UK forced adoptions of foreign nationals

[Hummingbirds]

This is sick! How come in Slovakia the media has reported on this extensively and they've had demonstrations outside the British embassy yet here in the UK there's been almost total silence? With a few honourable exceptions including journalist Christopher Booker and MP John Hemming.

"... The case that goes to the Appeal Court this week concerns two young boys, Slovakian subjects, whose parents have lived and worked in Britain since their country joined the EU in 2004. Two years ago, when the parents took one of their sons to hospital to enquire about a minor infection, social workers were alerted that it might be the result of a 'non-accidental injury'. The boys were put into the temporary care of the family's American pastor, who describes how social workers then arrived with three police cars to remove the children, screaming as they were torn from their horrified mother and grandmother, to an official foster home.

"Thus began a protracted legal battle, involving many court hearings, four different social workers, seven 'expert' doctors and psychologists, 16 interpreters, 13 different 'contact supervisors' and dozens of lawyers. Initially the local authority seemed happy to contemplate that the children might be returned to live with their grandmother in Slovakia, but the social workers of a council that advertises its enthusiasm for adoption on its website then suggested to the foster carers that they might like to adopt the boys.

"By now the Slovak authorities were involved and could see no reason why the children should not come back to live with their grandmother. But earlier this year a judge found in favour of the council, ruling, to the astonishment of the Slovak authorities, that the boys should be adopted."

"The case has attracted widespread media interest in Slovakia, and the Slovak justice ministry has posted on its website a 'Declaration on adoption of Slovak children in the UK', stating that it has such 'serious concern' over the workings of Britain's 'family protection' system, and the readiness of the British authorities to remove children from their 'biological parents' for 'no sound reason', that its representative on the ECHR plans to challenge the legality of Britain's policy in Strasbourg."

"... the Slovak media claim to know of some 30 other Slovak children taken from their parents."

Read the full Telegraph article

Spero,

Haven't been here for a while but last time I recall JH was aking a formal complaint. Anything ever happen with that?

Yes, he made a formal complaint to the Bar Standards Board, saying I had bought my profession into disrepute. They did not uphold his complaint.

I should think not. Bizarre.

Spero, thanks for linking to that article. I read it this morning and was going to do the same thing - paste it on here and say, "Now, THIS is what we should be talking about".

Bottom line is it is not about conspiracies or pushy middle class adopters or a vendetta against the poor. It's about resources. About an overstretched system struggling to cope in the face of overwhelming need, staff shortages, a top-down process-driven culture. And about pitifully inadequate support services for struggling families. I was struck by the mention of parents with learning disabilities who could, with adequate support, be able to cope. Because 'adequate support' is the million dollar question, isn't it? Adequate support costs, and it's long term, and though it sounds simple it is fantastically hard to deliver in this current climate.

Agree. But it's not very sexy is it? And not likely to contribute to the self aggrandisement of Hemmng. Thus will not be 'debated' here. Which is a shame.

Resources are certainly a cause of problems but we have had very very few advocates for parents suffering injustice and we need many many many more, not fewer just as we need people shouting out loud about bad state schools. That does not mean one is criticising all social workers or teachers most of whom do a good job.

We need about 1000 John Hemmings really as a starting point and to change some rules, much much less secrecy and more open hearings.

Be careful what you wish for.

You might get it.

One thing that puzzles me about all this is why johnhemmings keeps losing in court.
I havent ever spoken to an MP in my life, but here goes.
Can I ask you John Hemmings MP, why you think you keep losing in court?
Perhaps you win other cases, I dont know.

Speaking as somebody who has been suspected, quite unfairly, of abuse and of causing dd considerable medical harm, I am still not convinced that what I want is 1000 John Hemmings and a ban on adoptions.

What I do want is more or less what I got (in those days of an NHS that was not stretched to breaking point): careful investigation by a range of different professionals, referrals to experts, people who could take the time to talk to dd (with and without us present) and find out what was really going on.

Because, frankly, if there had been a chance that we were causing dd's condition by deliberately hurting her, or even by just refusing to learn to parent sensibly, then that should have been flagged up. And if after being chances to change we proved unable or unwilling to change, then dd should have been given another chance to have a decent quality of life. If we had been causing her disability and pain- as some parents undeniably do- then she would have been better off without us. As that poor asthmatic girl was better off without parents who just lied to the doctors about the treatment they were administering. Or the parents who hurt their children to cause medical symptoms: some have been caught on CCTV, in some cases the children have spoken out as adults. The fact that suspicions of Munchausen by Proxy have sometimes proved to be unfounded does not make the behaviour a myth (though whether it should be called a syndrom is debatable). Sexual abuse is not a myth either. We were suspected of that, too.

Yes, it was a horrible experience and I don't suppose I will ever quite get over it. We have certainly suffered damage as a family. But I don't want another child to die for that. Or be stuck in an abusive situation. Or be seriously disabled from a condition that could easily be manageable with proper care.

Cory I am sorry to hear what you went through.

There is usually a thorough investigation when a child suffers an injury which others fear is non accidental.

John Hemming has frequently asserted that parents are not allowed to challenge experts, and that all experts are paid for by the LA and are not independent.

I think this is an interesting case, and hopefully reassuring to anyone who thinks that JH is right. He is not. And that is one of many reasons why a thousand of him is an appalling prospect.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1477.html

cory, I do not know you or your background.
What you posted was a brave post.

Spero.
I want to be on the side of John Hemmings MP.
But I am alarmed at how many cases he seems to be involved in , where the judge has ruled the other way.
Do you know the numbers of cases he has been involved in that have gone in his favour, and how many against? Do you know rough numbers at all?
I am assuming that the MP will not have time to be able to be on here again until the weekend to answer any of this?

I agree that Cory's post was brave. It is exactly the kind of input into this debate we need to have. There is a risk that it turns into two polarised positions - the system is great! v the system is corrupt!

neither of course is true, but the more time we waste defending such polarised positions, the less time we have to grapple with what is really going on.

I am very worried about JH because he uses his position as an MP to give weight to what he says, and a lot of what he says is simply untrue. If believed, it will cause a lot of fear and distress to vulnerable parents facing care proceedings and could put children at risk of really serious harm - for example he has said repeatedly on this website and on many other places that parents are better off leaving the country than co-operating with social workers.

this article may help you understand why he worries me www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/08/hemmingsway

As far as I know, none of the cases he has taken to the European Court have been unpheld in his favour. He seems to throw his weight behind entirely unsympathetic cases - google 'Vicky Haigh' and you will see what I mean. He simply cannot accept that this woman brainwashed her daughter into believing that her father sexually abused her. He seems to have no understanding of the harm done to that child. He instead continues to maintain she is a victim of this 'corrupt' system.

I agree that the vulnerable need a champion. I just think it is a great shame that it is JH who has emerged as such a self proclaimed champion. He gets in the way of a proper debate about what we can do to keep the very difficult balance between parents' and children's rights.

Didnt know he has a website.
I will have a look at that.

Approx how many cases has he taken to the European Court?

I am afraid I don't know. He has definitely taken the 2008 case of RP that I linked to below - that was rejected. He claims to have taken others, but I haven't got the case names so can't search.

No doubt if I am wrong about his track record, he can correct me and link to any judgments in his favour. But I am sure I would have read about them, as they would have been very big news for family lawyers.

And btw, he seems to have an awful lot of time to comment on these kind of threads - he pops up all times of the day and night. It makes me wonder what kind of deal his consitutents are getting.

I am not saying he doesn't have the right to campaign about what he wants - but it sticks in my throat that he takes the salary of an MP to do this - its public money.

I think John Hemming is doing exactly what he should do -talk with ordinary people and champion free speech. He is fighting for parents and children and all of us. His work regarding the Jersey child abuse case is particularly commendable.

From wiki on John:
He is an opponent of super- and hyper-injunctions,[10] and in March 2011, used parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of a super-injunction granted to former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Fred Goodwin during a sitting of the House of Commons.[11][12] Following an incident in May 2011 in which the names of celebrities who had allegedly taken out superinjunctions were revealed on Twitter, he commented: ?There is a lot to learn from the USA where freedom of speech is enshrined in their constitution. Where the courts are trying to keep state secrets and Twitter is on the other end, Twitter will win."[13] On 23 May 2011 during a Commons debate he mentioned Ryan Giggs as the footballer involved in one privacy injunction.[14][15] In the final meeting of the Commons before the session closed for summer recess, he mentioned details of an injunction and alleged cover-up involving a doctor employed by a Welsh NHS trust. The said doctor is accused by a fellow doctor and surgical assistants of performing surgeries on cancer patients beyond his expertise, against guidelines and in so doing, endangering the lives of patients.[16][17]
Hemming also aided the case of financial journalist Leah McGrath Goodman, who was banned from the UK for two years during her reporting work on the Jersey child abuse investigation 2008 and Haut de la Garenne. The ban was reduced to one year after his actions on behalf of her. He also made a motion in 2012 regarding St Helier Parish Deputy[18] Trevor Pitman's petition to have her UK Visa restored[19]

I personally dont have a problem with MPs coming on here.
I do have a problem with them going into the jungle.

fwiw, I think he is probably right on some things and wrong on others.
A doctor endangering lives, being exposed, definitely.
A footballer or whoever maybe having an affair, I dont really see why people have to know this. Unless say, they were for example, promoting family values for instance. Even then, not sure.

I have been busy and only noticed the end of this. As a Mackenzie Friend/Lay Adivisor I have personally won one judicial review, one criminal court of appeal case where I got a constituent released from a 5 year jail sentence and one family court court of appeal case. All were cases where I initially prepared the paperwork although other people have been involved. The RP case continues. She wants to apply to the grand chamber. I work with a number of other lay advisors who have both won and lost cases.

I do, however, have parliamentary duties that prevent me from spending that much time handling cases personally or indeed posting on Mumsnet.

I do realise that if dd was little and undiagnosed today our chances of a happy outcome would be smaller. With the council laying off large numbers of social workers and the NHS stretched to breaking point, who would have the time to engage with her for long enough to understand the real root of her problems? I am worried for the children who will fall between chairs because they were born in the wrong decade

tbh except for those cases where the parents cooperate with each other and the investigating authority (as we did) I struggle to see how you are going to manage situations of potential abuse without an adversarial system

In the Vicky Haigh case there were two possibilities:

*either the child was sexually abused by the father as the mother claimed

in which case the child had come to harm and would be exposed to further harm unless protected from the father

*or else the child was being brainwashed by the mother into believing she had been abused when she hadn't

in which case it seems pretty obvious that the child had come to harm and would be exposed to further harm unless protected from the mother (how much good would it do you to depend for your mental and emotional development on somebody who was unhinged enough to do something like that?)

The only chances of protecting the child would seem to be to find out where the danger lay.

As John Hemmings rightly pointed out, an adversarial system always risks making the wrong decision. We might even be extremely pessimistic and call it a 50% risk.

But if there is no such system, wouldn't that just mean exposing the child from potential risk from either the father or mother- making it pretty well a 100% risk?

If the courts made no efforts to find out if Haigh's allegations were true, they would have no right to deny the daughter access to her father, a potential sexual abuser. Or what other principle should one apply? Always trust the mother?

In our case, our daughter was either ill or abused. The authorities needed to know which so that she could either be protected or treated. Leaving things alone would not have helped her in any way, it would have left her where she was: unhappy and in pain. Was that a price worth paying for our peace of mind? I don't think so.

Agree with Flatbread.

In all areas where people have power it is a very good idea to have a lot of people interfering with that, checks and balances and openness as that makes it harder for an injustice to be done.

At the core of the same issue is the fact that in other areas our courts often disagree with Government which is constitutionally a very good thing although then we get those fun conflicts when courts say you must not say X and an MP says X. We also get great court decisions about important issues which require Government to change its laws. That is just one small illustration of the same point - having people who are disconnected and independent criticising those with power in whatever area it might be. The internet also gives that power to ordinary people including power to record people chucking cats into bins or a child can film its parent bashing it and upload it. A huge force for good on the whole.

We certainly need evidence capable of challenge. Most parents do not have the resources to challenge thing. The same issues arise with child contact after divorce too it being very hard to cut a child in two as King Solomon knew all those years ago.

I agree with you that there are troubling times ahead.

I had once case where a child was covered in bruises. parents had no explanation. Both children removed. It was only because one doctor pushed and pushed for a particular blood test that it was found that the bruises could have spontaneously arisen and LA backed down. What if we are now told there just isn't the money for these kind of investigations.

I agree that no system of investigation can ever get it right all the time, but the adversarial system is probably the best safeguard for parents. JH seems to believe lawyers can't be independent if they have ever represented a LA but in my experience, this just isn't true. When I represent parents I am paid by the state and - as I have said before - it is not just my duty but a positive pleasure to take apart a poorly constructed case against parents.

But an uncomfortable thing to note - the last two cases I 'won' ended up with the children being taken back into care a few months later on emergency applications because the family had broken down again.

The focus should be on what support is available in the community before things get bad, and what support can be availalble after proceedings.

Xenia - I agree with you about the need for people prepared to stick their needs over the parapet and fight for justice.

But do you really think JH is the best person for this kind of job? Do you have no disquiet whatsoever about the way he conducts himself?

Of course I have no concerns. We need 1000 of him as I said. Sometimes people will get things wrong and sometimes not but if you don't try then no one is protected.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing "

Sometimes courts issue judgments in family cases showing a particular father who has become almost mentally unhinged and a serial litigator and they are useful cases to read and that openness is really good as it gives people a chance to read the real case not just speculation and the more of that openness we have the better. I would rather children suffered the slight risk of damage due to publicity than we maintain the secrecy to proceedings we now have.

It is one reason having charities involved too even if people have suggested they are posh or from a different class than social workers - because the more perspectives you have whether it is the view of the local mullah or vicar or school head the better. It does not matter if all social workers, family experts and family lawyers do a wonderful job most of the time if it appears that they do not then that is not good enough.

There do seem to be too many cases where children are removed - not where the child is covered in bruises and clearly badly damaged when of course we need intervention but because someone crossed swords with some working class rather thick social worker who has got their back up against a middle class mother and then removes the child for some kind of spurious "emotinoal abuse". I want children to be able to be brought up in 1000 different types of homes in the UK under the banner of parental freedom whether that be home schooled, Eton or the local comp, whether fundamentalist Mormon, Brethern or atheist, whether a home where people are happy to walk around naked (mine) or where girls cover up. I want that huge variety of freedom rather than a one size fits all right way to be with a child. I want one parent to be able to leave the sensible 12 year old at home looking after the 3 younger children and another never to let the 18 year old get the bus alone as they are so worried about her. I want toleration of variety and open mindedness about what may be absolutely okay.

However I am sure I and JH and most people on the thread and social workers would all agree that there are many many clear cases where a child is at huge risk. It is really only a small % where there is an issue and I am very pleased foreign Governments are getting involved in this process and criticising the UK process because again it is an external objective and different point of view.

But is emotional abuse always spurious, Xenia?

There have been well documented cases where mentally unhinged parents have persuaded healthy children that they were seriously ill or disabled when this was not true. Do you really believe that that would do the child no harm? That being made to believe throughout your childhood that you were seriously ill and would never be able to lead a normal life would do no harm? Or that you had been abused in the past and must never venture into the outside world because it was full of dangerous abusers and only mummy could keep you safe? There are parents like this- of course a small minority- but so are physical abusers a minority; doesn't mean it doesn't happen.