Italian adoption case III

[Juliet123456]

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.

Exexpat, it is probably dead simple, but really am massive Luddite.

Oh, and Lilka - on contact. I'm really interested in this, particularly in the experiences and needs of older children who had a relationship with their birth parents. I guess that is where continuing contact is most likely to be arranged. (Though having said that, I was considered for matching with a baby where there would be continuing direct contact with the birth father. We were up for that, but he wouldn't deal with us because we are lesbians and so our match was called off.)

In the case of my daughter, her birth parents loved her and didn't want her adopted. But nobody in the birth family visited her in the months she was in hospital, alone. And though we write to them every year, they have never replied. I'm not judging them for that - I understand why. But I think it points to the fact that if you have loved and lost a child, it calls for quite superhuman feats of self-control, empathy and resilience to be able to handle continuing contact with an adopted child. And those qualities are, inevitably, not over-represented among birth parents.

So I can understand how the idea of free and open continuing contact would make sense to someone with limited experience of how it works in reality. But in practice I can only see it working for a minority of families.

Hey Maryz, it was me that expressed concern for JH.

I'm a sweet soul, me

Maryz

Layton Bevan bought the fassit.co.uk url on June 25th 2005.

A buzy month that year for the defenders of hapless parents from babysnatchers.

He calls himself co-founder but I haven't noticed a mention in the "about" profiles of another person claiming the same status.

I'll have a longer poke around tommorow and see what I can find.

I am assuming JH had the documents given to him by the social worker in question. He probably told her he could get her re-instated, so long as she hadn't snatched any babies in the previous 6 months. After all he needs to know he is dealing with a "non-snatching" kind of social worker, as otherwise it would be a good thing if she was sacked as that would mean at least one social worker prevented from "baby snatching" and getting the baby "forcibly" adopted.

I am also surprised that he has seen fit to send the page to you Spero and without redacting the names of the workers involved is a serious breach of confidentiality. I wonder if the social worker in question knows he is e mailing this to you. Not that JH cares about protocol, especially where there is a point to "prove."

I think we are all well aware now that JH simply pulls words out of any document or legislation that he believes proves his point. I found the post he kept repeating of one Lisa longstaff from WAR very weird - there was no context whatsoever, as is the case with the ET document.

Question is..........is he really stupid or does he just pretend to be????

I reckon it's the former.

Madame you made me smile with your post about the baby in the manger. Of course he would be "snatched" by social workers as everyone knows a wooden manger and a bed of straw is not a suitable place for a baby to be laid. And Mary and Joseph weren't married for god's sake and they'd made no preparations for this baby......oh definitely a case for baby snatching without a doubt. Now what would the role of JH be - King Herod maybe?

Loved the idea of you polishing the hooves of your set of flying pigs Spero you have a very amusing turn of phrase at times. Thanks too for the Nottingham case link -I will read it but the hour is late and I need sleep............the thing is I wonder why this Judge didn't see fit to draw the attention of Nick Clegg (or whoever) to his Judgement.

www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-2519950/PETER-HITCHENS-Todays-child-snatchers-evil-Philomenas-nuns.html

PETER HITCHENS: Today's child-snatchers are as evil as Philomena's nuns

Good morning, Mr Hemming. Relying on the several-sandwiches-short-of-a-picnic Hitchens is truly the mark of a desperate man.

Would you care to tell us why you say that social worker was sacked for refusing to remove a baby from its parents, when the document you said gave "absolute proof" in fact demonstrates the opposite?

Ug. DM and Hitchens at so early an hour.

Mr Hemming- is there any document in the Italian language about the AP case in the public domain that you can link to? I asked yesterday but you didn't reply.

The document I sent demonstrates that a social worker was fired for proposing that a child be returned to its parents. The la added to this this arguing that additional assessments were required.

Firstly, that does not change the original assertion which is that a SW was fired for proposing that a child be returned to its parents (against management instructions).

Secondly, the child did remain in care, but no further assessments were made. To me that is evidence that the management did not really believe that any further assessments were needed and were merely using that as a spurious justification for the case of not returning the child to its parents.

www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-2519950/PETER-HITCHENS-Todays-child-snatchers-evil-Philomenas-nuns.html

I quote Peter Hitchens to demonstrate that I am not isolated in my view that there will be an apology needed in future years for the policy of babystealing that has happened over the past 13 years.

JH - the document you sent proves only this - that the Defendant/Respondent believes the Social Worker was disciplined for refusing to follow the instructions of her line manager, which were communicated to her verbally and in writing via email.

Those instructions were not to proceed with recommendations for reunification in the absence of further assessments of the parents ability to care for the child.

That you are unable or unwilling to understand this is really quite incredible.

Now that you are back from the pub, maybe in a few hours you will have a clearer head and you can re-read page 16 that you sent to me?

Op - did you read his last sentence ? 'Policy of baby stealing'

Do you accept now what we have been saying about conspiracy theories?

I quote Peter Hitchens to demonstrate that I am not isolated in my view that there will be an apology needed in future years for the policy of babystealing that has happened over the past 13 years.

No, you are not isolated in your view. And thank you for consistently illuminating the pedigree of the people who share it. Becuase it is very informative. Are you sure you don't want to link to support from David Ike just to further underline the calibar of the people you have managed to persuade with your blog links fact finding and research ?

Also

Did you have permission to send that page of a court doc to a random lawyer on the internet ? If so, who ?

Why did you not bother to redact it ?

Are your actions with regards to the document above indicative of normal standards of thinking and beahvoir amoung your peers in the HofC ?

If one has serious concerns regarding the actions of an MP (specifically with regards to sharing unredacted legal documents that relate to an ongoing case with mumsnet posters) who should one contact in the HofC ?

I have already tried with parliament, they made it clear they couldn't be less interested.

Here is what I am going to do. I follow about 25 journalist/legal blogger types on twitter.

I am going to tweet them a link to this thread and ask if they think the activities of JH here are worthy of further investigation.

If others think this is a good idea, I urge you to do the same.

Gosh, when people resort to that kind of thing it feels so below the belt it's not worthy of mumsnet. By all means let us talk about the issues but there is no reason for any of it to get personal at all.

I believe Sarah Palin has time on her hands these days. Maybe she'd like to be patron?

I have C+ped too. Just cut and paste into an email and send it back to yourself. Simple and date stamped too.

Gosh, when people resort to that kind of thing it feels so below the belt it's not worthy of mumsnet. By all means let us talk about the issues but there is no reason for any of it to get personal at all.

Your regular appearnces where your primary contribution is fanning yourelf like a victorian lady in fully fledged pearl clutch are starting to get a little tedious. Not to mention transparent.

It's a bit late to try and squash the geenie back in the bottle at this point.

I'm afriad in the "like it or lump it" equation you are stuck with "lump it" when it cones to people discussing pertinent and evidence backed facts as they relate to John Hemming's personal motivations with regards to this issue and the depths he is prepared to stoop to when "on task".

Spero I have found and woken up my twitter account. If you could PM or post some likely candidates to tweet to I'll get started.

Juliet how on earth is this below the belt? I mean-come on.

We have legitimate concerns about a man who believes it is acceptable to encourage non disclosure of sexual abuse of children because he supports the view that it is the only way to avoid losing your children.

Do YOU think this is acceptable? Would you not report a sexual abuser of your children to the police?

If you want to prevent honest public debate of this subject and the odious dangerous men who promulgate possibly illegal views then don't post threads like these.

Such comments sound like a child touching an oven and whining that it is too hot.

If Child Protection can be used and abused in SEN cases, I fail to see why it couldn't or wouldn't be used in any other case.

No BatmansHoleySocks yet to agree with Juliet? I hope he/she is alright? It seems very odd.

I am prepared to join Twitter if necessary

@Spero We could also find a paper that didn't print the original story and some journalist who has a knack for... Revealing the truth behind the lies already published... Are we making a Hemmingate here?

Concerning politicians, unless someone here is one of Cameron's relatives, to contact them is wasting time.
Is it possible to start a petition to have this (enter bad word here) resign for good?

@Mignonette good post!

@Drank I am on twitter already ;) unfortunately I don't think I have anyone 'important' among my followers :/

Juliet. There are many, many reasons why it is important that this man's behaviour is investigated.

Are you really comfortable that a serving MP behaves in this way?

Have tweeted Carl Gardner, familoo, James Turner QC, Simon Myerson QC, suesspiciousminds, hendopolis and Nick Cohen.

Will continue to trawl my twitter feed. Already have response from James Turner QC.

Its laughable that those accusing JH's interest for politic gain are then using the thread as a politic platform for themselves!

As I am not a politician nor have any interest in becoming one, I fail to see how I am using this scandal as a 'political platform' for myself.

My concern is that this man is dangerous, as he has proved. He is unable to distinguish between fact and assertion and he 'advised' very vulnerable people whilst remaining utterly unaccountable for his advice.