Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services!

999 replies

StarlightMcKenzie · 30/11/2013 22:38

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Woman-has-child-taken-from-her-womb-by-social-services.html

Could there ever be a justifiable reason for this?

OP posts:
claig · 03/12/2013 02:04

"It's front page news in the Express as well as the Mail now."

Excellent. I think change is coming. As teh old song goes "it's been a long time coming".

Madame, I agree we need a state too, but it is about where the balance lies. It is about freedom, liberty, the right to free speech, the right to open justice and open courts where the individual can publish what has been done to them by the state, where there are no secrets and gagging clauses and political correctness to prevent you telling the truth and standing up for your rights.

Without that liberty, terrible injustice can be done in the name of the state.

It is about transparency and openness and justice and the state always having to justify in the open what it has done and why it has done it. It is the right of the Mail to ask on behalf of the citizens "Explain why you snatched a baby girl at birth"

Too often progressives pretend they care but they don't. They have a front page of Tom Daley instead of this case which Shami herself has described as

‘At first blush this is dystopian science fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares that those responsible will struggle to defend in courts of law and decency.’

and good on her for saying it.

I am very pleased that the Mail has the following story. I haven't read it, will read it tomorrow, but I heard it first on BBC radio news where families taking in kin in "private arrangements" do not receive much money from the state. A mother was on BBC radio and in a very powerful and moving interview said "they don't care about the children" with her treatment of not receiving enough money to take in children from her sister.

The individual must come first and the state second, and the state must compensate individuals whether that be state banks, state social services, state hospitals etc for any injustices done, because we are the state, we own the state and they should not ride roughshod over our rights and liberties.

‘An estimated 300,000 youngsters in the UK are being raised in 'kinship care' - when close relatives or friends take in a child whose parents can't look after them, either as a private arrangement, or by becoming their legal guardian.

The majority are fostered by their grandparents, and others by aunts, siblings, cousins or family friends. The advantages of having traumatised children cared for by those they know and love are obvious.

While foster carers who are strangers rightly receive grants for essentials, such as beds and clothes, plus around £150 a week allowance per child to ensure they are 'not out of pocket', relatives like the Bennetts are often left to foot the bill alone.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2516579/The-incredible-families-relatives-children--huge-personal-cost.html

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight · 03/12/2013 02:04

Yes my step brother abused my daughter and as I had 'unresolved issues' of my own childhood abuse SS basically said I was at risk of emotionally neglecting dd. as I said they weren't interested in my son yet he had been sexually abused by sb too .. And as for care leaver comment I may point out that no one discussed safe sex with dd and I was told off for talking to her about it during contact when she was nearly 16 and told me she was planning on sleeping with her boyfriend. Social worker explained : if dd wished to have sex and if a child resulted then she would have to go to a mother and baby unit to be assessed. Firefighting rather than preventing the fire no? I was then banned from contact. Well over my still twitching corpse would I see any grandchild of mine in shitty care system so I made sure I got dd practising safe sex and they were hugely pissed off at me so much so our contact was stopped for 18 months. I haven't got answers I can only say what happened to me and people can draw their own conclusions.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:08

Things. I do feel your personal circumstances would be better addressed on another thread, perhaps in relationships. I say this will all kindness, and no agenda at all. I feel your family have been through shit to hell and back, and you deserve the chance to talk about these things properly, not as an add on to another thread.

Because we can't address your issues properly on this thread, and I do hear your need to talk about them.

I am so very very sorry you and your children have had to experience this. My best wishes and heartfelt thoughts are with you. xxxx

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight · 03/12/2013 02:10

And although you kept yourself from commenting on my experience with SS post you obv read it so you'll be aware that the one off DV incident happened following my finding out p had been cheating on me during my pregnancy, it wasn't my fault - I was a victim not a piss poor parent thank you. I did say justifiably so that they became involved but you miss the point 'if ds had been a dd he would have been removed' so why didn't they want him? Because he was a boy? Why not?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight · 03/12/2013 02:12

I don't want my issues addressed lol I'm here prodding and poking at this sorry ass carcass of a case and hoping it'll blow the system in this country wide open

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:12

Yes claig, I agree wholeheartedly that families who take on children in kindship adoptions should be supported financially.

But it can get tricky. I know of one little boy who has been in the care system for two years, and this month his fate re adoption must be decided. There is funds available for kinship adoption in our LA.

Amazingly enough, there are now kinship carers popping up all over the place, keen to have this little boy. A child they know nothing of. Have never met. Indeed, some of them have unstable residency status...

It can be a bleeding can of worms...

claig · 03/12/2013 02:17

'I can say what I want as a contribution to this thread thank you very much.'

I agree with Things. It is free speech. It might be what some do not want to hear, but her rights to free speech trump that. Otherwise as Things rightly said with secrecy you can sometimes get the following

"Just to say they do some dodgy stuff and the secrecy they hide behind enables a lot that wouldn't be acceptable if it was made public."

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:18

no one is disputing anyone's right to contribute to a thread.

Doesn't mean you get a free ride.

Free speech and everything.

claig · 03/12/2013 02:23

'I'm here prodding and poking at this sorry ass carcass of a case and hoping it'll blow the system in this country wide open'

It might even happen. The Mail and Telegraph got the Liverpool Care Pathway scrapped against great opposition from medical institutions. There may be changes in this too

"Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court, ordered yesterday that further moves towards adoption must be heard before him in the High Court.

Sir James, who took over the family courts in January, has made a series of judgments and speeches demanding greater openness in family hearings and in the Court of Protection.

He has said family hearings should be held in public, that social workers should be named in court, and that families who feel wronged should be able to speak out publicly"

GoshAnneGorilla · 03/12/2013 02:25

Well if it's story time, I feel like telling a few. The cases I am talking about generally involve mothers with substance abuse issues.

Such as in my experience, ss will leap at the chance to do kinship adoptions (where the baby goes to a family member). Of the babies I encountered, as long as there was a willing and suitable close relative, the was certainly the preferred option over foster care.

I know one set of grandparents who ended up looking after seven grandchildren. Seven.

That if the mother was attending and complying with treatment, was well supported and was looking after her current children well, she would keep her baby.

Also, the foster care was not the end, I actually bumped into several mothers at a later date, who had managed to give up drugs and were reunited with their babies.

That there were several mothers we saw, who really, really, weren't interested in their babies. The idea that every child taken into foster care is ripped from the arms of a distraught mother - not true.

Obviously to some here, I'm just a part of the baby stealing machine, but I thought it would be good to counter some of the conspiracies.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:25

oh come on claig, has nothing we said impacted on you?

Or are you just determined to believe the worst of any public services?

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight · 03/12/2013 02:31

There are good and bad in every profession. I will gracefully bow out by saying I consider the last social worker we had a good friend and I speak to her once a week. She sent me a lovely present for dd.
on the subject of the thread itself I hope this baby gets to live with her siblings and extended family. That would be the right outcome. It's still all very sad and I'd want to take this country to hell and back if I went to sleep pregnant and woke up no longer pregnant, having had a traumatic forced operation, and not get to see or hold my baby. And what about the baby's right to its mothers milk ect I find it all sickening just can't help myself but cringe. Maybe more will come out so we all go 'ahh now we see why such and such happened' but sadly I doubt it. Very emotive subject. Maybe it will change things being such high profile.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

claig · 03/12/2013 02:33

I don't believe the worst of public services, but I want more openness and transparency so that injustices can be avoided.

And yes, Gosh, but what about the kin "private arrangements" where the state does not pay the family enough?

garlicbaubles · 03/12/2013 02:35

I can't read all of this thread but have followed the story, and as much background as I can find. The woman's family were refused permission to care for the baby. The woman herself has been back to court here, requesting the return of her child, and was refused despite the judge being "impressed" by her case & presentation. The reason given was "in case she has a relapse". This, alone, sets a precedent for any mother with a mental health issue to have her children permanently removed from her care.

This, even more than babynamechange's case, makes me think John Hemming is right.

:(

claig · 03/12/2013 02:35

Sir James Munby, who is the President of the Family Division of the High Court has said family hearings should be held in public, that social workers should be named in court, and that families who feel wronged should be able to speak out publicly"

claig · 03/12/2013 02:38

I really have to go to sleep now. See you again tomorrow.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:38

Thank god then, as the law stands, that children are protected from having their past trailed behind them forever.

Shame, shame, shame on you.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:38

Glad you can go to sleep so merrily Claig.

Off you pop.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:41

garlic, rtft, at least have the decency to do that before proffering you opinion.

have a bit of respect.

ThingsThatGoBumpInTheNight · 03/12/2013 02:46

Gah dragged back to this thread. Some children do have their past dragged behind them forever. The social services often use someone's past to say they would be a crap parent!

Also how do adoption agencies turn a profit? Obviously adoptive parents don't 'buy' a child so where does the money come from? And you can't deny some of them profit greatly from children being adopted, I've had many an argument with Martin narey over this and he always goes quiet and refuses to answer when you ask how profits are made and why they're so high Blush

garlicbaubles · 03/12/2013 02:46

I posted my opinion on the case that started the thread, MmeD. I don't know who you think I'm disrespecting. I am alarmed that the woman, who's already been through this terror, is denied care of her own child because she has bi-polar. Of course there are horrific implications for other women with mental illness.

I don't think 'respect' means brushing issues under the carpet. If you do, then we differ, that's all.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:47

Things, you can always, if you can be bothered, look at the company accounts for adoption agencies in the UK.

HTH.

MadameDefarge · 03/12/2013 02:49

No, Garlic, I mean that if you cant be arsed to read the thread, you will not have read the many many sensible posts from other Mnetters regarding this issue.

Which might well have given you pause to think.

that is what I mean by disrespect, cannot be bothered to read thread. Post your knee jerk thoughts. Which are of no help or interest whatsoever this late in the thread.

HTH.

garlicbaubles · 03/12/2013 02:53

Thanks for your post policing, MmeD. I'll be sure to ask your permission before joining any threads.

Swipe left for the next trending thread