eventbrite.com/e/future-risk-of-emotional-harm-justified-grounds-to-remove-children-tickets-43393883273

Ok read through and got more of a feel now. I think the video of police removing child refers to this case
www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed116450

Police do sometimes have to remove children. Its not ideal. But nor is parents threatening to kill social workers. Police go in to protect.

Anyone who wants to comment about what is going on, has in my opinion, a duty to be reasonably informed.

Reports of cases are available on the familylawweek.co.uk site as linked above. Or www.bailii.org. These are all FREE TO ACCESS

You can read my site www.childprotectionresource.online or www.transparency.project.org.uk

You should be very careful of the following people/sources:
John Hemming
Ian Josephs
UK Column
Sue Reid
Christopher Booker
Natasha Philips

do NOT accept what they say unless it is backed up by another credible and verified source.

conspiracy theories have done MASSIVE HARM to parents and their children.

Read here for just one example: childprotectionresource.online/helping-parents-leave-the-jurisdiction/

@spero could you also expand on the re BS changes which have seriously impacted the courts' decision making around placement and adoption orders?
It's not as simple as saying social work services are risk averse or that funding for support has been cut. In fact, care proceedings are the best time to access specialist assessments and support as they are part funded by legal aid rather than 100% by CSWS and you cannot get a child through care proceedings without carrying out essential (agreed by the court) assessments or interventions.

It is not right to say that Re BS changed the law - it did have an impact shortly afterwards in that people were worried they couldn't meet the legal test for adoption as 'nothing else will do'

But there has been considerable judicial rowing back from this now and further refinement of the 'nothing else will do' and Sir James Munby (who gave judgment in Re BS) has repeatedly said that Re BS did not and was not intended to 'change the law'.

I think the real problem is that successive governments have 'pushed' adoption as the 'best thing' all round. I am sure it IS the best thing for a minority of children, but certainly not all. And Article 8 imposes positive obligations upon States to provide support to keep families together.

I have tried to explain in more detail here
childprotectionresource.online/when-can-the-court-agree-adoption-is-necessary/

Just on this point
In fact, care proceedings are the best time to access specialist assessments and support as they are part funded by legal aid rather than 100% by CSWS and you cannot get a child through care proceedings without carrying out essential (agreed by the court) assessments or interventions.

Yes, you certainly get lots of assessments in care proceedings. What you don't get however, is easy or consistent followup in terms of support.

There needs to be an assessment in order to find out what people need but an assessment on its own is pretty useless. like asking someone to lose weight and all you do is keep weighing them and say 'you are fat'

Where do we go from there?

One of the reasons that the conspiracy theories have take such a grip is that there is certainly a kernel of truth in what is said. The 'system' IS flawed. The 'system' does treat people with unkindness and inhumanity. There simply is NOT easy or any access to the kind of support some parents need. Adoption IS seen as a gold standard across the board, when it clearly is not right for many children.

We need to tackle those issues without giving way to the ludicrous crap peddled by Hemming et al that local authorities pay their SW a bonus of £30K for each child 'taken'.

No system is perfect. RE BS led to many children being placed in very dangerous situations and with inappropriate carers under special guardianship, many of which have since broken down and the children have lost their opportunity for an adoption placement.

Placement orders are not easily granted and even when they are we see many judges granting leave to oppose adoption orders these days.

I agree. At least two children were killed by Special Guardians after what seemed to have been a pretty hasty assessment on the assumption that the courts would no longer favour the making of an adoption order if there was any type of family carer putting themselves forward

It just shows the insanity of doing anything other than asking the question - what is in THIS child's bests interests? And sometimes, sadly that does include taking them away from their birth parents. But it isn't an easy or cheap process for a local authority and I do not believe, and have seen no evidence to support, any argument that LA take children away for bonus payments or to feed a corrupt 'industry'.

The idea is laughable - local authorities don’t want to take children into care they simply don’t have the budgets. The people peddling this lunacy are on another planet and have no experience of the system other than being parents perhaps who have had their children removed. It’s sad really social workers I know have degrees followed by masters degrees from red brick universities and are paid fuck all comparatively to others with a similar level of education. It’s a vocation for many.

The people peddling this lunacy are on another planet

The people initially peddling this lunacy are often abusers. There are a lot of birth parents who can't manage to clothe/feed/change their baby, won't accept help to get clean, but will post on social media about how their child was stolen.

I can sort of understand why some buy into it, particularly if they have no experience of it, but I don't think that excuses spreading lies- even unintentionally. As spero rightly said:

Anyone who wants to comment about what is going on, has in my opinion, a duty to be reasonably informed.

Don’t know what Denise Robertson’s gripe was - would love to know though. Perhaps she was just a total fuckwit who believes every letter and call that came her way.

It has neve rbeen easy to get the balance right. I remember my psychiatrist father even int he 1970s saying outcomes for looked after children were so bad (and I doubt they are much better now - more likely to end up in prison than university if you go intoi care) that staying even mildly neglectful parents or ageing grandparents was often the better option for the child. It is where we draw the line that is hard and always has been. I would not allow emotional abuse as a ground for removal for example.

xenia - outcomes for looked after children are poor but outcomes for children who grow up in neglect, emotional abuse or any other type of abuse are poor. Looked after children have by definition already experienced adversity that affects outcomes so putting it down to being in care is simplistic and wrong.

I'm not sure why you think emotional abuse isn't significant harm!?

I doubt they are much better now - more likely to end up in prison than university if you go intoi care

That's true, but there are some things you have to consider:

1. That stat is about kids who have been in the care system most of their lives. Typically this is because they were removed as older children, kept going back to abusive parents and being removed, or have the most severe problems.

1. The outcomes for kids with stable family placements or adoptions are better. What is frustrating is the lack of really robust large scale data on this.

1. The comparison point should be: what would those outcomes be like if the child remained with their parents? In cases where children are removed you are talking about really awful outcomes. You can't expect a cohort of children who've experienced abuse to have the same outcomes as the general populace.

even mildly neglectful parents or ageing grandparents was often the better option for the child

This is true. Frankly these days mildly neglected kids get no SS help. Moderately and often severely neglected kids don't get removed. The threshold for removal is that nothing else will work.

I would not allow emotional abuse as a ground for removal for example.

I would suggest, with respect, that you have never seen the outcome of the worst emotional abuse. It's difficult to imagine the truly horrific things that some 'parents' do to their kids.

Tl;DR: I think the system in the UK gets the balance pretty right (in theory). Most of the problems stem from a permanent lack of resources and all the knock effects that creates.

I’ve had issues with my neighbour who suffers mental health issues, intense amounts of narcissism, delusions, paranoia abs obsessive tendencies.

On top of this the house is an absolute state, the garden is often full of rubbish and horrifyingly, even in this hot weather, the children will go days and days without seeing the outside. Their parents sleep in the front room, so I can only imagine how awful that is.

Anyway, the mother has repeatedly reported me to social services (sort of a projection I think). They spoke to me (but not to the school sadly who said they would have a number of things to speak to them about and I had to be honest;

The children are dressed adequately, if a bit dirty from time to time. The children experience love, even if they also get shouted at. They have toys and gifts, they get to school. They are fed.

Their parenting is far from perfect, but they are not in a position where they would be better in long term care.

They are 15, 9 and 6 now, they would have a shit time in care, passed around foster homes, mostly because they are not wide eyed little children but products of their parents. People forget that often the problems children have in care are a direct result of the behavioural dynamics they have developed from living with their parents.

What’s better for all of them is them staying at home.

Social services (would) agree.

I would not allow emotional abuse as a ground for removal for example

A nephew of mine who has ASD has been “exorcised” several times by his parents, told his autism is a sign he is possessed.
He is incredibly damaged by this, has an emotional age of around 6 despite being an early teen. I have no doubt whatsoever that care would be a better option for him, especially if taken at a younger age.

People who dismiss emotional abuse as serious/real/reason for removal are wrong. I recommend that they read/think a little more about it.

It is interesting that those who consistently deny the damage it does appear to be right wing homophobic self identifying Christians/Brexiteers (at least according to the messages I get).