People who have never experienced being in family court

[SavanahXx]

It really does my head in when people side with social services. They have an opinion that "they are just doing what's best for the child". These people that have the opinion mostly have never even had involvement with SS, therefore don't see the lies and manipulation of a situation that they use.

It's easy for them to say that a parent 'could pose a risk' but do you know how hard it is to prove you wouldn't?

I seen an utterly revolting article that really baffled me. Social workers manage to get away with this stuff daily. Yet its not reported as it should be. This child was removed, with a judges permission. Then placed back with the mother by another judge.
There is so much corruption in our society and it needs to change.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/13/social-worker-criticised-child-taken-away-mother-refused-give/amp/

Rufus27 what do you think of the AIMS report? (if you've had time to read it)

It really depends though rufus - sometimes it’s a very high threshold and other times it really isn’t.

I used to feel there was no smoke without fire but having now worked in family courts I'm appalled at the injustice and misogyny.

I've seen children removed and reversals of residence when women have spoken out against abuse and tried to protect their children but CAFCASS has pushed for contact regardless.

I know of one case where the father had been to prison for sexually abusing the daughter yet CAFCASS forced the mum to go on a parenting course so that she learnt to be more encouraging re contact. If she didnt comply then they threatened her with giving the little girl to her abuser.

I think at one point CAFCASS even got bonuses for a change of residence. You couldnt make it up.

I have a decade of experience as a family barrister (although I have not gone back after having my child).

It is undoubtedly right that in some cases social workers do a poor job, are quick to remove and slow to support. It is also right that particularly where cases aren’t heard by magistrates, courts can be very risk averse and rubber stamp care plans involving removal.

But that is only one side of the equation. Most social workers do their very best with extremely limited resources. The court system is also severely troubled and creaking at the seams. The threshold for removal is high and things are usually very dire indeed before the case gets as far as court and the local authority seek removal.

While I’m not suggesting that poor decisions as mentioned by the OP are never made, it isn’t typical. In my opinion a far bigger problem is the local authority not intervening as soon as they ought to.

I represented local authorities, parents and children so I’m not partisan, or naive. The OP is simply wrong.

I've had repeated experience of SS as a child in the US and, due to malicious reporting, more than a few experiences of SS as a parent in the UK, though I do not have the experience of going family court so not sure if my opinion is worth anything.

No system is going to be perfect. Natural ones are full of faults and human ones possibly even more so. I think there are things that will hopefully someday be stopped and improvements that should be made on both sides to protect vulnerable people, including kids. It will take a lot more resources and will than we have now. Part of the is going to have to involve the fears within communities both created by poorly handled cases and by people scaremongering (which yes, as a home educator, I have seen people who've never had any experience whatsoever with SS make some shitty claims, even make things up, so they can perpetuate 'the system is evil, hide your children' ideology).

I do think sometimes people - including some social workers - look away from horrible situations, particularly from charismatic and/or wealthy-appearing parents, for a long list of reasons, and at the same time, for many reasons, some people - professionals and otherwise - jump the gun and see horrors that aren't there. Most situations I think don't involve either of these though.

While I'm really not one to assume someone has someone else's best or any interest at heart - not because of their job or because they're that someone's parent - it does often feels social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't and too often, even when mothers murder their kids, too many people make excuses (often involving how social services should have done more). Generally, I think most are just trying to figure things out and the system is most patchworked together to try to get things sorted. Having seen some of the docket involving my parents in court with each other which had SS involved, the amount of parenting classes and assessments they had to go through, I think the courts were trying their hardest to do something but kinda not entirely sure what to do. Or, if cynical, wanted to appear to be doing something while making money - those courses weren't cheap. Possibly a bit of both, that's one of the issues when trying to make a system like these, it's probably impossible to make an entirely perfect one.

Thank you
Will you just be quiet

Willyoujistbequiet, that's my main gripe with family court. It can be like abuse all over again. Someone close to me is trying to protect herself and her children from her violent and sexually abusive ex. As the police can't prove a case against him, it's a battle for her to not give him access to his children who are frightened of him.

I feel for social workers although I know not all are perfect, like any profession. The service is cut to the bone and they get blamed for every mistake. Most want to do a good job but don't have time or resources. It's falling more and more to charities like Women's Aid to plug the gaps in the system.

Why not fully open the courts and call the children xyz and parents Mr and Mrs X?

This is just naive. Ever heard of the internet? Every time a really juicy case came up all the internet detectives would track down who the parties were and would make absolutely sure that their identities were published.

Any comments on the AIMS report please? Anyone?

Isatis, yes I suppose that did sound a bit naive from me. Think I'm a bit desperate for others to see what's really happening in some of the family courts.

£15k for dials barrister and still lost residency of her kids..

Dils

@auntethel the AIMS journal looks like a blog/article site rather than a peer reviewed journal, is that right?
In terms of the content of the article you linked to, it's about the role of medics in safeguarding decision making. Think you'll need to start a paediatrician bashing thread.

Bored40, are you seeing this thread as a social work bashing thread then?

I don't think the focus is on removal rather than support but the sad truth is that support is often not available. And we are in a risk averse society and removal is often seen as the simplest and safest option.

The Children And Families Act 2014 set a time limit for care proceedings of 26 weeks which gives families very little time to turn things around - the LA final evidence will need to be produced after about 4 months.

There is a lot wrong with the system, there are worrying discrepancies between rates of removal between different areas which seem to indicate that poverty/austerity is a driver.

but the conspiracy theorists who say that social workers get £30K per baby they steal etc, do enormous harm. They terrify people and make it more difficult for parents to hear what they need to hear.

It is very rare that I have a 'single issue' case - such as a one off broken bone with no explanation but everything else seems fine. The vast majority of my cases involve families who have had problems with neglect, drink, drugs, violence etc over many years.

This discussion has gone on for years - its what prompted a number of mumsnetters to help me set up this my website.

This post about forced adoption was one of the very first ones written in 2014 and I hope is a straightforward explanation of the problems and difficulties the system faces. But deliberate attempts to steal babies are NOT part of those problems.

childprotectionresource.online/forced-adoption/

Its what the OP started it out to be, if you read the opening line of the OPs first post, and pretty much all the OPs posts after that, yes.
The majority of posters havent joined in with that sentiment though.

Ah, sorry - i see my links have already been posted!

I was asked a few weeks ago to produce a precis of those people and organisations who are less than helpful to people seeking support/infor about the family justice system and that is here

childprotectionresource.online/information-about-the-family-justice-system-who-can-you-trust/

Sorry meant to tag @auntethel in my post!

"I know of one case where the father had been to prison for sexually abusing the daughter yet CAFCASS forced the mum to go on a parenting course so that she learnt to be more encouraging re contact. If she didnt comply then they threatened her with giving the little girl to her abuser.

I think at one point CAFCASS even got bonuses for a change of residence. You couldnt make it up."

Except. You just did.

There is NO WAY ON EARTH that any man imprisoned for the sexual abuse of a child would then be pushed to have direct contact with that child and the mother threatened with change of residence. NO WAY.

This does not happen. It just doesn't happen. I don't know what you have been told but unless I see the sentencing report for the abuser and then a CAFCASS report recommending direct contact, I simply refuse to believe it.

If the child is old enough to request contact then that is different and may need to be risk managed. But to force contact with a child victim and a criminally convicted abuser? No. Never.

There is so much misinformation that swirls around - when I tried to point out that the Sammy Woodhouse case DID NOT AND NEVER HAD involved the family court trying to 'offer' contact to her rapist ex, I think I was called a 'rape apologist' by some particularly charming posters here.

You can insult me all you like, but the truth is is the truth. Misinformation and scaremongering are a very poor base for any change to law or policy but I can see the MoJ with their recent 'Inquiry' are going to give it a jolly good go.

The AIMS article is an unsubstantiated opinion piece presented as fact. I’d be interested to see the evidence to back up statements such as “Many mothers whose babies were precipitately removed, (they, and we, suspect as potential adoption material to meet targets)”

I don’t doubt the writer believes what she says, and I’d be very interested to look at the figures about healthcare professionals being “trigger happy” when it comes to reporting possible CP issues - I wonder how it went up and what the actual correlation (although not necessarily causation) is with mothers becoming more withdrawn from and suspicious of support (which is the thrust of the article)

Social workers want to do their best for the children unfortunately you come across a bad one - let's hop that is all it is and not one that struggles to put issues down on paper for a judge to read

Bored40 I see it as a thread for aggrieved victims of family court and a frustration that others can't believe /see what we've seen?

Cafcass are pretty bad. The report ended up being quite in my favour but the whole thing was awfully unprofessional from the meet ups to the data breaches.

Cafcass are poor but that is due to overstretched resources and having naff all time to devote to each case as opposed to any kind of conspiracy.

spero you did say the focus is on removal rather than support. It's been discussed a number of times on the "ss bashing threads" (as some like to call it when victims are giving their experiences). Now you say the sad truth is that support is often not available and removal is often seen as the simplest and safest option. Therefore it stands to reason that reports will need to contain lies (against decent parents who simply need support) in order to obtain the removal.