This fear that social services will come and take your children...

[willsurvivethis]

...it worries me!

There seem to be so many women out there who are afraid to seek help for depression and other problems out of fear that they will lose their children.

I have just asked MNHQ if they would consider doing something with this. Because surely if so many of us fear to lose our children something is going wrong somewhere! Surely we should all be albe to seek help with confidence?

What are your thoughts on this? I struggle with PTSD and even told my doctor that I tended to keep emotional distance from my ds when he's ill without even considering the possibility of that having repercussions.

Far be it from me to split hair OJ but this is what you said in a recent post:

"however social services have a role to investigate the family, and are in a position to defend families where necessary, such as where questionable medical evidence is being used against parents and to put a case that they are in fact loving, decent parents."

You still fail to understand exactly when social workers have a right to become involved with a particular case. In the SC case (which is the one we are discussing) it was the decision of the CPS to charge SC with the murder of her babies and sadly, very sadly the Jury found her guilty. Social Services had nothing to do with the case. I am sure you are someone who believes in the importance of a person's civil liberties, and social workers cannot simply intervene in a case with which they are not involved, anymore than anyone else can. JH tried to do this and was ordered out of the Court by a Judge in Birmingham County Court.

Do you understand the issue about significant harm and likely to suffer significant harm now - I do hope so.

Oh and as for your last link, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Of course this social worker had no right to post her comments on FB - she was extremely silly to do this and has rightly been taken to task. However she did not give any of the details of the case which is very fortunate.

So goodbye and good to know that someone knows when they are beaten.

@NanaNina, this is my parting gift to you, because of the sheer craic your replies have given me (it tickles me how some people don't even realise how their answers are presenting their selves) I couldn't leave without giving you something in honour of your true, blinkered SW attributes, which you wear like a badge of honour: us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/yayayoy/yayayoy1107/yayayoy110700027/10089284-laughing-and-pointing-emoticon.jpg

It's been...well, predictable.

For anyone joining/watching this thread interested in reading up some more on false accusations of MSBP/FII against mothers and wrongful findings of professionals, along with inappropriate interventions by social services, you will find this link interesting (and may well find evidence that can help your case should you need it)
medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/category/munchausen-by-proxy-part-ii/

I hope some of the information and links I have provided proof useful to some parents who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of inappropriate SS interventions. And even in the event that this doesn't prove to be the case, it never hurts for people to get all the angles of possibilities. Just remember,

"Live with your eyes wide open." ~ Sheila Hendrix

YEP - live with your eyes wide open (though god knows who Sheila Hendrix is) and with your mouth tight shut till you know what you're talking about

Au revoir.........

Old but still relevant:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html#ixzz3H8uBwVzn

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/a1992352-Why-are-so-many-Mothers-of-children-with-invisable-medical-conditions-getting-accused-of-Munchausens-by-Proxy-FII

"The last point before I leave this thread for good"

"My parting gift to you"

0justice, you're just a world of empty promises aren't you.

www.mentalhealth.org.uk/content/assets/PDF/publications/young-mums-together-report.pdf

^"Five young mothers participated in interviews which explored their
experience of becoming a mother, their understanding of mental health
difficulties and their preferred routes to seeking support. Several mums felt
they needed professional mental health support. Young mums reported their reluctance to seek mental health support because of their fear that social services will take their child away if a mother is unable to cope with mental health difficulties. The interviews highlighted young mothers’ support needs which were categorised into five themes:

(1) peer support,
(2) adjustment to motherhood,
(3) accessing professional support networks,
(4) mental health support,
(5) confident parenting.

The young mothers indicated their support needs could be met within one local service, which could act as a base to access further support and information."^

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/02/mothers-mental-health-issues-give-up-children (The Guardian...not the Daily Mail)

^"Kelly McWilliams was in labour when two social workers arrived with an emergency court order authorising them to take the baby into care. Following the birth of baby Victoria, McWilliams was allowed only supervised contact with her daughter for the first four months before successfully overturning the order.

McWilliams's case had been referred to social services by her midwife six months earlier because a stroke in 2001 had left her with disabilities. According to a report by Cafcass, the agency that looks after children's interests in the family courts, no assessment had been carried out and no one was assigned to the case until three days before Victoria was born."

"This case, horrific though it appears, is far from an isolated incident. McWilliams, who has since been reunited with her daughter, is one of several women with disabilities to have faced pre-emptive intervention from hard-pressed social services using emergency measures. These cases often involve women with learning difficulties or mental health issues, with the highest-profile ones seeing the parent fleeing the country to avoid having her children forcibly removed from her."

"Katharine Quarmby, who researched the area for her book Scapegoat: Why Are We Failing Disabled People?, says that in 2006 the Social Care Institute for Excellence reviewed existing research and found that "social workers and local authorities were less interested in supporting families with disabled members to stay together than in 'safeguarding children'".

"Disabled parents are constantly put on their guard about their parenting capacity, rather than supported to be good parents," she adds. "Indeed, many disabled parents – particularly those with learning difficulties – who have children, lose them to social services, even as soon as they are born, before being given an opportunity to prove themselves."^

@ScreamerMaanAndGoryOn

The truth will out.

The LA can and does pay professionals as expert witnesses, when they want to get a child adopted they will not want to back down. "Evidence" can be manipulated and cherry-picked and don't you think that these people are past masters at how to respond to cross-examination in court?

That's hardly surprising. Of course Social Services will call on experts who support their case; one man's cherry-picking is another man's selection of relevant evidence. However, what you omit to mention is that the state puts so much value on ensuring that this sort of evidence is properly tested that it allows legal aid as of right to parents whose children are the subject of child protection proceedings, and they will therefore get funding which will enable them to get their own expert evidence to counter the local authority's.

0justice, please don't tell me you believe all that nonsense about social workers getting paid to fill adoption targets. It's been demonstrated time and again that it really is nonsense. At one point targets were set to achieve more adoptions for children already in the care system because it was rightly identified that far too many children spend far too long in children's homes and foster care when they would be much better off if they were adopted, and that was a successful initiative. There were no targets set for taking children into care so that they would be adopted. Apart from anything else, demonstrably that would have defeated the object of the exercise by leaving children in long term care, those figures would not have reduced, therefore the relevant target would not have been met.

It's also a particularly daft to suggest that any financial incentive would work. Taking children into care is extremely expensive as foster parents are paid up to around £600 per week per child depending on the circumstances. Dealing with contested adoption proceedings is fantastically expensive as it involves an awful lot of work from lawyers, social workers and experts, even more so if (as often happens) decisions are the subject of appeals. No-one has ever produced an iota of evidence of financial incentives that would have outweighed all the expense involved.

A final thought: had Baby P been taken into care against his mother's will, it would have been a forced adoption. Would that therefore automatically have been undesirable?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-family-court-led-social-workers-taking-baby-parents-unjustly.html

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/308835/Doctor-faces-adoptions-scandal-axe

forced-adoption.com/cashing-in/

@Icimoi, I remain open-minded as to adoption targets. Put it this way, I have been party to and have read enough horror stories of state abuse to know that no matter how much some deny it exists, that doesn't mean it isn't true. There is now such a massive amount of outcry about this issue, so many reports out there, there is, as they say, no smoke without fire. In the not too distant past, I would likely have been one of those who raised an eyebrow quizzically and suspected hyperbole or worse, but my eyes have been opened. Every time in history someone stood up to tell the truth, to whistleblow, the only comeback from those who would have the truth remain hidden, is to (attempt to) ridicule and make personal attacks. Not much of an argument really is it.

That forced adoption website is run by Ian Joseph, who has regularly turned up on MN under different aliases and who as regularly puts forward the nonsense about targets without ever answering points such as those I made above. He has equally never produced any evidence for his assertions about targets. Simply repeating an assertion doesn't make it true, and just because someone keeps saying something like that doesn't make it smoke without which there is no fire. The Mail and Express are happy to follow the Joseph and Hemmings agenda because it fits their own, and they have never been renowned for accurate and unbiased reporting, have they?

If you want to make an argument that adoption targets actually do exist, how about putting forward some real evidence?

sorry Nana, I come late to the party...

If anyone is reading the Ian Josephs site and getting scared or worried that anything he says is true, please read this and it might give you another perspective.
www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/forced-adoption/

the CPR site was set up by mums netters and we have been really lucky to get a lot of very helpful contributions from lots of different people in the system. For example we have a really helpful post advising parent who have mental health difficulties.
www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/reporting-post-natal-depression/

Since Feb when we started the site I have been researching the issue of 'adoption targets'. I have directly asked both Ian Josephs and John Hemmings to provide their evidence for their assertion. I have asked 100s of people who believe in such targets via the Facebook Group 'UK Social Services' to help me understand where their beliefs come from.

I have not been given any evidence. I agree there are lots of legitimate concerns about the system - mainly due to the pressures of high case loads on a diminishing number of social workers. But I do not believe such targets exist.

The Baby P documentary on Monday is a good explanation of what has been going wrong then and since.

But its nothing to do with a conspiracy to steal your children.

Well hello Spero how nice to see you again.

I am immensely impressed with the document that you linked and can see how hard you and others have worked at de-bunking the myths about "forced adoption" that JH and IJ have consistently posted on MN. Thankfully JH is banned though I'm still not convinced OJ isn't JH - although his (or her) posts are somewhat lengthier than JH's which were mostly random comments of a couple of lines and usually unrelated to the issues raised. I once asked JH how many cases he and his organisation had managed to "turn around" in the sense that the LA's request for a Care/Placement Order was refused because of their intervention as McKenzie friends which of course is the only way they are allowed any involvement in care proceedings, and he replied yes he actually replied "We don't keep those numbers" - yeah right.

Any case he mentioned was always "in the court of appeal" - ah well enough of JH. OJ can I ask are you male or female - just wondered though of course it's not relevant to the issue. Here's another Question for you OJ have you read the links that Spero has posted?? If so, what are your views on the content? If you haven't read the links why not?

Icimoi hello - not sure if you have come across the likes of OJ and his/her ilk before, but if you haven't, you'll soon realise that attempting any kind of rational debate with them is futile, we just get more links to the DM......and on and on it goes. But we still try our best, and hope that others reading our posts won't be afraid to see their GP if they have mental health issues or to ask for support from Social Services.

Mind that support won't be forthcoming now, given the mighty axe that Cameron and his henchmen have swung at the budgets of all public services......and at the same time are expecting improved services. I really fear for the future of LA Social Services as they are suffering nationally from a serious shortage of experienced social workers and managers, high sickness rates (stress related illnesses) and high vacancy rates - some inner cities trying to run a service with 30% + vacancy rates. IF there is sufficient funding they can use agency social workers but this doesn't provide any consistency in practice. Most LAs have had to sell off the buildings where social workers used to work, and I hear from my ex colleagues who are still working that they are sitting in car parks with their laptops. Morale is at an all time low. And that was a Shire county where I spent some 25 years as a social worker and middle manager, so god help the inner cities. Small wonder there is a shortage of social workers.

In fact I have heard from very reliable sources that some LAs

cannot request that a court grant an Emergency Protection Order in cases where there is evidence that a child is being abused or neglected because they don't have sufficient funding to look after the child

Now THAT is a tragedy. What do you make of that OJ (not enough child snatchers and not enough money to get them "forcibly adopted")??

I share your frustration Spero at the gobbledygook responses that you got, following your request for information on this issue of "bonuses" paid to social workers. I know there are such things as "golden hellos" in order to recruit and retain social workers, but bonuses...........surely not. I'm 5 years out of practice now but I can honestly say that in my entire career the only "bonus/gift" that we received was in the summer of 1995 (I think) when there was a longish spell of warm weather, the Director in her wisdom dolled out free bottles of orange squash NB one bottle per team of approx. 10 social workers - god we were grateful!

Thanks Nana, I hope it is a genuinely helpful resource.

Its been a really interesting and really sobering journey from Feb today. I have read a lot more widely and spoken to a huge variety of people.

I read the Ray Jones book and watched the Baby P documentary which has given me more clarity about what is going wrong and why. The shift to more 'muscular' child protection, without the resources or the training to back it up.

256 children have died at the hands of their parents since Peter Connolley died but we are still spending our energies on arguing about conspiracies to take children from loving homes for no reason.

Its sad on so many levels.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to take children away from loving parents. I am sure there are mistakes made though, but also they are in the minority. As I said I've seen heroin addicted babies being given back to parents who are late visiting because they've needed to shoot up! I've seen a little boy not interact with his so called mother in A&E where he was brought by the SW after nursery alerted her to a burn which the mother had ignored. She wanted him off to nursery so she could get her methadone and find extra drugs.

Imo those children should have been taken away but SW were fighting to keep the children with these parents! I can't understand that and can't see these same SWs taking children away from apparently committed parents.

Mistakes are made. They are rare. Sally Phillips was a tragic mistake.

Most parents need not fear SWs. The baby P tragedy showed SWs trying to support the family, not break it up and take peter away. There does need to be more rigorous medical evidence and measures put in place to ensure children with medical vulnerabilities are not misdiagnosed as abuse.

www.forcedadoptionexposed.com/blog/#.VFVC0sldbRw

Why don't you answer the questions I raised OJ in my post instead of posting links about people who have had their children removed - and are using emotive terms "snatch and grab" etc etc. and children being "kidnapped" - says it all really.

Where is your evidence for your assertions ???

I know Spero I'm concerned that so many children are going to die at the hands of their parents/step-parents/relatives or be left in unsafe homes where they will undoubtedly be abused/neglected because of the total lack of resources in all aspects of service delivery.

Here's another Q OJ - are you concerned about the 256 children who have died at the hands of their parents since Peter Connelly - well are you?

0Justice, as you haven't responded to my request for evidence but have instead posted a link to a discredited website, I take it that you are acknowledging that you haven't got any evidence. Please, for your own sake, stay away from sites like that one, they won't help you at all.

Just giving alternatives to what the party line states on here Icimoi.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/shocking_abuse_of_power_by_child_3#comment-5536 (shocking story on there of corruption by the state with expert witness)

www.keepingfamiliestogether.org.uk/ (forced adoption conference video:

www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/09/30/adoptions-rise-26-department-education-figures-show/?cmpid=NLC (Adoptions rise by 26%, Department for Education figures show)

CFA timescale 26 week time limit means care applications being rushed through: www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/08/13/care-applications-reached-time-high-july-cafcass-reveals/?cmpid=NLC ..."focused attention" or overreacting?

The authorities waited 16 months to do anything about a paedophile doctor:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2761246/Paedophile-cancer-specialist-Myles-Bradbury-known-authorities-16-MONTHS-arrest-investigation-possession-child-abuse-images-abandoned.html
www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/10/01/six-10-social-workers-recommend-workplace/?cmpid=NLC (6 out of 10 social workers do not recommend their own workplace)

Even professionals speak out about social workers: www.frg.org.uk/ParentsForum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=70

Any expert who defends innocent parents accused of child abuse is vilified and hounded out: www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11094379/Shaken-baby-expert-faces-witch-hunt.htmlhtml

Social workers who fabricate evidence - the tip of a chilling iceberg? researchingreform.net/2014/01/08/social-workers-who-fabricate-evidence-the-tip-of-a-chilling-iceberg/

(And no, NanaNina, it doesn't matter how many times you say it (or stick to your consipiracy theory on it) I am not John Hemmings, nor connected to him, or any other names you cite. Have some )

Why won't you answer the Questions OJ - I can see you love these links but they don't prove anything. I haven't read them all (I don't read anything reported in the DM) One of your links highlights the rise in care proceedings It is true that after the death of Peter Connelly there was a significant increase in applications for Care Orders, or other Orders to secure a child's future e.g. Placement Orders, Special Guardianship Orders. The reason for this is simple - social workers who had children on their caseload about whom they were really concerned but thought they had insufficient evidence to prove in court that the children were being significantly harmed, held multi disciplinary case conferences and in collaboration with the LA lawyer made the decision that they would no longer take the risk of leaving the child in an unsafe home, lest the child on their caseload became "another Baby P" - and who can blame them. I believe they took the view that if a Judge refused to grant an Order to protect the child, then so be it, and the social worker could not be pilloried, as they always are in cases where children are seriously harmed or die at the hands of their parents.

One of your links is about the paedophile cancer care specialist - how is this related to your issue of "forced adoption" I wonder????

Another link details an article in Community Care about "social workers" who fabricated evidence, whereas this was in fact one social worker saying that she had talked to the child in question when in fact she hadn't done so, and gave reasons of work overload. Clearly this was wholly wrong and she was struck off - end of matter. However some person called Natasha (I think) goes on to comment that "we see this happening all the time........."

Q: Who are "we" and where is the evidence for these assertions??

You can't just keep posting links as evidence - it doesn't work like that.

I am assuming this Brendan Fleming is an associate of yours and I've only listened to the first few minutes of his speech - that was enough. He states that he represents parents in care proceedings and he never represents the LA - NO because LAs have their own lawyers, and when they do have to out source, in my experience they ensure that they commission a reputable firm of solicitors who are experienced in family law. Fleming goes on to warn people never to be represented by lawyers who work for the LA - he makes it sound as though it is possible for LA lawyers to represent parents in care proceedings, which is nonsense of course. Even if he means legal practices who are commissioned by the LA on occasions, he talks gibberish, saying that if they are representing the LA one day, and parents the next day it's obvious that there will be a conflict of interest. Surely even Fleming knows that this is nonsense, and that lawyers will "fight the corner" for their client, regardless of the identity of the client.

OK if I accept you aren't John Hemming, any chance at all that you can attend to the following issues that I have raised:

I will number them for clarity:

1. Given your liking for links, have you read the link provided by Spero if so, what are your views on the content. If you haven't read it, why not?

1. Spero gives us hard data. Apparently 256 children have died at the hands of their parents since the death of Peter Connelly. Are you concerned about the deaths of those children?

1. Are you concerned that there are some LAs who are unable to request permission of a court to remove a child who is suffering significant harm, as they have insufficient resources (both in terms of staff and funding) to properly look after those children?

1. Are you a man? (Optional)

0justice you may not be JH himself.

But you display exactly his refusal to consider anything other than his own agenda, his inability to answer a question and his complete disregard for who he might be terrifying with his dangerously skewed agenda.

So unless and until you can engage with any of the points we raise on the CPR site about the forced adoption issues I will treat you the same as I did JH.

Nana - I have had a very interesting discussion about the firm of Brendan Fleming with an ex client of theirs on Facebook. If even half of what she says is true, this firm should be shut down and I trust soon will be.

Natasha Philips of Researching Reform is also very dubious; she won't accept that Vicky Haigh was responsible for abusing her own child for eg. She is very much in JH's camp.

The point is, you can post official looking links for really anything you like. But repeating something wrong or biased doesn't give a flawed argument any more credibility. But it probably will terrify the desparate and vulnerable.

Yet again this type of thread which should be aimed at reassuring the OP and others like her and pointing towards agencies which support parents with MH issues, has been derailed by the spurious arguments of OJ (who is yet again on his soapbox) and others who should know better than to tangle with this man.

I will continue to tangle with these people - not because I am naive or stupid enough to think they will ever listen - but for all the people who lurk and who need reasurance.

I posted the link before, I will post it again. If you are reading what 0Justice is posting and you are afraid, please come and read what we say. There is another perspective. We are gathering helpful information on our Links and Resources page, hopefully there will be something that is useful.

www.childprotectionresource.org.uk