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

[saragossa2010]

As the other is full.
There are far too many cases where the authorities rush to remove children and do not give both parents and wider family a say. Adoption is rushed through.
The fact a senior family judge is insisting he is involved in the rest of this case is a good thing and the more cases like this which receive publicity the better.

The point is it is like justice in China and Russia. If it's secret then those involved cannot justify themselves. If we have more in the public domain that is a greater good than any risk from disclosure to the children and parents involved. it is why open justice and published judgments and rights for all those involved in child disputes to use twitter, blogs and emails and no stifling of free speech.

Thankfully things are all moving this way and we lucky to have people like JM and C Booker to give publicity to the issues which need much wider debate. I would imagine most social workers and lawyers involved in this area are very happy that the issues get more public debate not less. Most professions would.

Here is someone else's response to Carl Gardner's ad hominem attacks on me
theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-culture-of-social-work-and.html

I cannot deal with everything that is wrong on the internet and Carl Gardner is more wrong than many.

Drank, IIRC the fact she's illegitimate will be part of it.

Ah, right.

According to the Italian Home Office, anyone born of an Italian parent (mother or father) is automatically an Italian citizen.

You do of course need to register the birth with the italian authorities, so in this case I don't know what would happen if no one registers her birth with the Italians.

(I'm not a legsl expert but have checked the official website)
I would imagine she doesn't officially 'exist' for Italians until registeation has taken place, but she has automatic right yo citizenship once this is done.

"I think for a lot of people who do media appearances it can be a case of 'A dog barks, the caravan moves on'. They're on to the next story, not following up on this one."

Angela, I think you are right. Sometimes you wonder if real people with real rights are just a show for some of the media personalities.

(Sorry for typos, typying quickly on my phone)

Sometimes you wonder if real people with real rights are just a show for some of the media personalities.
Indeed.

If Sir James Munby is going to be presiding over future hearings, then good, I welcome that. If he makes the final rulings for adoption, then maybe the DM will shut up about it

The Italian courts have ruled that the baby must stay in England, and did so months before the English courts were hearing the application for a placement order, as far as I can see from the timeline. If people want to be angry at the Italians for refusing to take the baby then fine, but it's not the fault of English SS

Saragasso would you care to evidence your claim that "far too many authorities rush to remove children and do not give parents and wider family a say. Adoptions are rushed through."

In spite of my request I know that you cannot provide evidence as all care proceedings are highly confidential and the details of the case are only known to the parties in the proceedings. You are wholly wrong, absolutely and utterly wrong.

Numerous professionals are involved in assessing and making comprehensive reports on the birthparents of any child/ren at the centre of care proceedings. They are assessed by social workers, clinical psychologists, consultant psychiatrist (if there are mental health issues) Consultant Paediatricians, GPs, Health Visitors, Nursery Workers/Play therapists etc. In addition each child has a Guardian appointed by the Court (this is an independent social worker NOT employed by the LA but employed by CAFCASS and the guardian appoints a solicitor to act for the child.

Care proceedings usually take 5 days in Court. All professionals who have filed comprehensive reports in Court are examined and cross examined by the solicitors for the birthparents. ALL birthparents are entitled to legal aid to be legally represented in these proceedings, and believe me these solicitors fight the corner in a robust fashion for their clients. Social workers and other professionals can expect to be cross examined for 3 plus hours. In addition on occasions the court can commission an experienced independent social worker to carry out a further assessment on the birthparents. The Judge reads all the documentation and listens to all the evidence and cross examination and at the end of this he/she makes a decision about the future of the child/ren.

But why would you listen to me - I've only had 30 years experience in this field and you've probably been reading the DM or listening to John Hemming or Brooker, neither of whom tell lies about the system.

I think all professionals involved in these cases (including the Italian lady's case) would be more than happy for the truth to be told, rather than JH and CB telling lies about what they think happens. JH as you probably know is a Liberal MP but has no right to be involved in care proceedings, other than as a "McKenzie" friend who can accompany birthparents to court, but they do not have a voice unless the Judge asks them anything. Hemming made scurrilous claims in a particular case against lawyers involved and was severely criticised by a High Court Judge (Wall LJ) and if you doubt this please click on Spero's link below where you will read the criticism of JH.

The people who I feel sorry for are the birthparents who are caught up in care proceedings and turn to John Hemming believing that he can stop the proceedings or make LAs return their children to them. Of course he can't do any such thing though because he is an MP people think that he can. He is a regular poster on MN in these cases and many of us have argued with him but he never ever gives a response to any issues that are raised. He merely pops up again with another soundbite.

I saw him interviewed on Midlands News recently, putting forward one of his absurd theories and the broadcaster Nick Owen twice said to him "I don't know what you mean" but surprise surprise no coherent explanation was given - just more gobbled gook.

He states in a recent blog that he "brought up the matter of the Italian lady with Mr Gove" but claims "it was not one of his objectives" (or some similar phrase that didn't make sense) Far be it from me to praise Gove et al but I think Hemming is regarded for what he is in parliament, something of a buffoon and little attention is paid to him.

Oh and Claig please please - what will it take for you to stop believing the DM - anything just name it ...........

Well done Spero for the link but sadly I don't think it is going to stop JH. I have found he is impervious to criticism and nothing will stop him peddling his lies about the court system and adoptions.

The sad fact is (for those of you who believe social workers snatch babies to get then adopted) that because most LAs are so cash strapped because of the enormous savings that all public services are being forced to make, that they are openly admitting they are having to leave children at home who may be unsafe, as they cannot afford to look after them once they are removed. Social workers have caseloads of 30 plus and I can assure you that the very last thing they want is yet another court case.

Tat's the way I understood it too Lilka.

'Oh and Claig please please - what will it take for you to stop believing the DM - anything just name it ...........'

If their editorial says vote New Labour

Hi Lilka I am in complete agreement with you. As I understand it the Placement Order has already been made in Court, and so I assume that the only way Judge Mumsby can intervene is if the mother of the child appeals, though I'm not at all sure. Maybe you can clarify Spero

In the meantime I think anyone who reads (let alone believes) what is written in the DM is probably not worth wasting energy in trying to involve in any rational debate.

All Munby said, so far as I can remember, was that any future hearings should be before him. He hasn't ordered that there be any more hearings.

JH if you actually read that link I think you will find that it is not saying you are right, merely criticising personal attacks.

Do you accept you are wrong in this case?
Do you accept it was wrong and wildly irresponsible to characterise this case as a forced cesarean, sought by social workers to steal a baby?

Nana, I am not sure what is going on but if a placement order has been made you can apply to discharge the placement order.

If you don't succeed you can then apply for leave to oppose any application for an adoption order.

There has been a lot of recent case law about this and the Court of Appeal is very clear that assessment of the issues and pros and cons for the child of each option must be properly analysed.

But she won't be assisted if this lot of jokers comprise her legal team.

Spero - I heard the baby has been placed with adoptive parents, but it was on one of these threads so that might not be correct. I was under the impression (please correct anything I get even the slightest bit wrong) that once a child is placed, the birth parents can't appeal the placement order any more, they have to wait for the adoptive parents to apply for an adoption order and ask for permission to oppose that instead? If so, we won't hear anything more about the case for months, and in all likelihodd she won't succeed at having her baby returned at this point (which IMHO makes it doubly horrible if anyone or any media outlet are leading her up a garden path, because not only does she not have a good chance, if she relapses and is in a very bad way when the parents apply for an adoption order, she won't be able to oppose it)

Spero, you are very knowledgeable in this area, what I find odd is that we only seem to hear about one MP, JH, being involved in cases like this with the family courts.

It wouldn't surprise me if human rights organisation, Liberty, were not active in this area, but it does surprise me that more MPs, particularly Tory ones, do not seem to be active or often quoted in the media in similar cases.

Do you know if there are any more MPs who are active in this area?

Here is what one newspaper quotes Claction, Essex, Tory MP, Douglas Carswell as saying, but is there likely to be any follow-up?

Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP for Clacton, said: ‘As an Essex MP, I have serious concerns about Essex children’s services. They are unaccountable and out of control.

'These people are dictators who abuse their powers. They are arrogant bullies and people are frightened of them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Please-dont-baby-Agony-mother-baby-girl-adoption-secret-court-judge-forced-caesarean.html

claig - quite a few other MPs are concerned and do get quoted from time to time. Possibly the majority in parliament, but the government won't criticise the judges.

'Possibly the majority in parliament'

Wow!

You can apply to discharge the placement order, off the top of my head I can't remember the section - section 47 of the Adoption Act 2002? Don't quote me! But I assume this will be an appeal against making of an adoption order given how far down the road we are.

I only hope all this furore doesn't cause the adoptive parents to drop out because if she really thinks JH etc are doing her a favour that is clear evidence to me she can't be mentally well.

Thanks for pointing out that link confuddled. I was reading Re A only last week and never noticed the solicitor was Brendan Flemming! Looks like they found themselves a pretty weird barrister too.

I am afraid claig you will not hear of other politicians involved in this field because most of them are responsible people with some measure of integrity who can read a judgment and understand it.

How anyone thinks it is reasonable to put up for adoption the child of a visitor I have no understanding

Given the Italian courts refused to have the baby come to Italy and said she should stay in England (and by doing so, Italy themselves have ruled out any Italian relatives as placement options, so English SS can't persue that option any more), the alternative to placing her for adoption, is to keep her in British foster care until the age of 18. And THAT is inappropriate if she can be adopted instead

Few adoptions of children under 2 break down, and given that foster placements break down even more often, it isn't a reason not to place her for adoption

We can have an evidenced based debate by discussing the two judgments surely?

Given the Italian courts refused to have the baby come to Italy and said she should stay in England

Where do you get this from? I have the advantage of having the judgment of the Rome Court. That does not say this.

John Hemming - Please do tell me why you think we should trust you over all of the professionals working within the system. You who has lied and manipulated the truth in order to push your own political agenda.