Shocking.

[IrnBruTheNoo]

Hard to believe that a couple who are doing a good job raising their DC are being slated like this...

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kerry-mcdougall-dumb-married-mum-2799857

Re my post above, this is a specific example of the general problem of type 1 and type 2 errors. As Wikipedia says: "Minimizing errors of decision is not a simple issue; for any given sample size the effort to reduce one type of error generally results in increasing the other type of error. The only way to minimize both types of error, without just improving the test, is to increase the sample size, and this may not be feasible."

In the case of child protection, that suggests that big data (eg gathering lots of behavioural information) may help both by improving the quality of the test and by increasing the sample size, but there are serious privacy issues with doing so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

That was good of John Hemming to stop by and post a few links.

There may well be much more to this and SS are unable to comment, but I remember from previous threads that Kerry's partner's (easily searchable) "art" may have been a concern. I am very surprised that the images are still accessible to be honest.

Surely anyone with any iota of sense would have at least complied in the respect of removing their erotic drawings from the internet?

Is this salad, what is your objection to his art? From what I can see he likes to paint female nudes, I don't see any problem with that?

Painting unrealistic and pornographic images of lesbians from the male perspective as hobby? fine. He is free to do whatever he chooses.

If my vulnerable DD was proposing to marry this man and this is how he intended to support her then I might have reservations. Wouldn't you? Would you be happy with that?

How do you know they are lesbians? Genuine question, I googled and only saw a few nudes, which I wouldn't really have any problems with.

Well, apart from the fact that they are a bit crap.

Well there is that

And certainly no reason for what has taken place in and of itself. I'm only commenting on this case. There are so many things we don't know. All we do know is that child protection are keeping an eye out.

Firstly, these children appear to me to be happy, healthy and cared for. SS have offered extra care, not to take the children into care. This seems reasonable to me, given Kerry's documented issues.
I cannot see the issue here, to be honest. Kerry's baby was taken into care in Ireland, 3 days post birth. This happens so rarely in Ireland (I live in Ireland) that it is relevant in its rarity, the threshold which has to be met is much higher than UK (no offense to UK, however that is the reality). By very virtue of the fact that baby was taken into care I would assume at the very least extra parenting support was required, which is not a failure, nor a fast track to having children removed, as some posters seems to be implying.
If the family is being offered support upon return to Fife, then surely this demonstrates interagency communication and furthermore, inter country cooperation, which as any of us concerned with, or working within, CP knows is the Holy Grail.
How, how, can this be wrong?

Children are also removed from parents who have high intelligence. My children were removed because my knowledge of my daughter's medical condition was "on a par with medical professionals" indicating that I had "abnormal illness syndrome".

No, I have no idea how you reach that conclusion, either...

What you need to remember is that SS operate according to a different set of rules. It is not about whether the children are happy or well cared for, it is about how compliant the parents are. SS really couldn't give a flying fuck about the children, in most cases.

Dontlaugh inter-agency communication and joined up thinking-ness is a good thing and you are right to name it so. But don't you think what also speaks volumes in this case is how fearful people are of ss because of what can happen, that a good offer of ss support given in a well-meaning way is rejected (if that is what happened)?

Nosewiper, of course, I can appreciate that SS get it horribly wrong sometimes, however in this case and without knowing all the facts (which will never happen as SS won't tell, naturally), there is only the family's side of the story.
I maintain there is always 3 sides to any story: mine, yours, and the truth. So that filter should be employed when any family tells a story relating to SS. Not unreasonably, I should think.
Family Law Week (online) publishes cases heard in court relating to family law - even the most ardent SS critics cannot deny the amount of work that goes into keeping a family together, or trying to, just from reading those cases alone, written in dry legal language, and still managing to reflect the emotion and heartbreak that goes into every case. I maintain SS has the best interests of children at the forefront - and if anything, have kept families together to the detriment of children in the past, as many many tragic cases have shown us, and will continue to show us, sadly.

I agree there is a lot of good work carried out to support families who should stay together, to stay together, and to separate those who should not be together; and yes ss get it wrong sometimes on both counts, sometimes unavoidably and sometimes not. This will likely always be the case and we can only strive to reduce the number of cases where things go wrong; it would be unrealistic to think we will erradicate mistakes from ever happening.

What would give people more faith in our system is knowing that if ss should get it wrong in any way, then the outcome is scrutinised appropriately. That doesn't always happen.

The Family Law article I linked to earlier states Munby's view on this:

"It is vitally important, if the administration of justice is to be promoted and public confidence in the courts maintained, that justice be administered in public - or at least in a manner which enables its workings to be properly scrutinised - so that the judges and other participants in the process remain visible and amenable to comment and criticism."

What is also concerning is the lack of ongoing support for those who live with lack of clarity around the truth and consequences of poor decision making; so any children concerned and their respective foster, adoptive and birth families.

I am sure your comments apply to those who lose children (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents) to allegedly murderous parents, as in the case of Callum Wilson, whose mother Emma Wilson, is currently before the courts, accused of fracturing 9 of his ribs, bruising his face, head and legs, and inflicting a fatal blow to his head which resulted in his retina becoming detached and his brain swelling to the point it impacted on the stem. Not many 11 month olds could survive that.
Poor decision making at its best. Or worst.
I absolutely agree justice should be administered in public - regardless of the verdict, guilty or otherwise. If you are referring to SS making incorrect decisions, how should this happen? Name social workers? Outline decision making in public? Sack managers?
Or err on the side on caution when assessing a CP issue and hope parents won't kill their children? Hmmm. Tough one.

This thread terrifies me. I know lots of people think ss can't win whatever they do, they're critised if they don't get involved, they're critised if they do get involved. But it's terrible for parents too. They have no control over what is happening and if ss are acting inappropriately nobody believes them because 'we're only hearing their side of the story and there's obviously more to it'.

I have AS and have just been reported to child services for investigation by adult services. Adult services have spent the last 3 years arguing through the courts that I am fine, have no problems coping with daily life and have no need of any support whatsoever. They lost yet again in the Court of Appeal and now suddenly I'm reported for investigation. There is nothing to back up their 'concerns', nothing at all. They are going solely on what I have told them about myself and their ignorance of autism which leads them to make completely false assumptions. IE I told them that when I'm tidying I have to do it in a certain order and I can't deviate from that. From that they've decided I can't cope with a baby as they are unpredictable. As anyone knows problems with autism are often very, very, situation specific and you cannot make leaps of judgment like that.

My intelligent head tells me not to worry, it won't go anywhere as I'm a good mum and my baby is happy and thriving (HV, family support worker and autism clinic I attend all back me in this 100%). Plus my other child seems to have made it to 20 quite successfully. The frightened vulnerable autistic mummy in me hasn't slept since I was told what they were planning and bursts into tears every time I look at my little angel and imagine them taking him away from me. :(

Westie, I am sorry this thread has upset you. You have no reason to be upset, based on what you've written. The case I'm referring to is extreme - broken bones, bruising, death. That is not you, or your child, from what you have written, it is the exact opposite.
The case referenced at the initial post, about the family who fled to Ireland, is also different. They fled the country, they did not engage and even whilst in Ireland their baby was in care, which as I explained earlier is unusual in its rarity due to the high threshold that would have had to have been met.
Your child is cared for, not harmed, hurt or neglected. That will be clear to those that are looking. Take care and sleep well.

WestieMamma I also want to give you some encouragement. It sounds like you are clearly a great mum who very much loves her child, with lots of support around you from good and varied professionals which should go well in your favour.

Awareness will be your greatest ally, and if anything, there is more awareness now into concerns around how cases are managed than ever before, and that's a good thing if you should have any concerns with the way things are handled. Seek as much advice and support as you possibly can and continue to work with services. Do you have a good advocate who can make sure you get your points across?

I believe there are support forums for people who are going through similar, some will be better than others so do your research, but some offer good support from parents who have been through what you are, and have succeeded in keeping their children and now advocate for others.

But it is certainly cases like yours, where there are differences in opinion between adult and children services where I personally believe better and independent scrutiny needs to take place. Sometimes teams can be under the same management umbrella, which is fine if all is going well but possibly not if you're not in an area where there is a history of bullying from the top down - so do your research.

Speak to your solicitor if you have concerns around this, it might be in your favour to get as many truly independent assessments as you can to use in court. Be proactive and I wish you lots of luck. (I have experienced supporting someone through similar and have also worked myself in LA so know a bit about how they work, and also in the vol sector supporting community efforts to broaden multi-agency working, so have seen what can go on).

I can't vouch for John Hemming as no dealings with him, but he may well be able to point you towards good and well-practiced solicitors.

possibly not if you ARE in an area

I know John Hemming gets a lot of stick from MNers, but he helped Fran Lyon, a mumsnetter, who was finally able to keep her child.

So that is good enough for me.

I often wonder about Fran and her daughter. I hope they are doing well. If JH can help others like the couple in this case, then I hope he does.

A piece of simple advice on solicitors. Many solicitors work both for local authorities and for parents. I personally would never employ a firm to defend me against the local authority if they also depended on that LA for income.

This is a good example of why not to have the local authority's solicitors. To be fair this is possibly the worst abuse by a legal system I have encountered given that the mother is a foreign visitor and has language difficulties as well as lack of contacts. I haven't spoken to her directly as yet and intend to on Monday.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10485281/Operate-on-this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html

Holy shit that is TERRIFYING. Bloody hell.

Bloody hell, that is incredible. She is an habitually resident in Italy, how can her baby be taken by British social services?

"The High Court in Rome expressed outrage at what had been done to an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. But the judge there concluded that, since she had not protested at the time, she had accepted that the British courts had jurisdiction – even though she had not known what was to be done to her, was deemed to have no “capacity” to instruct lawyers because she had been sectioned, and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority."