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.

MNHQ should seriously think about allowing such twisted views as those of OJ to be posted here. They are scare tactics and should t be allowed airspace on any other platform than the looney tune conspiracy theory he probably usually posts on.

Should not be allowed!

I think mumsnet have been pretty good and responsive to be honest. Since JH's drunken postings at the end of last year, there has been a marked decline in the kind of conspiracy theory threads that used to take up so much of my time! And those that start up have been dealt with pretty swiftly.

But I think it is helpful to have an opportunity to offer another perspective. there is so much insane stuff on the internet, some of it peddled by some people who look superficially quite respectable.

I too will continue to "tangle with these people" - it is wearing admittedly but still absolutely necessary. Thing is OJ and his ilk do not break the MN Talk Guidelines, and censorship is a tricky issue. I don't understand why JH as an elected MP is allowed to get away with spouting all his bullshit, I really don't. Efforts have been made to alert Nick Clegg to no avail.........I suspect he's just seen as a bit of a buffoon and no one takes any notices of what he says, but I still think it's deplorable that someone in his position can tell such lies, with impunity. He also admits to funding parents who are involved with children's services in relation to issues of child protection, to "flee the country" and in so doing is creating a risk to the child's wellbeing. He and others like him care nothing for children though, only parents and that in my view is really sickening. Grinding their bloody axes for god only knows what reason.

SO come on OJ - we're waiting for you to answer the questions - no links thank you. Just answer the questions I posed. They are mostly Yes/No answers, surely you can manage that............

The real losers are the parents/step-parents of children who have been removed from their care by a court Order and who turn to JH and that wholly unprofessional solicitor Brendan somebody or other that OJ posted. These parents will naturally think that an MP and a solicitor can get their children returned to them, when in reality this is not the case. I have no issue with lawyers/barristers "fighting the corner" for birthparents in care proceedings and have had the dubious pleasure of being cross examined by these professionals for 3 or 4 hours at a time. As an independent social worker carrying out a parenting assessment on behalf of the court and with the agreement of all parties and the Judge, it is a very lonely place, as of course I had no legal representation. However evidence needs to be tested as there is nothing more important than a child's future life.

OJ - I await your response to my Qs - with baited breath............

Nana, you may be interested in this...

Look for Martin Narey's comment about JH. It made me laugh anyway.

storify.com/SVPhillimore/what-kind-of-debate-should-we-be-having-about-chil

Thanks Spero but unfortunately my IT skills are somewhat limited and I have to confess to not understanding Twitter at all! I have signed up for it, but just don't get it......... but I did see a comment from Martin Narey that it "wasn't worth worrying over JHMP because he'll be John Hemming in May........to think he only got that seat because the competent Labour MP Estelle Morris resigned. Mind I did see something very funny - I went on JH's stuff and found a video when he was making a speech in the House of Commons on transparency (or something) and when the speaker called his name, there was a mass exodus from the House, a veritable scramble to get out! Even the very few remaining were talking to each other or catching up on their paperwork - but the bloated buffoon carried on and on..........I couldn't bare more than a few minutes but he'd managed to get on to care proceedings very swiftly........the whole thing was 13 minutes by which time I suspect rigor mortis would have set in with the few remaining MPs in the House. Says it all really. I'd love to see him lose his seat.

Looks like the link-loving OJ has run out of links, or he might at this very moment be scanning back copies of the DM to find some "evidence" to make the scales fall from our eyes..........

Dear god I've just been looking at Brendan Fleming's website. I can hardly believe what I'm reading........he is talking about social workers having the power to remove children, and that pre-birth case conferences are decided on the "balance of probabilities" and the court stage can be by-passed...........social workers will use "exactly the same arguments that they used to remove other children in the family" - very emotive language and most sickening of all, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is totally unconcerned with the needs of the child/ren but like JH is only concerned with the "rights" of the parents.

It is beyond shocking.

Right OJ are you in fact Brendan Fleming??

Can anyone help me? I am currently homeless and have also had history of depression. I recently received a visit from midwife and health visitor, feigning help. Yet after they left, I received a call saying that they had to talk to Children's Services about me.. does this mean that if I am still homeless when my baby is born they can try and take her from me? I'm getting worried and if they have this in mind, I want to know so I can get away before they do this...

In the circs you describe, they will have to make a referral to Children's Services. But they can't take your child away just because you are homeless. Their first duty is to try and help and support you to keep your child. If you try to disappear that will raise immediate alarm bells and may well end up causing the scenario you fear.

Ask them for help. You don't get punished for asking for help. No one can take your child away from you if you don't consent without a court order or by the police using their powers.

Fay what Spero says is right. When you say you are homeless, do you mean you are staying with someone but don't have a home of your own, as opposed to being "on the street" - either way, I think you need to go to your local Housing Department because I think if you're pregnant, you are in priority need under the terms of housing legislation which means that they have to find accommodation for you. The first thing children's services should do is to support you in getting the council to find accommodation for you, so if and when they get in touch, ask them to help you find somewhere to live. Be aware though that if the council think you have a "roof over your head" they may not treat you as "homeless" so you'd need to make it clear that you have to leave by (give a specific date - say in 7 days time)

There are very few council properties available and the local councils are having to put people in private rented accommodation, or even B & Bs sometimes, but this should only be a temporary measure. It does depend on where you live but there is a shortage of council accommodation nationwide. The best people to advise about homelessness is Shelter - you could have a look at their website and they have a phone line but it's usually busy. You could try CAB for advice too.

Being homeless and having a history of depression are not reasons for Children's Services to request permission of a court to remove your baby. Remember, that regardless of what you read on here by scaremongers, social workers do not have any power to remove your child but they can apply to the court for an Order to do that, but they have to be able to prove that your child is being significantly harmed or is likely to suffer significant harm. Are you getting treatment for the depression? Is this your first child - have you had any previous involvement with Children's Services? Are you very young - do you have any family/friends to support you? Sorry for all the Qs - just trying to give the best advice I can. When is the baby due?

These men who post rubbish on here about social workers snatching babies for adoption are talking nonsense - believe me. IF children's services make contact, then do co-operate with them and ask for their support.

Nana, if Brendan Fleming's website is seriously misleading, might it be worth reporting it to the Law Society?

That's a brilliant idea ichimoi. I have been trying to persuade someone who has posted some truly shocking stuff about this firm on facebook, to go public but she is trying to get her children back, so I accept that's a big ask.

But if the website is that bad, a complaint is in order - I will go ferreting...

Rather than having to scan through several long posts to pick out odd questions, if someone can post one short reply with a summary of your questions, if I am able to answer them I will.

Until then, this tiresome belief that I am JH or connected to him or any other of these people I have never heard of, will be summarily ignored as pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theories based on the erroneous belief that only JH and a tiny contingent of others believe or suspect that there is a problem with forced adoptions.

One that I believe was asked was whether I care about the abused children who could not be adopted due to lack of resources. The answer is of course I do, but as I have previously said, if LAs spent less time investigating and persecuting innocent parents then there would automatically be additional resources for the genuinely abused children, even if it didn't make enough to save all of them. I would also question whether LAs are properly investigating and accepting the suitability of extended family members or family friends to adopt or care for some of those children, either short or long term. I would also question whether if families with children at risk of abuse or neglect were given the right support at the right time, this would also ameliorate a substantial number of tragic cases. There will always be some circumstances where parents are just unfit to parent, will always be unfit and no amount of support will change that and there are no family members to take over the parenting of their children so adoption is likely the only option. But not only are the justifications for adopting becoming smaller and smaller, but they are being abused by the might of the state which relies on the human element to get it right. Here are some more links:

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7870342/Forced-adoption-is-a-truly-dreadful-scandal.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7931828/Britains-forced-adoptions-the-hidden-scandal-we-cant-ignore.html

www.ibtimes.co.uk/forced-adoption-uk-child-protection-punishment-without-crime-1458364

www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/

www.forcedadoptionexposed.com/blog/#.VFZsUclFuyN

I also reiterate what I said further up the thread, there are some decent SWs out there, but nowhere near enough and it is a risk as to whether someone ends up with a decent one or not, so people should protect themselves by having witnesses and recording everything for their protection. There are just way too many people having shocking experiences with social services that shouldn't be happening. So whilst people should not be entirely dissuaded from seeking social care help if they need it, they should definitely protect themselves and not be naive, just like wearing a life jacket when on board a boat. I haven't tried to scare anyone, just to warn people to take those aforementioned steps, having to reply constantly to people intent on ridiculing JH and other people (who I have no comment either way on, so why people are intent on attacking him I have no idea because I won't be mounting any defence) has distracted from that fact and it has become a fiasco of some people insisting I am JH or someone connected to him. I would further point out that there have been points I have made and links I have posted which also have not been responded to, so it goes both ways. I can't be bothered to feed back through the thread to pick them out, but I wasn't the one who started commenting on not answering questions.

Furthermore, it has also happened in Australia www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3328313.htm so why state that it couldn't possibly be happening here?

theconversation.com/uk/topics/forced-adoption

theconversation.com/we-remove-kids-from-abuse-and-neglect-but-are-they-better-off-in-the-long-run-32686

philthompsonfamily.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/packaging-un-believable-facts-about-child-care-and-forced-adoptions-for-meps-and-press-in-brussels/

Back to the UK: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265416/Glimmer-hope-parents-court-halts-forced-adoption-18-month-old-daughter.html
^"Social workers behaved like officials in 'Stalin's Russia or Mao's China' in attempting to remove children from loving mothers, senior judges have said.

They warned that social workers in two separate cases tried to put children in foster care without giving their mothers a proper chance to prove they were fit parents."^

akashictimes.co.uk/parents-launch-petition-against-forced-adoption/

^"Over 50 children die each week in care." "The UK is the only country to restrict conversation between parents and children in care and gag parents whose children have been taken into care.

This is even acknowledged on the government website parliament.co.uk. Britain is also the country in Europe (apart from Croatia and Portugal) to tolerate the practice of forced adoption."^

Why else do you think there is such an outcry and petitions being started? Do you think all those parents were abusers who just couldn't admit the truth? Guilty people with something to hide don't usually make a fuss.

Ok, answer just this one question.

You claim 50 children a week die in care.

Please identify the source of this statistic. Its not one I am familiar with. I am however familiar with the NSPCC statistic about the number of children who die each week at home, at the hands of a parent or carer.

Well now OJ that's not a complicated question is it. I look forward to your response, without any more links.

On the question of links I note that you have included one by Christopher Booker. He details comments made by Lynn Boleyn a former local councillor in Dudley and states she became concerned about forced adoption when she sat on many committees on child care. He states that "she was in court recently with a mother of 5 children" and goes on to detail how the children were removed by a court without good reason. I've googled her and her concerns are based on the fact that 6 families contacted her when she was a councillor whose children had been removed by the Court and the LA had initiated care proceedings. Ms Bolyen states:

"I am convinced that those families were well able to properly care for their children..........." now call me an old cynic but I have to wonder just how Ms Bolyen arrived at that conclusion, given that she never actually saw the children in the company of their parents, and was in any event in no position to be able to assess whether in fact the children were being significantly harmed. Believe it or not the assessment of parenting capacity is a very skilled task, and sometimes social workers unsurprisingly get it wrong, but by leaving children too long in homes where they are not safe NOT by taking the wrong *children.

I intend to contact Ms Boleyn to see why as an ex councillor she sees fit to pass details of cases to Christopher Booker - there is quite a lot of detail including the ages and geographical location of the families and I consider this could be a serious breach of confidentiality.

Now I don't want to confuse you OJ as Spero has already asked you one question, but here's another:

Q: Have you ever been in court for the final hearing of a case where the LA have made application for a Care/Placement Order. These cases often take 4/5 days, where all of the evidence is heard from all professionals involved in the case, and cross examined by counsel for the parents.

A Yes or NO answer will do.

If Yes - On what basis were you present in court?

Come on OJ stop looking for links and answer the 2 questions. Mine's a really easy Q but you might have a bit more difficulty with Spero's as evidence isn't one of your strong points is it..........maybe you're hoping for more posts and then you can say you're not "going to bother trawling back" ........

@Spero, that was clearly a quote from the link above it. I'm not responsible for the link or it's contents, just raising awareness of it's existence so people can make up their own minds. That's not a question either!

@NanaNina - so you don't think getting it wrong when SWs wrongly remove children is abusive or damaging to the children? I've heard it all now.

As for posting links - what are you so afraid of?

I don't intend to answer your unnecessary probes, they are not valid questions and not what I am posting about. Fishing is for fishermen. You're getting very bitter. In fact so bitter that you're continuing to ignore the actual point of what I said about not answering everything I have pointed out and instead are just resorting to sarcasm as the lowest form of defence...tut tut. Like I said, have some

Sorry, its very difficult to follow all your links.

Where do you get that statistic from? I simply don't believe it. Who has calculated that statistic?

Help me out.

Well I have the answer to my Q OJ - as I suspected you have never been in Court to hear what actually goes on at a final hearing where all the evidence is heard and cross examinations take place and when the Judge makes a decision about whether to grant an Order or not. Pity. You might be surprised, because at least you would see how counsel for the parents fight their case with great rigour and determination (that is an observation not a criticism) and cross examine witnesses for significant periods of time (2/3 hours sometimes) in the hope that they can find flaws in the LA's case.

I don't understand your comment "so you don't think getting it wrong when social workers wrongly remove children is abusive or damaging to the children...?" You constantly talk of social workers wrongly removing children from their parents - I keep on telling you that social workers have:
no power whatsoever to remove children be it the right or wrong course of action

NB Only a court can grant an Order allowing children to be removed from their parents

Police can remove children under the terms of the Police Protection Order for a maximum of 72 hours, though in practice the child will either be returned home or the LA will apply to the court for an emergency protection Order (EPO) and they will need to have evidence to support their application and the parents will be present and will be entitled to legal representation.

Of course it's emotionally harmful if children are removed from parents when it was not necessary, but I don't know of any actual cases, so I can't comment, though I am aware that this can happen in a minority of cases. ALL professionals make mistakes from time to time.

We are now being accused of "getting bitter" - I think you mean that we are asking for you to provide evidence for your assertions which you are unable to do of course. Posting links detailing alleged "miscarriages of justice" don't prove anything because we are only hearing one side of the story, and of course parents are aggrieved when a Judge makes a decision that the child will not be safe if he/she is returned home and will complain to whoever will listen. And there are lots of "willing ears" - John Hemming, Christopher Booker, Ian Joseph, Brendan Fleming and you, and many others no doubt. What is it with you men. It's all a bit creepy in my opinion. The LA Children's Services cannot of course give their side of the story because of the need for strict confidentiality which is wholly right, but it does mean that anyone can post all sorts of inaccurate information, without a shred of evidence, and people who read the DM and the tabloids will believe every word.

I don't intend to answer your unnecessary probes, they are not valid questions and not what I am posting about. Fishing is for fishermen. You're getting very bitter.

I think most people would agree the child protection is in crisis or heading towards crisis very quickly. I note the Kids company campaign See the Child, the recent decisions of the President of the Family Division about cuts to legal aid leaving families facing adoption proceedings with no legal help, the fact that Community Care reports the majority of social workers think they have unsafe levels of cases.

There is a vocal minority of people who insist however that the real reason the system is in crisis is because there is a government sponsored plot to steal blonde haired blue eyed babies from loving homes to meet adoption targets. A lot of energy is wasted pursuing this conspiracy theory.

Do you understand how frustrating it is to watch this waste of time and energy? And it isn't just a waste - it has nasty consequences for the desperate and vulnerable families who believe it and who go on to do something very stupid, like refuse to co-operate or leave the county.

I am not bitter. I am just fed up with it all. But thank you 0Justice and all the others like you because you did encourage me to put my energies to better use.

Will you read and comment upon this post?
www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/forced-adoption/

Can you tell me what we have got wrong there, what you don't agree with? What would you like us to include instead?

You see, if you are unable or unwilling to enter into a debate or you think a debate is posting links from 2008 written by Sue Reid in the Daily Mail, you are nothing to do with any solutions, you are just a big part of the problem.

If you don't like the CPR site, here's another link for you.
www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/31/government-washing-hands-legal-aid-chris-grayling

Huge, huge problem that parents can't get legal aid in adoption cases, wouldn't you agree?
Or would you instead say that all lawyers in these cases are just 'legal aid losers' in bed with the LA?

@Spero, I already stated the statistic was from the relevant link. It is therefore not my statistic. You are welcome to click the link and message the author/quoter and ask them.

My comments about bitterness/sarcasm were e.g. this comment by NanaNina "Now I don't want to confuse you OJ". (so no, NanaNina, it's got nothing to do with evidence but everything to do with how you present yourself).

I don't think it's all about "blonde haired and blue-eyes children", that may be comments by some at the more extremist end of views about forced adoptions.

Regarding your link: "It is further alleged that family courts are secret" in what way alleged - you know they are closed courts with gagging orders. I'm also not claiming categorically that "adoption targets" are the cause of the problem. But I do believe, that there is a moral panic scenario gripping countries such as the UK, there is a prescriptive attitude to how people should parent, that reasons to intervene are getting smaller and smaller and that whether it is the blame culture, incompetence or corruption, or a mix of all three, many adoptions should not happen that do. Systems may be set up with good intentions, but they are at the mercy of the humans that use them and people are very often corrupt. Money does, as they say, also make the world go round and if someone wants justification they will find it. I have personal experience of social workers grossly lying, and on record too. So I do know it happens. Reading many stories of others out there, with parallel experiences. "I reckon the error here..." not a scientific comment and the author admits to not having all the figures. This amounts to supposition. "Or we have a child protection system that is often inefficient and/or overwhelmed by case loads? where mistakes are made, but rarely due to deliberate malice?" Whatever the reason, it should NOT be happening! "But that of course does not mean the system is perfect. Far from it. If 80% of cases are ‘right’ we still have 20% which are not and that is worrying." Even by your own figures, that is extremely worrying. I haven't read the whole page, but enough to see that even you have concerns, it's just about denying the conspiracy element.

I do think that parents being denied legal aid puts them at a huge disadvantage. So if the LA ends up funding their lawyers, how can they be sure they are independent? How can they be sure they won't bite the hand that feeds them?

@NanaNina, then how do you explain the links I posted with cases where children were removed by the court decisions and later returned with another judge saying they should never have been removed (just for one example), amongst those links are cases where they were wrongly removed for periods such as 14 months?

I didn't comment either way as to any response to your question, although it is your prerogative to assume what you wish.

"What is it with you men" Strange comment seeing as I don't believe I have stated my gender.

"Of course it's emotionally harmful if children are removed from parents when it was not necessary, but I don't know of any actual cases, so I can't comment" but you are happy to comment that it doesn't happen and there is no problem with forced adoptions. Even if such an "error" happened in only one case, that is one family irretrievably damaged, a child growing up wondering what they did wrong to be ripped from their family and no guarantees that the family/home they are placed with won't actually be an abusive environment. You cannot undo that damage. What about the scores of children being sexually abused whilst in care homes? It's all been in the media and you know it has happened and you know cover-ups happened. So yes, state abuses are covered up, and denied all the time. So you are on shaky ground denying the forced adoption issue and may find you end up eating some humble pie.

Thanks for responding thoughtfully Ojustice. I do think this is a much better way to highlight issues of concern than simply throwing out a lot of links of dubious provenance.

So what do we do? I think we agree there is a problem, maybe we disagree about the root of the problem.

Did you see the Baby P documentary on the BBC on October 27th? Together with the Ray Jones book I found that a very worrying narrative about how the desire to shift blame has led to awful consequences for child protection - the move to a more 'muscular' system of child protection, rather than supporting families, but not giving SW the time, training or support to do a good job.

Do you think the push for getting more graduates into SW via the Frontline scheme is going to help at all?

Well, I have always responded thoughtfully, I haven't simply posted links, I have posted at length (as even NanaNina has admitted). As to the provenance of the links, as I said before, there is no smoke without fire. All the links I provided, go hand-in-hand with multiple stories out there of parents who have suffered this, they can't all be lying and as I said a couple of posts up, people with something to hide (e.g. abuse or neglect) are hardly going to make waves about their case. So trashing the links (some of which are from broadsheet newspapers, and newspapers do have to be very careful what they print in case they are sued) is not the way to go either.

I think we have to remain open-minded about the root of the problem, to deny there is forced adoption or to deny that it could possibly be a conspiracy of some sort is to close doors to possibilities. Until the full truth is exposed we must consider it is an option. As I said, I have been party to the lies of social workers, outrageous ones, and several from one department, so yes, conspiracies do happen. Whether it extends as far as deliberate conspiracy with expert witnesses and lawyers remains to be seen, but there is most definitely a gravy train. If someone is paying you, you aren't going to want to give them the opposite of what they are paying for are you.

I didn't see that documentary, TBH I find those sorts of thing soul-destroyingly depressing, I am already more aware than I wish to be about the failings of the state and the corruption within the state, and sometimes it's just too damaging to not see any light in one's world view. You need to have a stop point.

Regarding Frontline, I don't have sufficient information to be able to comment either way, but I have seen this: www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/10/26/group-academics-criticises-frontline-evaluation-worrying-lack-clarity/?cmpid=NLC|SCSC|SCNEW-2014-1029

I think whatever is going on with the shifting of blame you refer to, there is most definitely a culture of blame within not only social services but medical and educational services within the UK. Parents are largely not respected, they are treated as the enemy and social services particularly go looking for blame, not looking for what they can provide to help people. There will always be exceptions to that of course and I'm not pretending there aren't, but despite the friendly face that some SWs present, that can be totally at odds with the lies they are recording in the background. I would urge all parents who feel uncomfortable, threatened or wrongly blamed by social services to get copies of their child's files under a Subject Access Request, and ensure to request that it includes all electronic and handwritten notes and communications too as well as logs of phone calls and running sheets. You need to know what you are fighting if it comes to it. If you find inaccuracies, incorrect statements or lies, you can get it put in writing on file and also get things corrected by complaining officially, contact the ICO if necessary and if complaining via the LA doesn't ensure remedy go to the LGO. I don't buy this attitude that opinions cannot be amended because they are opinions, if those opinions are being used in CP cases then it is vital that they are factually correct. There is no place for a blame culture, social services are just that services, and in the words of LJ Munby, they are servants not masters to those they are meant to support.