Cameron's adoptions idea

[2old2beamum]

Our fantasic PM has decided adoption procedures must be quicker. Many of my friends and I have adopted several children with disabilities (we have adopted 8 sadly 3 have died) With the savage cuts proposed I am concerned children with disabilities will be left to stagnate in care costing far more than on benefits. (1 DS cost £5000/wk in residential care 1994)

What I mean is that a few years ago a social worker came to me and explained how he was concerned that at times social workers would collude with the parents' solicitors to work out how to ensure that the parents lost their case. He explained how he had done this himself.

Not everyone is happy with the system as it stands. That includes people who work in it.

You could decide not to be an apologist for it.

So of course you took this matter further, given that this was an extremely serious allegation, meaning that lawyers were in effect acting fraudulently in taking public money and not doing their jobs? Moreover that they were acting criminally in attempting to mislead the court?

I must have missed that seering expose.

I'll stop being an apologist when you stop being a champion for every half baked nutters conspiracy theory and when you stop abusing your public position to defend the likes of Victoria Haigh.

I think thats a good deal.

SO JH is basing this ridiculous allegation about collaboration between social workers and lawyers for birth parents to ensure the parents lose the case, based on something he claims was a comment made by one social worker many years ago - wow that is one heck of a big sample and must surely demonstrate that this is routine practice. Do you think we've missed something here Spero??

What a pity you don't have time to reply to the rubbish that we post. Forgive me for thinking this, but could there be the remotist possibility that you are unable to respond, because you have no defence. There was a reasonable debate going on this thread until you seized on an opportunity to wade in, having caught a whiff that there was criticism about some of the psychological assessments presented in court. OK some of us have heard all your random posts before, and your failure to respond to any question that is posed. Quite how you have the temerity to post anything on here, knowing that any MN poster is free to read the link that Spero posted recently, where you were being heavily criticised by Lord Justice Wall.

OK one very very simple question which I promise won't take much of your valuable time:

Q Do you mind others reading the severe criticism by this High Court Judge in a particular case in Nottingham in which you were involved as a McKenzie friend.

A. Yes or No

Now can you manage that??

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116175/The-doctor-broke-families-Psychiatrist-damned-hundreds-unfit-parents-faces-GMC-probe.html

As you are posting at 2.29am I can only admire yout tenacity but am slightly worried about how fresh and alert you will be for all your constituents.

if only a small number of those allegations against Dr Hibbert are true, this is an appalling situation and I hope he is struck off.

There are corrupt and incompetent people in every walk of life. I agree the consequences for individuals and society at large are more serious if that corrupt individual is some one who wields considerable power, such as a doctor or a politician.

But how do you leap from that to a conclusion that the entire system is a corrupt machine, designed to snatch babies?

Do you stand by your accusation, now I think some two years old, that I and every other lawyer who represents parents are sock puppet stooges who do what the LA tell us to pay our mortgages?

Do you stand by your accusation, now I think some two years old, that I and
every other lawyer who represents parents are sock puppet stooges who do
what the LA tell us to pay our mortgages?
As usual you misrepresent my arguments.

Even in this thread I said:
"I know that there are some good lawyers out there. I advise people to use them. I also know (because I was told by social workers) that there are lawyers who act to undermine the parents (even if in theory instructed by them)."

and you have skewed that to me saying all lawyers are corrupt. I do not say "all lawyers are corrupt". What instead I say is that "some lawyers are corrupt". Because of the secrecy in the courts it is difficult to get regulatory action so nothing much happens about this. I do, however, tell people who I would trust.

No JH I haven't skewed your argument. You conveniently change it when you are challenged.

But thank you for that clarification.

One further one would assist.

Do you still believe Victoria Haigh was treated unfairly by the family court system and should have appealed the recent judgment against her?

So all the cases people have mentioned where SWs have got it disastrously wrong are one-offs, are they?

The case Squashedbanana mentioned will clearly not be. The vindictive, appalling SWs involved won't magically be professional and competent with every other family they deal with. If they can use force against children entirely without justice in that case, they'll have done it in others. Tearing a child out of its mother's arms because SWs have a bee in their bonnet - it shouldn't take years of litigation and repeated wrongdoing before a judge finally says 'enough'. It should have been blindingly obvious SWs were behaving entirely unprofessionally much earlier in the process. And the SWs involved should be disciplined and prevented from having anything to do with cases that may result in a child being taken into care ever again.

Doubt that will happen though. The Rochdale SWs are still working, even though they are proven perjurers who tormented children. 'Experts' are still causing children to be taken into care, even when they are unqualified, speaking outside any area of competence they may have, or up before their regulatory body.

This isn't about one case of wrongdoing, it's much broader than that. Of course there will be cases where children should be removed, but you can't use that to turn a blind eye to serious wrongdoing and illegality.

So are you saying that the system is deliberately corrupt as part of a state endorsed programme of child snatching?

JH I never read anything I read in the Daily Fail (woops Freudian slip there). I have not yet started to read my Sat Guardian but I am 99% certain that there will no mention of this matter.

However I am a little confused as the headline states "Psychiatrists damned hundreds as unfit parents.

The article continues "Dr Hibbert was paid hundreds and thousands of pounds by Social Services Dept, which tore their children from them." Then we hear of Miss A who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The point is made that staff at a previous residential centre saw no evidence of mental illness and none of bipolar disorder. This begs the question "How are staff at the residential assessment centre able to recognise mental illness especially one as complex as bipolar disorder These assessment centres are in the main staffed by unqualified workers and who certainly would not have any medical qualifications.

The article continues "After being confronted with this (I assume the case of Miss A) Dr Hibbert offered to surrender his licence, but this was rejected by the GMC who stillhad concerns about this Drs fitness to practice. I wonder who exactly confronted the Dr about Miss A.

The rest of the article concerns your own views, i.e. that you were alerted by a whistle blower, and that you had spoken to three or four other families who had had the same thing happen as Miss A. The hundreds seems to have been reduced to 3 or 4 families??

I note that you are requesting Ken Clarke for a full parliamentary inquiry.

You then continue to tell Parliament that " a number of people have complained, and that much of the decision making in care proceedings rests on reports from experts such as Dr. Hibbert. The fact is that you have no idea whatsoever what happens in care proceedings. I can tell you that the reality is nothing like your wild fantasies. However it is true to say that a consultant psychiatrist's report would carry a far amount of weight, but judges take into account all the reports, the evidence presented and the cross examinations before making a final decision on a child's future.

You then tell parliament "that the lack of transparency in the family courts leads to thousands of miscarriages of justice in care proceeedings.
So the article has jumped from hundreds to 3 or 4 to thousands

You continue "hundreds of parents in contact with Social Services Dept usually mothers and babies have been referred to this centre to be assessed. where is your evidence for this comment JH?? Clearly I have no idea whatsoever how many parents have been referred to this centre. I am assuming that this is a residential centre for parents where there is concern for their mental health and how this might impact on the care of a child.

Then comes the worst comment in the whole article from you that Dr Hibert was the hired gun of the LAs - LAs may well have paid a high price for the assessment (as all residential assessments are hugely expensive) but to claim as you do that there was collusion between Dr Hibbert and LAs to get children removed is an appalling allegation to make.

I sincerely hope Ken Clarke follows your request for a full parliamentary inquiry, and your allegation against SSDs can be proved to be false. However I think it highly unlikely that Ken Clarke will accede to your request, as I'm sure most MPs are well used to your outrageous allegations which will always be unfounded, as you are incapable of objective accounts, and only interested in those that you think support your conspiracy theory

I read the inset article about Miss A and I have to say it sounded like dramatic nonsense to me and I think any reputable newspaper would not print such an account. Miss A says "it seemed that no-one ever got out without their baby being taken away. You would see them crying and screaming and begging not to have their baby taken away" - this conjures up a vision of this Dr Hibbert collecting babies and storing them away from their mothers! I have no idea of the competence (or otherwise) of Dr Hibbert, but he must have been aware that the only person who can make a decision to permanently remove a child from their parents is a Judge.

The other thing that crosses my mind is why when it came to care proceedings that lawyers for the Birthparents were not fighting the corner for their clients and engaging in robust cross examination of Dr Hibbert.
(Ah - forgot they work hand in glove with the LA don't they as they hae to pay their mortgages)

Finally bipolar disorder is a very treatable mental illness and there are very efficient drugs to keep people stable. Hence a diagnosis of bipolar disorder from Dr Hibbert or any other psychiatrist would not necessarily mean that a mother with this condition would not be able to care for her child in a proper manner.

Now I know this is a long post JH and you are unable or unwilling to respond, unless you can fish out another link from a tabloid rag that you think supports your conspiracy theory, or a one line random comment, but this post is largely for the benefit of others who have not yet realised that you will not stop trying in every way possible to put forward your conspiracy theory and talk of miscarriages of justice in the family courts, of which you know nothing because thank god the court is still a private matter to protect the identity of the innocent child who is at the heart of these proceedings.

Coo what a long post JH - can you manage to read it - no thought not! I know your time is valuable and you probably need to read some more tabloids.

Spero said:

No JH I haven't skewed your argument. You conveniently change it when you >are challenged.

My argument was quoted from this thread. Hence I have not changed it when challenged. Instead your assertion was not true. Furthermore this is compounded by you claiming that I have changed the assertion when it is clear to any objective observer that I have not changed it.

Vicky Haigh does intend to appeal the decisions in respect of her care proceedings, but being imprisoned for 3 years makes this difficult.

the point about the family courts, however, is that it is very difficult to get error corrected and people normally just keep on making the same errors and those who are dreadful are not sacked.

I do think we do have too much of a tendency to scapegoat people. That drives a strong cover up mentality, but without openness as to error error continues.

That's the point, Nana. That they have been allowed to continue working for decades despite being liars who treated children with extreme cruelty, and have left those children harmed for life. That's what's wrong. It shows how corrupted the whole system is.

Edam quite how you arrive at the conclusion that the whole system is corrupt because of a few social workers in a particular area of the country made mistakes. It is so long ago that I have forgotten the exact details. I clearly recall having this debate before and I was castigated by you for not having the facts to hand. I suspect your allegations of lying social workers and children being subjected to cruelty are somewhat overstated.

Ok maybe you can answer these points.

1. Many people die in hospital as a result of medical error. Recently Stafford Hospital has been in the news with concern over their very high death rate in relation to other hospitals serving similar sized populations. There have been no suspensions or sacking of any medical staff. Do you believe on the basis of this hospital that all hospitals and the staff therein are corrupt

If not, can you explain your differing opinions.

1. The police have been found guilty of institutional racism in the Stephen Lawrence case (many years ago but then so was Rochdale) The PC who assaulted a newspaper man (Ian Tomlinson) at the G20 demonstrations, and his colleagues lied in the first instance by saying that they were defending themselves. They later got a GP who was already under investigation for serious concerns about his competence, to give a cause of death and he claimed that death was due to a heart attack. What the police didn't realise at the time was that the incident had been filmed and the video was in the public domain. This clearly showed the unprovocted attack by a police officer on Mr Tomlinson who was simply trying to make his way home. A post mortem was carried out which found that Mr Tomlinson's death was due to internal bleeding sustained by the viscous assault upon him. Most unusually the CPS agreed that a case should be brought before the courts and the PC pleaded not guilty, and the case was adjourned to Crown Court. It will be interesting to see the outcome. The only reason the IPCC had to take action was because of that video. Had that video not been made by a member of the public they would have continued with their lies.

Does this mean the whole police force is corrupt. If not, why not.

1. The police again a few years ago shot and killed an innocent man who they believed to be a suicide bomber. They lied again, with initial reports saying that this man (whose home had been under police surveillance) had jumped a barrier on an underground station, and was wearing a heavy padded jacket which could have been hiding a bomb. It later transpired that neither of these things were true. It was in fact the police that jumped the barrier, and according to witnesses on the tube train, the man was thrown to the floor of the train, surrounded by several armed police and shot several times. The man was innocent. No member of the police who were involved in this incident were suspended or sacked.

Again does this mean the whole police force is corrupt. If not, why not.

1. Recently a man was shot and killed by armed police whilst he was in the back of a taxi. Initial reports stated that the man was armed and his gun was found at the scene and again the police were acting in self defence. It later transpired that the man was not armed and the gun allegedly found at the scene belonged to the police. This was the reason for the riots across the country last year. No member of the police force has been suspended or sacked for killing an innocent man.

1. Back to the medics. Some 10,000 people per year die of cancer in this country because of incorrect diagnoses made by GPs or are referred to specialists too late for curative treatment. No medics are suspended or sacked for these matters.

Does this mean that the whole of the medical profession is corrupt. If not, why not.

I could go on but I hope I have made my point and will be most interested in your response.

I agree that JH has modified his approach in this thread about all lawyers being corrupt, for which I am grateful. But I would be interested to know as would NanaNina what has led to this modification.

He has expressed very clear views over the years that I and my colleagues are nothing but cogs in a machine to serve a corrupt system. I have no integrity and routinely screw over vulnerable parents to pay my mortgage.

I am very glad if JH is finally reneging from that position.

It is very sad. We all want the same things for children - that they grow up, safe, warm, fed and loved, free from fear, free from sexual abuse, free from parents who brainwash them against the other parent.

Yet JH and Edam etc want to put all their energies into proving that an entire system is deliberately, purposefully corrupt in order to snatch babies to order.

JH - on anotherofnthese threads one of your followers stated that children were taken into care so that they could be served up at paediophile sex parties attended by members of the judiciairy. do you believe that is happening?

I am sorry to have hi jacked the op's thread in this way, but I do think some things are worth saying, even if your audience can't or won't engage.

wow, this thread had gotten very personal and way beyond from the OP, which I actually had an opinion on.

Spero continues to claim that I have changed my position on the question as to whether or not all lawyers (or indeed social workers) are corrupt. I have made it very clear that I have not said that all lawyers are corrupt. There is no sense going further if Spero and nananina wish to continue to say things about me that are not true.

Neither of them have provided any evidence to justify their claims.

Spero said "JH has modified his approach in this thread about all lawyers being corrupt," How have I modified my approach. Where is the evidence that I have said anything different?