To be horrified by what I just saw on tv

[Mammajay]

I just watched Panorama I Want My Baby back on 8 London live. I know how vital it is that endangered children are taken into care but these poor parents have been the victims of gross injustice. Mums with vitamin d deficiency have given birth to children with vitamin d deficiency. The babies then suffered rickets and bone fractures. Doctors thought the babies had been abused and the children were taken into care. There were four families and only one got their child back. When a child died ( not one of the 4 families) the parents were charged with causing the death due to the fractures. The pathologist who did the post mortem found the babies bones broke as she handled the body and concluded the child had rickets and vitamin d deficiency so the charges were dropped. Watching the couple and the grandparents whose child had been taken into care going for the final visit before their much loved son / grandson was to be adopted was heart breaking. So, aibu, to think there should be some sort of official inquiry into such cases.

hindsight is an amazing thing. Nobody shouts and makes tv programs about the times they get it right do they.

@Sunflowerdaisysummer No it is not about likelihood of adoption, it is more complex than that simple phrase. It is what are the risks if children stay in their home. Babies are obviously far more at risk from neglect or unsafe environments. How bonded are the children. And what can we offer child if they are taken into care. So a 16-year old would end up in a hostel, so they would have to be at serious risk.

Yes sprout

Cost is a consideration. Foster care is expensive. If a child can be removed and adopted then that cost is negated. Win win. Of course it isn’t quite as cynical as that but it’s a factor.

Fractures aside, I think a child in this country these days having rickets could in itself be a sign of abuse. At the very least it shows lack of engagement with healthcare services.

I’m cynical about programmes like this. As a GP of 25 years I have seen many children taken into care, but all of them were warranted. There had been months or years beforehand of support, parenting classes, meetings, counselling etc, involving hundreds of hours of time and depletion of scarce resources. Every possible avenue is considered before the children I knew were taken into care. I have also seen many kids who should have been taken into care much sooner, but time and resources prevented the decisions being made, so irreparable damage was done.

I have a patient (a heroin addict) who stood by while her boyfriend murdered their first baby. While he was in prison she had another baby. She received endless support but couldn’t manage, neglected her baby horribly, and it was taken into care. She then had another baby. Same again - support etc, all failed, baby taken into care again. Whenever I see her she is full of indignation at how her babies were taken away unfairly.

In fact, none of the many parents I see who’ve had their children taken away have every acknowledged that it was justified. Even when they know I was there, to see their bruised battered dirty hungry kids. And I knew about the daily health visitor visits, the parenting classes, the free home helps they had. They can’t accept that they just weren’t able (or willing) to provide a safe environment for a child to grow , and spend the rest of their lives protesting their innocence.

So yes, I’m cynical about these claims.

16 agreed but a 16 year old would very soon be leaving the care system anyway.

Seven and eight not so much.

I’ve seen many babies removed justifiably minty but also some who I didn’t think were justifiable.

I accept it’s not an exact science but I do feel the refusal to acknowledge that mistakes are made - and when they do it’s often brushed off almost impatiently - is a problem.

I know someone who had a situation whereby their daughter had an unusual injury. The doctor involved was insistent it was child abuse. The parents adamant it was just an accident (I believe the parents in this insistence but I know not everything is ever as it seems).

Social workers sided with the doctors because who are you going to believe, the working class parents or the well educated middle class doctor? I can imagine if your a social worker the horrors of what you see may also make “abuse” be your first thought.

The couple I know got to keep their child but every time the child is unwell or has an accident they are terrified.

So I can see how medics can get it very wrong...

Suggest going onto the Bailli site and reading the judgements given in the Family Division might give everyone more of an insight into the system - reality is a lot different to what appears in the papers. ( same applies to criminal cases btw)

Cost is a consideration. Foster care is expensive. If a child can be removed and adopted then that cost is negated. Win win. Of course it isn’t quite as cynical as that but it’s a factor

Maybe it’s changed since I stopped doing public law cases but not in any of the cases I was involved with it wasn’t.

Recent research suggests that Vit D deficiency can have a genetic component. A few years ago, when I became aware of this, I asked to be tested but apparently it's not a test you can just get done..... as I say, I have theories as to why my son "fractured", but it was prohibitively costly to explore them both during the case, and afterwards I was in so much debt due to keeping up contact with my son, that when he came home I was working three jobs to compensate - for his toddler years he was cared for more by extended family and at nursery than by me. Ironic really.

My point is that every human is physiologically unique, but the system and cost of such an approach is prohibitive.

Its an odd system. I've only come into contact with 4 social workers (2 in a professional capacity), one was bullying a friend of mine and the other is my SIL and they're an strange bunch - a bit like health visitors.

Much of it seems to be the word of one person, who most of the time is very biased. But they seem to leave children who are suffering in utterly dire circumstances. It really seems completely arbitrary.
Its something that the new government needs to spend money on.

I took vitamin d during pregnancy as part of the multi vitamin I was taking but no healthcare professional has told me that I need to be giving my breastfed baby supplements. Hmm

All very well saying parents should “know” the advice about Vit D but remember we don’t have enough Health Visitors now, new parents get less input from medical professionals than they used to. There are currently no NHS ante natal classes available in my area due to lack of staff. Women give birth and are booted out of hospital after a few hours, often with very little support for BF. How about we start properly supporting parents and families, educating parents to be and ensuring babies are seen by Health Visitors regularly like they used to be?

I think vitamin D supplements advice depends on where you live. I live on the border of a town and a city. The HV in the city advise supplements (and dish them out if asked) the town which is more middle class do not. I don't know why (other than there are more ethnic minorities in the city who's ethnicity means they are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency anyway - though the rule seems to be blanket irrespective of race).

Any judgement in court though, normally to be found guilty there has to be no doubt. This doesnt seem to be applied the same way for adoption. I thought vitamin D was quite an easy test to do

*Absolutely not lesser but the fact is that the child staying with adoptive parents in such instances is likely to lead to much distress and confused sense of identity and sense of belonging.

More so than a child placed with adoptive parents at 18 months and returned to birth parents at 10 years old?

Who makes the decision on a ‘case by case’ basis?

Suggest going onto the Bailli site and reading the judgements given in the Family Division might give everyone more of an insight into the system - reality is a lot different to what appears in the papers. ( same applies to criminal cases btw)

This.

Not explicitly sprout but it is a factor.

My Mum couldn’t absorb a particular vitamin. I’m not sure which one, though.

Some people her are talking as if resources are infinite, and “the state” is just desperate to take kids away and pay for their upbringing. It’s a bit like people saying (and I see this often on here) that they might “get themselves sectioned” because they’re having a bad time. As if the country is full of empty psychiatric wards and bored psychiatric staff twiddling their thumbs, just waiting for someone to “get themselves sectioned”. Equally child protection is extremely costly and time consuming. It’s way way cheaper for the state if parents bring up their own kids! I can’t think why anyone would imagine there’s any financial motivation when it comes to taking kids away from parents.
And there isn’t an army of loving eager adoptive parents out there, waiting to adopt a troubled abused 6 year old and snatch them away from their devoted parents!

With regard to expert opinions - there is a small-ish pool of professionals in the field of child abuse, and they tend to have similar opinions. If you ask the court for someone not recognised to do an analysis it can be refused if they are less "pro-abuse". Look up Colin Paterson as an example. He may have had much to contribute and is a bio-chemical expert in OI, but was struck off because the courts felt his outlying approach was actually dangerous - bit of a no-win position really.

One famous radiologist at GOSH was adamant that they can diagnose child abuse from looking at X-rays alone. This expert said my DC had a compressed vertebrae from being violently bent; still boggle how one would do that to a baby weighing around 6 pounds without paralysing it, but then babies are simultaneously very fragile and very robust apparently. This person never saw my child, but their report went into evidence. THAT I think is rather dangerous.

That’s actually the opposite of what I’m saying minty

Nobody is saying that mistakes are never made. But I too have known parents claiming their children were taken away from them for spurious reasons, when I know there are very good reasons.

I think most people would agree on the right reasons for removing children - abuse, neglect, inability of parents to prioritise their children's needs etc. And also that shame and fear can lead people to disagree unreasonably with those decisions.

However, where there is major doubt or discrepancy coming from the medical end of an accusation of abuse, then a different approach may be helpful. Everyone who came into contact with myself and my family agreed it didn't add up, but because the doctors had said it was abuse, it must be abuse. Group think indeed, and the young HV and the GP who stood up for us were shouted down on the balance of probabilities.

If my solicitor hadn't been open minded and accepted research I found and done his own, my story would have ended very differently.

Mintychoc have you watched the programme? I have recent acquaintance of drug addicted parents whose child is being adopted due to abuse and I have no issue with that. However, this programme has the pathologist and various experts challenging the babies with multiple fractures must always have been abused theory presented in the family court by the radiologist expert witness.

Everyone who came into contact with myself and my family agreed it didn't add up, but because the doctors had said it was abuse, it must be abuse. Group think indeed, and the young HV and the GP who stood up for us were shouted down on the balance of probabilities.

And that's where the gaps in the system are, and I don't think anyone disagrees that they should be looked into,reviewed and improved. Extra funding and more transparency would come a long way to prevent cases like this going so far.

Mintychoc1 but these parents weren’t drug addicts. They were normal mothers and fathers who had tried to get help for their precious children and found themselves in a living nightmare where reason and logic were thrown out of the window

I feel very sorry for the people who adopt.

I think there is a huge problem coming when these children reach 18 and find their birth families and find out their life should have been with their birth parents and not the strangers they were given to.

I think a lot of these children will turn their backs on the parents who have put their heart and soul into raising them because their life is based on a lie.

I believe they should have never been adopted as the fallout for everyone involved is too risky.

Fostered yes if they have to but the only reason I see for these children being adopted is saving money

Much of it seems to be the word of one person, who most of the time is very biased. But they seem to leave children who are suffering in utterly dire circumstances. It really seems completely arbitrary.
But it really isn't the word of one person, children aren't taken away by a single dodgy SW with a grudge. There are doctors, schools, GP's, midwives, HV's, involved. And the decision isn't with SS, it's with a judge.