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.

Its not necessarily just making the mistake. Its what follows, trying to get something corrected or even just add context is a struggle, usually only achieved after threatening legal action. These incorrect reports then inform the conferences with other professionals, which in turn inform their decisions. Which can lead to court and inform the judges decision etc.

O I see. The case is due to be heard next year. You have some statement produced by some differently sane person alleging all sorts of nonsense which you will proffer as 'proof' that really wrong things have been done.

And then when the case is dismissed next year - as was your noble fight against the Official Solicitor and your complaint against Wall LJ - you will never refer to it again.

Yup, sorry this is getting personal. I am getting angry now so it is time to withdraw. I don't want to derail an important thread.

As the old saying goes, there is no point fighting with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.

Has John Hemming ever produced any evidence to back up the stuff he keeps saying about 'adoption targets'? Eg [[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Please-dont-baby-Agony-mother-baby-girl-adoption-secret-court-judge-forced-caesarean.html#ixzz2mdxk0yLN
in the Mail's story on this]] they quote him:

"The adoption is now likely to be challenged by lawyers.
It may also be raised in the Commons by Lib Dem MP John Hemming, a long-standing campaigner against court secrecy, who said: ‘It is hard to avoid the suspicion that adoption targets set for Essex may have come into play.
‘We do not know whether she was held in the UK as a favour for Essex social workers. We cannot know because of the disgraceful secrecy of the courts.’ "

And what exactly do you mean by someone being held in the UK 'as a favour for social workers', John? Because to me that just sounds like conspiracy-theory-based nonsense.

Are you suggesting that someone in the grip of serious mental illness should just have been put on a plane home? Not to mention that no airline would probably have taken her, given her advanced pregnancy and abnormal mental state.

We do not know whether she was held in the UK as a favour for Essex social workers

What the actual fuck??
That's more than 'conspiracy theory' we're into the realms of "We do not know whether David Cameron is in fact not human, but a lizard in a disguise" territory now

Missed out a few words there. The point is that believeing DC is a lizard is on the same level as believing Essex childrens services told psychiatrists "we have some adoptions targets to meet, and we need this woman's baby, so can you please keep her sectionned and not let her go back to Italy"

Maybe Asbestos isn't dangerous either

Maryz - quite. Everything I have read from potentially reliable sources (i.e. not Mail, Express or any article quoting John Hemming & his cronies) says that the only targets relating to adoption are to speed up placements of children who have already been taken into care and gone through court proceedings to authorise adoption.

I think most people would agree that once it has been decided in court that a child should be adopted, the sooner it can happen the better, so that they can embark on a settled childhood rather than spending years moving between short-term foster placements. Those targets have been in place for years, and the current government (of which John Hemming is, of course, a member) appears to be reducing the target time for all cleared-for-adoption children to be placed.

This is a very, very different situation from John Hemmings' apparent belief that social workers have a quota of babies they need to snatch, from anyone they encounter, which they will be rewarded for fulfilling. I have seen no evidence for that whatsoever.

Hemmings' position seems to be all about preserving the 'rights' of parents (no matter how incompetent, abusive, addicted etc - he seems to take their word for it that they are perfect parents) rather than looking at it, as the law quite rightly does, from the perspective of the child's right to a stable, non-abusive upbringing.

John please can you answer my of 21:38pm you appear to have conveniently missed it.

I'm surprised that John Hemming is still using the tactic of making dark references to papers that only he has seen and which he claims back up his stance 100%. Because that is what he did in the case this thread was about. Until the courts pulled the rug from under him by publishing the real facts.

Spero I feel I must come on to support you, as you are doing a sterling job attempting to have a rational debate with JH even when you know that is an impossible task. Some of your posts have made me smile (a lot) and I think you have succeeded in rattling JH, which is a rare occurrence as in my view he is usually impervious to criticism and just pops back up with some wild allegation or a soundbite that makes little sense.

OK JH you can sue me too for defamation because I know you tell lies. I have a long memory and can recall you making these claims in the past.

1. Your belief that ALL professionals involved in care proceedings are evil and are all part of a conspiracy to "snatch babies" from loving parents to get them adopted. You call this "forced adoption." You include in that conspiracy theory that lawyers not only for the LA but also the lawyers/counsel for the birthparents. Indeed you commented that such lawyers "roll over and agree with the LA because they have a mortgage to pay." It was in fact this last comment that made Spero retaliate in her usual impressive and cohesive manner, and she was rightly very angry that you could tell such lies. You believe that the Judge is also part of the conspiracy theory. These are monstrous lies and I fail to understand how an elected MP can tell such truly shocking lies and not be brought to book - shame on the LibDems and Nick Clegg in particular for not putting a stop to an MP telling such horrendous lies.

1. You posted on MN that a mother had had her child removed from her because the grandmother called the social worker fat! That was another ludicrous lie

1. You claim time and time again that social workers snatch babies to fulfil adoption targets, but you get muddled because some months ago you began to state that there were no longer adoption targets. However now that there are targets in terms of the timeline you can return to your ridiculous notion that social workers are "snatching" babies to fulfil adoption targets. You never produce evidence for any of your allegations.

I note that a poster was asking whether your views were personal or whether you were speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, and surprise surprise this did not elicit any response. Maybe you would like to respond to that issue???

You claim that the vast majority of MPs are concerned with this case and I find that very difficult to believe. I read that you "spoke to Mr Gove" about the case under discussion and I can't recall your exact words but your comments was something along the lines of "it wasn't his objective" (almost as bad as "they did wrong things") which I take to mean he didn't want to engage with you, as I am sure you are seen as some sort of buffoon in parliament. My partner is a member of the Co-Op Party and was in conversation with a LibDem MP from the North of England and he mention you, and she replied "Oh he's barmy - everyone knows that"

AND JH did you not confuse Nick Owen on Midlands Today recently and I honestly can't recall what absurd claim you were making, but do you recall Nick Owen twice saying to you "I don't know what you mean" and were you able to clarify - NO of course not - just more incoherent bumbling.

For posters who ask why JH isn't doing more to raise the very pertinent issue of the state of Birmingham City Council's Social Services Department - yes you would think this would definitely be an issue which he would be raising in parliament. But nooo - you see JH is not interested in attempting to bring about any improvements in the child protection service in Birmingham, no interest at all. Indeed he has no interest in the safeguarding of children, he is only interested in anything that fits in with his conspiracy theories about snatching babies, and his ability to make cases (such as this one) fit with his conspiracy theory knows no bounds.

Now how about telling us JH about the time you issued a Writ against Birmingham City Council Social Services Department following a personal matter that concerned someone with whom you were involved. I can't remember the exact sum but it was something ludicrous like £300,000 and he particularly specified that this sum should be paid by the social workers who in his perception had acted inappropriately Am I right JH ???? Yes I think I am.

Spero has given a link about the severe criticism that a High Court Judge made about you (Wall LJ) when you were acting as a McKenzie friend in court. I somehow don't think you did that family any favours.

I have said again and again that the people I feel sorry for are parents whose children are at the heart of care proceedings who consult JH as I suspect they think that because he is an MP he can intervene on their behalf in the proceedings and of course he can't. On occasions he has advised parents to cease being legally represented by their chosen lawyer and instead has "given" them someone who works in his organisation (whatever that is) I think he calls her Mrs Smith or something similar and says she is "very good" in these matters. I really feel angry that he is leading these families to believe that he or Mrs Smith or whoever can assist them in court and maybe get their children returned to them. I was taught as a young social worker many moons ago that we must always show respect for people, and I have always stuck to that, no matter how distressing the details of the abuse or neglect that has been perpetrated on a child. I have always been straight with people and have on hundreds of occasions had to tell parents things that they did not want to hear, but that is part of the social work task.

I once asked JH how many "successful cases" his organisation had in terms of getting a child/ren re-united with parents once care proceedings had been initiated and his response was We don't keep those figures ..........yeah right!

I'm sorry for the length of this post and I'm sure JH won't have managed to read it all - he isn't very interested in detail and facts preferring to make wild allegations that are entirely without substance. I'm also sorry if people think this issue with JH is detracting from the thread and I suppose it is to a large extent, but he really is very provocative and insulting to people who are working day in and day out attempting to provide support for families experiencing difficulties and those working in the family courts on a daily basis. Or in his words "Spero and Nananina operating the system." That is a veiled accusation that I am busy snatching babies from loving parents and getting the matter into court to get them adopted and where Spero if she is acting for the parents is "rolling over" and agreeing with the LA because she has a mortgage to pay.

Some posters have asked why they should believe JH rather than professionals involved in the courts in these matters. Well I will leave you to judge that.

Sorry meant to say I appreciated the posters who can see through JH JacquelineHyde (incidentally I wouldn't hold your breath awaiting a response from JH - he rarely responds to issues raised - just comes up with another odd comment or soundbite. Lilka Maryz and Neenypops oh and exexpat you are so right JH is not concerned about the children who have been abused and/or neglected by their parents. He only cares for the "innocent" parents who have had their children "snatched" from them. I must go now - I need sleep otherwise I won't have any energy left to snatch any more children..................

Spero - If I was his constituent I would be very worried.

We had a lovely lady before him (might not be agreed on all around as she was ed secretary but as an MP she was good) who got things done, stood up for people who needed it (great when you have a falling out with the school and they say "call your MP if you like, we don't care" "really...? she's your MP too and you know, you know who that is, right?") I'm not sure what my neighbours were playing at!

John - I know of SWs who have gone against the other professionals and the family been reunited. Again, you're involved, I don't believe we have the full story on this one! I can think of a SW who I am surprised is still in their job for leaving the child where it was like everyone wanted and it becoming big news when said child died. I guess you think they did the right thing though because parents have a right to keep their child.

Claire- sorry, I was sure I'd read that figure somewhere. Yes, you are right, 62% only in Calabria. But far too high also in the rest of Italy, especially the south. Apparently up to 78% of all C-sections carried out are probably unnecessary.

I apologise.

(see Mr H, it's easy to apologise when you get it wrong.......)

Maryz yes I have stated all along that mistakes could have made. I have also stated that mistakes might not have made and I am more than willing to accept that, if and when the full facts come to light.

Wanna my reason for giving my experience and that example was not to say that mistakes were made in this case, obviously my experience does not translate to every SS case. My reason for giving that example was in response to your comment that more transparency was needed to protect SS, my point was sometimes parents and children need more protection and transparency from SS too in CP cases.

Thanks nana for your post of 00.46, I agree with every word and I want it known that I adopt it in its entirety and would rely upon it in any action bought against me for defamation by JH or in any complaint he makes against me to my professional body.

He was able to make his complaint about me because I did not hide my personal details from him. He knows who I am. There is nothing I say on here that I would not repeat in any other situation. I believe in transparency and discussion. I am confident what I do stands up to scrutiny.

For those of rolling your eyes at the continuation of this 'personal' spat I would just ask you to take some time to consider the seriousness of what JH has done and continues to do. Is there nothing in Nana's post that makes you think - hang on a minute? This just isn't right?

As he is an elected member of Parliament his inability or unwillingness to distinguish truth from fiction in an area of such importance, coupled with his exploitation of vulnerable and desperate people, in my view renders him unfit for office.

That he comes on these threads and continually threatens to sue me, in my view, makes him unfit for this forum.

I am silently cheering you both on. (Spero and Nana, who I have met on other JH dominated threads, under my old ID)

You are both, IMO, a credit both to MN and to your profession.

Unlike some.

Spero and Nana, more support for your measured and tireless presenting of the facts against jh's (seemingly very personal) anti social services agenda. Whilst I don't believe for a moment he will sue spero, and wouldn't wish it, it would be very illuminating in exposing his paranoid conspiracy theories in a court of law where as it has already been pointed out, he has already been hugely criticised. And this from an elected representative, not sure how he manages to get away with

And what about the lady who visited the UK pregnant and left the country without her child?

DrankSangria
No probs , fwiw I totally agree the rate is far too high (but thst would require a ehole thread on its own)

Here's an idea for JH. How about, before you post anything fresh on this thread, you answer the various questions that have been put directly to you instead of ignoring and evading them? Because, frankly, the longer you fail to do so, the less credibility you have, so there's not much point posting anything till you've sorted that out.

Its not just sad its a complete outrage.

This man takes a salary from the public purse.

@Spero and Nana, you've my full support too. The information you posted on this thread is invaluable and as DrankSangria said, you are a credit to Mn and indeed your profession.

If JH sues (which he won't pretty sure), count me in...

@JH I offer to be sued too, on the Italian side if you like. So you get a bit of hassle from the European Parliament through an international lawsuit, what do you think?

And please, get your facts straight, FGS! It was the Court of Florence that was contacted first and they decided they didn't care. It is also the Court of Florence judge who decided to let the mother's parents care for the other two children.

This is because it is the Court of Florence that has territorial jurisdiction about the whole family!

The Court of Rome judge was contacted by the lady only later on and after suggestion of her eager-to-have-some-publicity Italian lawyers... And even that one ruled out an Italian jurisdiction about this case.