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.

So if someone from the UK visits say Germany for a course and they take their unborn child and puts it up for adoption that's OK then.

Lets see what another family court barrister said reported in an early day motion:
That this House notes the withdrawal of care proceedings against Michelle Freedman by Barnet Council; further notes that Barnet Council has caused psychological harm to Michelle's elder daughter; further notes that had she not left UK jurisdiction both her daughters would have suffered further psychological harm; further notes that Ms Freedman is a family court barrister with over 10 years' experience and she left the jurisdiction because she was aware through her experience of similar cases that any local authority in this situation would be likely to invent allegations against her in order to win the case had she remained; further notes that legal proceedings were initiated because Ms Freedman had made a complaint against a social worker; further notes that Barnet's case included a criticism of Ms Freedman that she had done what she had been asked to do by Barnet Council which it then claimed put her daughter at risk and that the rules of estoppel should normally have prevented this being used against Ms Freedman; further notes that the Government intends to reduce the access of parents to truly independent assessments which will make it easier for local councils to win cases by making things up; recognises that if a barrister has so little confidence in the system that she leaves the jurisdiction to avoid being subjected to false allegations by a local authority there are serious difficulties in the system; and calls for parliamentary committees and the Government to review this issue.

" the Government intends to reduce the access of parents to truly independent assessments which will make it easier for local councils to win cases by making things up"

That's actually quite scary - is there any movement / groups that object to this happening?

What we need is more openness not the opposite :/

There is, of course, Justice for Families.

I speak about the issues here.

I am not making this thread about me. I was threatened: I have responded.

If the threats stop, so too will my responses.

I have taken a great deal of time over past few days to try and help people understand these issues.

Unlike some, I do not engage in this debate for personal promotion.

Try playing the ball.

Local councils do not win cases by making things up.

They really don't. Or are all the judges in on this?

Sigh. Back we go onto the same tedious old conspiracy bandwagon, all hope of any sensible debate lost.

Seriously don't you ever just get tired of going over the same ground over and over again?

The early day motion is the comment from a family court barrister.

spero: I suppose you will deny that any Social Workers have ever been fired for recommending that a family is reunited with their baby?

JH why did you feel the need to threaten another poster with legal action.

Don't you think that this just stinks of intimidation...Don't you dare disagree with me otherwise I shall sue you and/or report you to your professional body.

Please go back and read through this thread and you will see that Spero has been amazingly patient and helpful. Explaining things in great detail over and over again to make sure that people understand the system.

I personally am disgusted at the way you conduct your business for your own personal gain. An immediate family member of mine is severely mentally ill, she has, in the past, been forcibly sectioned and has had 2 children removed (one at 3 months and 1 at birth) and placed permanently else where. I am pretty sure you would love to use her as a pawn in your little game and she, as a vulnerable adult, would believe everything you said to her and hang on to any false hope you gave her.

Theses false hopes and conspiracies would fuel her paranoid delusions and I have no doubt would in turn worsen her mental health situation.

The idea of this sickens me and this is exactly what you are doing with this poor Italian woman.

Tell me John will you be there in a year, two years, 5 years making sure she is ok. That she is getting the support she needs to cope with the aftermath of this case and all the publicity around it or will you just be on to your next crusade with no thought for the long term damage your ill thought out actions are causing.

No one can "take an unborn child" . And put it up for adoption. (Tough there could be a care order ready for when child is born I presume )
No one did.

If for medical reasons a German court decides the mother is incapable with severe mh and needs a caesarean then that could happen.
If after that there is a court case to decide the fate of the child who has been born then that would be next step.

Local authorities may not win cases by making things up. But they do quite often misrepresent information, whether this is due to conspiracy or a simple lack of funding, time or incompetence it does occur. Sometimes reports bear no resemblance to what has been said or happened.

Mr hemming social services in your area are currently the worst in the country as you care about vulnerable families/children so much what are you doing to campaign for better resources?

Do you think you yourself being so critical of social workers could possibly be putting off people from working for Birmingham children services who could actually be of some help to your constituents?

There can be no care proceedings until the child is born.

We are now being told that care proceedings MUST conclude in 26 weeks as the average last year was about 56 weeks from start to finish.

This is obviously not in the child's best interests as they need a decision about their future as soon as possible, but it does at least show the amount of work that goes into the proceedings. There will be assessments of the parents, assessments of family members. Every party to the proceedings has a lawyer, including the child who also has a guardian.

There have been mistakes and bad decisions in the past and the move is now to greater transparency which I support. As more decisions are made public, I hope less people will be jumping on the conspiracy wagon.

Mistakes and bad decisions do not automatically equate to conspiracy to steal babies, particularly when many of the examples of bad practice can be traced directly to lack of resources and staff with little training or support.

As I said before, we get the child protection system we are prepared to pay for.

I await with interest the full details of this remarkable allegation which I
am sure will be immediately forthcoming and will in no way be a sad
mixture of misinformation, misrepresentation and outright untruth.

The social worker was employed by Leicester City Council and has taken them to an employment tribunal. The council's defence to the ET1 makes it clear that they fired her for wanting to reunite a family against management instructions.

The ET case reference is 1900566/2013 and it should be heard next year.

There was a very interesting radio 4 programme about Birmingham social services two weeks ago. The whole service is in crisis, they cannot recruit or retain staff. No one wants the constant denigration and attacks.

So who does JH suggest should work to protect the children in his constituency?

Drank Sangria

where did you get your Csection rates for Italy from?
Tha national average is about 38%
One region in Italy reaches 60% but that is one out of 20.

This figure includes all c-sections whether planned or not.

It si true though that it is very unlikely that this woman would have been offered a VBAC after 2 previous c-sections. They are in general discouraged even after just one.

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/09/g4-09-02.html?itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-37-en

I realise I sound a bit of pedant, but I this figure has come up before in the thread and it is just not true.

Hope you don't mind

Thanks for that info JH. I will await the tribunal judgment with interest and no doubt you will publish it widely.

ladyjaxo is very good, but

Sometimes reports bear no resemblance to what has been said or happened.
Is the same as making things up.

Ladyjaxo, I've been sceptical of this case from the start. The involvement of JH and his cronies made me distrust it straight away. The last thing you will find me doing however is saying they never lie. I've given examples of lies that have been told. I know I'm not the only one here who'd never say that there's never bad things. However, just because JH put it in the press doesn't make it true. If it was true they wouldn't have had to lie about it in the first place because it would have held it's own and it hasn't.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between an error of ignorance or incompetence and an error made deliberately and malignly in order to steal babies to order?

Seriously?

Does this serious deficiency in your understanding provide the explanation for your astonishing behaviour?

John... can I ask if you are taking up this role personally or as a lib dem MP. If it is as a lib dem MP do you have the backing of your party? Have you had agreement from your senior party members that they are agreeable to you representing them in this way on this issue?

As a taxpayer, I too would be intrigued to know how JH justifies his salary from the public purse when he seems to spend so much time on here banging his peculiar drum.

If I was his constituent I would be very worried.