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.

I have just read ij page and he is seriously unhinged the stuff he's writing is terrifying.

I had ante- natal depression and I was too scared to seek help in case ss took dd but if I had read ij it could have easily sent me over the edge- I would have probably decided to flee the country

His writing even

Lilka are all those comments on the site where I was just looking?

It's a terrible idea

Criminal rules are that if acquitted, you are innocent. Thus, he believes that is a parent is 'acquitted' of anything, their child should be returned immediately

Now, think about these things:

1. Family courts have to make the childs best interests their paramount consideration. Doing this crazy criminal thhing would change that, and would no longer be about what the child needs

1. Sexual abuse cases (as an example) are very hard to prove to criminal conviction level. They quite often involve the childs word against the adults with no conclusive physical evidence. According to Ian Josephs (and I think Christopher Booker as well)'s beliefs...let's say a 5 year old child confesses that both their parents are sexually abusing them. SS take child away from parents and police get involved. Child is terrified of parents and is very clear that they have been sexually abused. After a long investigation, either the case never comes to a criminal court, especially if the child is not in a fit state to give evidence, or if it does, the jury have to acquit because the childs word alone can't secure the conviction

As IJ would have it, the abusive parents can take the child home the same day kicking and screaming, because dang it, they're INNOCENT (criminally speaking. Who cares if actually they did do it and the bar in the criminal courts was too high to convict them even though they're 100% guilty??)

Now THAT is truly horrifying

1. Anyone lying in family court can be done for perjury right now! This is already the case

1. Criminal rules of evidence don't apply in cases where the parents have say, severe learning difficulties and mental health difficulties, and are obviously totally incapable of caring for a child for even 5 minutes unsupervised, but haven't actually committed any crimes.

Or where a parent has abused the elder children, and is pregnant again and SS want to remove baby immediately because of what's already happened

Or where severe chaos, dysfunction, domestic violence or other things are seriously damaging the child, but aren't a criminal matter

It's NOT about whether the parents have committed a crime which can be proved to conviction standard. It's about a child, whose best interests must be first, who has rights

claw2 yes they are

Claw2 if you won't read stuff them I can't take you seriously. You need to read this stuff and then decide if you want to ride under JH's banner anymore.

Maryz, his claims from the little I have just read, do seem extreme. I don't know how true they are.

I would say an 'expert' would mean someone qualified in their field ie psychiatrist, for example, especially if children have long well documented history and have had numerous reports written about them already. The Court or SS being the only ones allowed to call on 'experts' is unfair. Unless these previous reports could be included in evidence?

Even if they could I am always wary of how independent 'experts' and how detailed they are prepared to be, will be depending on who pays them. Not from what I have read on that site, but from personal experience. The LA often use the same experts to prepare all of their reports for example and although their reports are not filled with 'lies' etc, they often do not contain or miss out important facts etc.

Spero, I didn't say 'I wouldn't read stuff', I said I would try and read the full site later when I have time.

Im not riding under anyones banner, I didn't even know who JH or was until this thread.

I have heard the solutions i named above said many times, not from him and I happen to think they do not sound like bad ideas, even if his claims do seem extreme. I don't have to agree with everything he says and I can pick and choose which bits I do think are good ideas, without buying into his whole ideology or riding under anyones banner!

Using criminal convictions as the only method to remove a child from its family is not a solition, it's ridiculous and dangerous and I've addressed why above. If anyone would read that and then argue than only criminally convicted people should lose their children, then...um...I'm not sure what I say to that pure idiocy

This post by a legal blogger is quite useful background reading on the Hemming/Josephs/Booker trio, and Hemming's history on Mumsnet.

I didn't say criminal convictions should be used at all, I said anyone giving evidence having to swear on oath about the evidence they are giving, parents and professionals alike and asked a question.

Thank you for answering my question that this already the case, I didn't know that.

CBA to read the whole thread and its multitude of insults,
BUT
a quick thought about why all of this lady's babies were born by C-section rather than 'normally'

Labour takes hours. Its bloody and painful. Women become exhausted and say and do things that they are not always happy about afterwards. To get through it you need to remain focussed and coherent.

This woman (from the little I have read in the reputable press) has long standing mental health problems which probably preclude her successfully going through labour.

Therefore by deciding on a planned c-section, both she and the baby were spared hours of distress and pain that would probably have ended in an emergency operation anyway.

Or am I missing something?

Parents are allowed to apply for expert reports as well. Parents are allowed to apply for expert reports as well.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

The stuff JH et al say about experts being paid by the LA, reports not being shown to the parents, parents not allowed to instruct are lies.

They have been told this time and time again and they continue to repeat untruths so I can only conclude they do this maliciously and deliberately.

You haven't missed anything. These comments have already been made by a number of people. That's the problem when you can't be bothered to read the thread.

Claw2 - all evidence is either given under oath - religious - or affirmation. Lying in any court is the criminal offence of perjury.

spero
slap merrily accepted.

I shall now hide the thread content in the knowledge that the conspiracy theorists are indeed talking utter bilge

keep up the good work battling those who battle reality

Not so much a slap, more a light cuff.

Probably very sensible to stay off it. Can't say it's been very edifying. A few of us talking sense versus a few offering their own unique perspective. I only keep plodding on in case there are any lurker who do need reassurance.

Spero, as I said it was nothing that JH or the other guy said, it was personal experience.

Parents are allowed to apply for expert reports as well.
They need permission to disclose case papers and there is the question as to who pays for them and whether they will be used in evidence. If you want I can find court of appeal judgments refusing parents the opportunity of a second opinion.

I had agreed a statement to publish on behalf of Alessandra. With her support. That cannot be a human rights abuse.

I know why she had the two previous caesareans, but I am not going to tell you - because I don't have her permission. She had good reasons for wanting a VBAC which she had decided she wanted well before her capacity was in doubt.

A 'mistake' is not considered to be perjury and quite easy to get out of if it was intentional I suppose or as I said missing out important facts or info would be a 'mistake'.

Maybe swearing on oath, is irrelevant.

Anyhow im off.

This case is one where a second opinion was initially refused on appeal
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2007/136.html
I am too busy to find any more at the moment, but you can see from this the difficulty faced by parents wanting their own expert reports.

John - Will you say publically that Ian Josephs advice is wrong - eg. not reporting someone who sexually abuses your child to the Police, not co-operating with social services in any way, staying with a partner no matter what - or not?

Do you discourage parents from following his advice, and have you, on your blog or otherwise very visibly, said that doing this is dangerous (sexual abuse issue for instance)?