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.

Claw2 do you understand the targets point now? This is very important.

Lots of people have already explained but JH persists in saying there is a target to remove children from their parents care to have them adopted.

this is a lie.

this is a lie he repeats

IMO the worst part is that it prevents reasoned debate
I would like to see improvements in the system which (I believe) added to the damage done to my DD by her BM
I would never discuss this on-line because I wouldn't want to add fuel for the loons to use as an argument

I am deeply suspicious about the reasons men want to keep what happens to children within an abuse family private

What improvements would those on the thread involved with child proceedings like to see to ensure fewer bad cases occur? I presume you all accept that some decisions are wrong.

Juliet - I'm not involved in this area at all, but I think more funding for children's services would be a very good step, so that social workers do not have ridiculously unmanageable workloads and so can offer more support before it gets to the stage of care proceedings, or can make better assessments when things start going wrong. Some parents are never going to be good enough, but some might be adequate with intensive support.

@Spero a lie he repeated in the last 8 years, incredibly unbelievable!

@Lilka that idiot posts irritated me to no end. Your rant is 100% justified and it is amazing that people on this thread stand up for their rights against these.... What? I don't think that any insult could be enough to cover it.

Early and focused intervention and support so that families get help before overwhelmed by crisis.

More realistic appraisal of the hopeless cases so children are not left for years in abusive situations, thus causing such immense trauma they cannot be placed with families but need specialist therapeutic placement at enormous cost.

Better training and support for social workers so young newly qualifiers are not left with enormous workloads which mean they cannot give proper attention to each case, mistakes are made and they are likely to go on long term sick leave

More judges and court time available so applications can be heard quickly

Elected MPs stop spouting poisonous garbage and thus scaring people away from this field.

That should be abusive family- sorry very tired

I think more social workers, strict controls on case load, more support, more time with families, judges from the real world, closer working with education/other agencies

Yes maryz good suggestion.

More foster carers, particularly those who can take young mothers and babies. A lot of young mothers could cope but they need a lot of support and a very nurturing environment.

More joined up thinking and communication between agencies would help the very vulnerable families for eg those with learning disabilities

Fine the Daily Mail each time it publishes scurrilous untruths and put money into providing therapeutic work for families

Whenever I see threads about grossly dysfunctional families
with parent so addled by drugs that their children have to be taken away
and have their identities hidden to protect them from the criminal / unbelievable behaviour of that parents

my reply is
"Hans Rausing"

money can buy you privacy, and good schooling for your kids well away from you, but it cannot cure the underlying illness

Talkinpeace - there are levels of emotional abuse in middle class families that will never be investigated because as you say these families can hide their difficulties with money. They don't send their children to school hungry and dirty. But the damage they can do can be great.

But another unifying factor for JH and chums is that they scoff at notion of emotional abuse and don't seem to believe it is real and has consequences.

Better, cheaper, faster access to counselling, therapy, drugs intervention.

Funding for kids company to be trebled, not cut.

Re-positioning social work as a respected and valuable career. Maybe with age limit, no one under 30? Big problems in many of my cases arise when young social workers just can't relate to their clients and get their backs up right from the off.

Politicians who genuinely want to make things better for their constituents, not spend all their time on the internet trying to be the big I Am.

There is more, so much more I could say Juliet but I suspect this is nothing you are interested in because it doesn't revolve around some big sexy conspiracy theory where all the social workers turn out to be baby eating lizards.

spero: Maybe with age limit, no one under 30?

Something we agree on. People need life experience. Ideally their own children. I tend to think that people who have had children have a substantial better level of experience.

There are in fact a number of social workers who support me in what I do.

spero
Politicians who genuinely want to make things better for their constituents
sadly in my work I cross paths with many who would purport to be such.
In the fragrant modern age od the professional politician, they ALL go into it for eyes on the prize
there are two prizes

• top cabinet post
• high paid column in the daily heil

neither of which involves really giving a shit about those who cannot pay £1000 a head for fundraising lunches

hence why, spero there has never been a real incentive to reduce the number of chargeable court appearances in a "plead guilty" criminal case

• the lawyers buy lunches for politicians
• pointless hearings billed to the CPS at a 1 hour minimum continue

trebles all round

I never thought this would be possible but yes JH and I do agree on something.

Life experience is essential for all professionals who need to try and engage with people in crisis. You can't just come out of university as a naive 20 something and start trying to engage with hardened drug addicts.

I am a much better family lawyer aged 40 than I was aged 26. Not because I got any cleverer or work any harder but because I know more about life and when to have compassion and when to be harder.

Talkinpeace, I didn't understand your post.

The criminal bar is in meltdown because their fees have been frozen since 1997 and are now being cut. Similar cuts are being made to the family bar. My earnings, 90% from public law work have been cut by 20%.

Last Christmas I nearly went bankrupt because I was paid £89 for the whole month of December.

If you are saying lawyers and politicians are in cahoots, we at the family and criminal bar do not get the benefit from that.

spero
case I was involved in,
reported to the police in February
arrested but not charged April
charged May (CPS lawyer engaged)
case delayed three times
hearing in september to confirm guilty plea
hearing in late september to confirm conviction
hearing in november to set sentence
hearing due in february on funds recovery

sorry, but I just DO NOT understand the number of 3 minute hearings (which involve shit loads of everybodys time at over £100 per hour)
I now watch the court lists
most "hearings" are under 10 minutes and are carry forward
that is a gross and utter misuse of taxpayer funds and time

Lawyers are paid for the numer of hours worked
wheras if they were paid for completed cases then all these silly hearings wouls stop
and yes, complicated cases .... blah blah .... pro bono
I average my fee out across ten years and 30 clients to work out the right fee on a "job done" basis.
Some I lose, some I gain.
Lawyers have become obsessed with win win. They are wrong.

But at least they understand why they are wrong, unlike certain politicians ....

It's a long time since I did any crime. But I certainly didn't get £100 an hour. I got £12 to do a bail app once. By time I bought my client his cigarettes (this is the etiquette) and got my tube ticket, I lost money that day.