Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Italian adoption case III

999 replies

Juliet123456 · 07/12/2013 09:29

The last thread says all I need to know about those in the system. It also the most legally dangerous thread I have ever seen on mumsnet. I hope someone has been through the posts for libel risk. It also entirely one sided and biased and makes me laugh.

The defensiveness of those involved in this area will hopefully disappear once we have the openness that JH and indeed many others are seeking and obtaining as the judges increasingly accept that it helps everyone to understand what are very difficult decisions - parents, children and lawyers and social workers and expert witnesses in this field.

It will continue to be important always to get to the facts and where possible publish the facts. I continue to believe that almost any of us could have our children removed if the state set its mind to that. If publishing more decisions and giving rights to parents and those involved and the children to write what they like on twitter, facebook and the like and to let parents and children even when separated communicate and talk about any issues they choose will help then let us hope the law continues down that course.

OP posts:
CarpeVinum · 08/12/2013 21:46

Now a lot of things make more sense

I found the same one.

Hark the sound of the penny dropping.

Lilka · 08/12/2013 21:55

Blimey Westmorland

No one could read that and continue to deny that Hemming has endorsed and believed the conspiracy that social workers are stealing children just to get them adopted

If he no longer believes that, he could at least say "Yes I used to believe that but I have changed my mind and now think this" rather than try and deny he ever thought that against the very obvious evidence

NanaNina · 08/12/2013 22:06

I thought a change of tack might be useful:

We have heard a great deal from JH on the plight of the "loving parents who have had their babies snatched from them, even snatched from the breast" would you believe......NOW let us talk a little of the children concerned, a matter on which JH is silent

What about the rights of the child to live in a safe and happy environment with parents who will meet all of his needs (both physical and emotional) in order that he can become a well adjusted adult and fulfil his potential in life.

Here are a few cases that spring to mind in which I have been involved over very many years in the field of child protection. I would state at this point that I am in no sense judging or even blaming the parents/step parents of these children, as they have all without exception experienced harsh treatment themselves as children, some have learning disabilities/mental health problems/ have been sexually abused as children and have no idea how to be "good-enough" parents.

JH I wonder could you comment on the following. It's quite simple - its's a Yes or No answer though you could elaborate if you wish:

A 3 year old boy and his 5 month old half sister live in a high rise flat with their mother (A) and mother's boyfriend (B) (he is not the biological father of either of the children) Both have learning disabilities and the boyfriend attended a special residential school for children who were (in the parlance of the day) educationally sub-normal. The school was closed down when it was found that the head teacher and the deputy were sexual abusing boys in their care. In addition there was "child on child abuse."

The health visitor is raising concerns about the family and reporting that A seems afraid of B and the 3yr old is pale and listless and the baby is not putting on weight. I visit the family on a twice weekly basis and I too have concerns. A is most certainly very wary of B. 3 year old is pale and listless but of even more concern he is "robotic" and is constantly looking at B in a way that suggests he is awaiting instruction. The baby in the pram lies still and fairly motionless.

On my next visit the 3 year old is not to be seen and I'm told he is "hibernating" in his bedroom. The child is sitting in a space between the end of his bed and the wall. He has bruising to the face. I pick him up and he is stiff in my arms. He has linear bruising to his face and neck and bruising in the ears. I ask what has happened. B gets agitated and leaves the flat. I ask A what has happened and she tells me B has hit the child because he won't call him daddy. I tell the mother I need the boy to be seen by a GP right away - she agrees to come with me. On the way she admits to being scared of B with whom she has only lived for a few months. She asks if we will "take the baby away as well" as B shakes her.

Later that day I obtain a Place of Safety Order on both children (now known as an EPO) and they are placed with foster carers. Both children are later adopted. B is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The couple split up. Later there is a contested adoption hearing by the mother and the Judge dispenses with her consent on the grounds that it is her consent is being unreasonably withheld.
A is in another relationship with a man much older than herself who is very well known to the Probation Service and has received a number of custodial sentences for aggravated burglary and theft.

OK sorry that was longer than I intended - so JH what is your reaction to this forced adoption

I'll make it easier for you : Was it the right thing for the children to be adopted against the mother's wishes: YES/NO?? Or of course you could elaborate.

NanaNina · 08/12/2013 22:09

Ah I see the cat is out of the bag - hmm maybe cat was not the best expression as I think it was his ex wife who killed a cat belonging to his mistress, or something like that. My god fancy fighting over a porky idiot like him..........but there's no accounting for taste!

nennypops · 08/12/2013 22:29

It's interesting that Hemming says that the reason he quoted the Birthrights blog is that he doesn't know enough about VBAC. Because the author of that blog is a relatively inexperienced barrister, not a doctor, who manifestly does not know much about VBAC either. A measure of her medical knowledge can be seen in the part which he hasn't quoted, where she queried the urgency of the Court of Protection case because, at 39 weeks pregnant, the woman might not have gone into labour for several days and suggests that there should have been some consideration of whether there were any signs of her going into labour. I must say I found that quite bizarre on several fronts. Firstly, we don't know what was in the evidence filed with the court; secondly, they needed a decision before she went into labour, because an emergency Caesarian was obviously undesirable; and finally, the suggestion that the doctors could be confident that she wasn't about to go into labour manifestly absurd. And I write as a person who was in fact confidently told by obstetricians that it was likely to be several days before I went into labour, only to give birth less than 24 hours later.

I'm afraid the blog is full of a number of assumptions that various points were not considered by the judge or the barrister which rest on equally shaky foundations, again because the writer has no idea what was in the reports filed with the court. The judge was giving an extempore judgment, not writing a finely honed essay covering each and every point of evidence in front of him.

I'm afraid the whole thing is a very clear illustration of just why it is dangerous to rely on blogs to support factual allegations.

WestmorlandSausage · 08/12/2013 22:30

I'm itching to post more Lilka but in the name of fair play will give Mr Hemming opportunity to respond to my earlier questions first if he deigns to do so.

WestmorlandSausage · 08/12/2013 22:32

although in fairness I have already given him numerous chances over two threads....

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:37

Sorry to bring the focus back from JH but I have now returned from the cinema and have had the opportunity to examine, aptly, the contents of my junk email folder.

What I find is quite astonishing. Ordinarily, I would not dream of commenting on 1 page of a document when I know nothing of the case or its issues, but I think this are not ordinary circumstances.

I have been sent one page of a document. The page is numbered '16' so I assume it is a fairly long document. I have paras 28-32 of what I can only guess is the response to the claim by the Social Worker that she was 'sacked for recommending reunification of parent and child'.

JH has not seen fit to redact the name of the manager involved so I will.

Remember that JH asserts this document will be 'proof' of what I have already described as an extraordinary claim.

The relevant para reads:
[name redacted] made it clear to the Claimant both verbally and via email that the care plan for DN must stop short of rehabilitation or a commitment to return DN to the care of her parents, as further assessments needed to be carried out on the ability of the parents to care for DN [emphasis mine].

What I find astonishing is:
a) that a member of Parliament would stoop to sending documents in on going court proceedings to a 'random lawyer on the internet' (thanks Maryz) and also
b) that he cannot see that this page, rather than providing proof instead undermines his earlier assertion that the Social Worker was 'sacked for recommending reunification'.

It is clear from the little I have read that she was disclipined for going against the clear instructions of her Line Manager.

So JH. Will you withdraw your assertion that you know of a Social Worker sacked for recommending reunification of parent and child? The truth is slightly different isn't it?

Can you even tell any more I wonder?

MadameDefarge · 08/12/2013 22:41

Can you imagine being the landlord of JH's local? Propping up the bar convivially on a bleak Sunday evening? Exchanging robust views with salt of the earth types as they puff ruminatively in their (sadly empty) pipes. Recalling happier times when unwanted babies were left on doorsteps and popped into the workhouse, bewailing modern fancy notions of finding happy homes for the tow headed tots.

Especially apt at Christmas, when minds stray to the fate of the baby Jesus. Can you imagine it nowadays? poor little mite would be whisked away by SWs the moment the cows started lowing and given to the mean innkeeper and his avaricious wife.

How your heart must sink/rejoice as he walks back in the door.

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:41

In fact, I think I can do no better than cite again the words of Lord Justice Wall in the case of RP v Nottingham City Council and the Official Solicitor [2008] EWCA

And if the op is clutching her pearls at these 'appalling' abusive words, please remember, they aren't mine but the views of a High Court Judge.

  1. Para 88. I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr. Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr. Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.
  2. Para 125: Mr. Hemming’s allegation that HJ [the clinical psychologist] is part of an “evil” system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming’s position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.
nennypops · 08/12/2013 22:44

Spero' did you get the carefully selected page from the employment tribunal case and does it provide the conclusive proof that JH claims?

I'm not massively convinced by his claim that he's not providing the full documentation because it would identify the people involved. It would be perfectly easy to obscure anything which might identify them. Yes, it might be a bit fiddly, but if this case provides such fantastic proof for his theories you'd think he'd be eager to present the whole thing; otherwise people might think he was trying to hide the parts that actually weaken or destroy his case, and that would never do.

nennypops · 08/12/2013 22:45

Sorry, cross posted

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:48

If anyone hasn't read the Nottingham case, it is well worth a read.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2355

And you need to remember that JH took this all the way to the European Court - and lost. But he never reminds people about that.

And of course, in the middle of all this was the mother of the child in question who must have been led to believe she had a chance in hell of being reunified with her child because JH had told her she was the victim of an 'evil system'.

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:49

This is one of the rare occasions when I find words inadequate to express my deep loathing and contempt for this carbuncle on the arse of British politics.

Sorry op, I know it must be awful to keep reading this hysterical abusive stuff.

I do apologise.

In your dreams.

nennypops · 08/12/2013 22:51

He's learnt nothing from his run-in with Lord Justice Wall, has he?

I look forward to his unequivocal acceptance that that document proves that the social worker was not sacked for refusing to return a child to its parents. But I fear I will be looking forward to it for a very long time.

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:53

As I wait for the 'stats' to evidence his claim in 2011 that children are taken into care to meet adoption targets, I will wait for the 'proof' that a SW was sacked for the simple crime of recommending reunification of a loving mother and child.

As I wait, I will lovingly polish the hooves of my flock of winged pigs.

WestmorlandSausage · 08/12/2013 22:53

Isn't it strange that when JH is at the pub all of his supporters are absent too.

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:53

Right, I have got to go and put the bins out.

How fitting.

Spero · 08/12/2013 22:54

Poor man can't drink alone can he?

Maryz · 08/12/2013 22:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 08/12/2013 22:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MadameDefarge · 08/12/2013 23:03

In the pub?

MadameDefarge · 08/12/2013 23:04
Wink
CarpeVinum · 08/12/2013 23:05

that a member of Parliament would stoop to sending documents in on going court proceedings to a 'random lawyer on the internet' (thanks Maryz)

How come he has them ? Was he entrusted with access becuase he is an MP, or involved in the case, or were they given to him by somebody else involved in the case ?

Does sharing them with you, even if he had a perfect right to have the document, consititute some kind of legal "naughty " or is it "slap on the wrist" stuff that people do all the time even though offically they shouldn't ?

Spero · 08/12/2013 23:10

I can only assume the Social Worker - god help her - has enlisted his help on her crack legal team.

As I understand it, employment court documents are not subject to the same kind of rules about confidentiality as family or court of protection proceedings but I still think it highly dubious he thinks its 'ok' to email me a document prepared by the other side and he can't even be bothered to redact the managers name.

If it is not unlawful it is certainly highly, highly inappropriate.

I am taking advice as to whether I need to inform the Employment Tribunal about this.