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.

Lilka

If you search messages with #mumsnet and don't mind scrolling down a bit you should find me.

@Lilka wants to join too. I am on twitter too

Carpe You're the TEFL teacher?

@Lilka

I agree about what you said to Juliet. Not agreeing with someone doesn't mean you're in the system.

For instance, I am no lawyer, no social worker, not adopted or not adopting either... I am just Italian. Does that make me bad too?

And I do believe I've found Spero as well

I don't tweet under my real name, I use my online blog name, hopefully you'll recognise me from my description

The point about the management instructing a social worker as to what conclusions she came to is that her duty is to the court under the civil procedure rules. Hence she should tell the court what her real belief is not what she has been told to say. Telling her to lie to the court is in fact a criminal offence.

Well, possibly Lake

Who told whom to lie to the court?

From the quoted excerpt (if I've understood it correctly-always a big if!), the social worker was not told what to believe but was instructed not to undertake a particular action unless and until more assessments had been done.

I couldn't find anyone on twitter ;(
Sending you mine by PM, it is better.

"The claimant submitted a care plan of rehabilitation to the court on 16 2012 May contrary to her manager's instructions."

The care plan details what is supposed to happen for the child and is based upon the opinion of the expert witness (in this case the local authority employed social worker).

What is particularly bad about this is that the LA believe that it is reasonable to fire someone for giving their honest opinion to the court.

Yes I am the TEFL teacher.

But don't panic, I take care to use correct spelling and grammar when on duty

John Hemming: Surely the point is that they were telling her she could not form an adequate final view until she had the further assessments. You will no doubt respond that they didn't get the further assessments, in which case I refer you to my post at 11.34 which, unsurprisingly, you have ignored yet again.

However, it was her view that she did not need further assessments and the evidence points to this.

The underlying issue is that the judicial system relies on the opinions of the social workers being their opinions not those of their managerial heirarchy.

Sorry, overlooked Adam Wagner who does good human rights law blog. Also tweeted Martin Marey.

And JH continues to assert he has 'proof' of his astonishing allegations?

He is obviously a fan of John Major's famous saying - when my back is against the wall - I will turn and fight!

@Spero lol!

@Drank I know it is OT, but did you come across the sentence of the Italian 60-year-old guy married to an 11-year-old little girl in Calabria?
It was so revolting I stopped reading...
Then we wonder why this case has no much media coverage anymore in Italy....

JH : social workers are not autonomous though in the majority of care proceedings or CP work. I don't doubt that you would be the first one up in arms if the situation was reversed and it was the manager recommending a return home and the social worker refusing to support this.

Managers are (generally) there because of their experience and practice. A social worker would be expected during supervision to take direction and also back up their arguments where there were disagreements regarding Care Planning.

You haven't provided evidence to back up your case, you've just left me questioning the capacity of the social worker in question.

Yuck, no I didn't LDB, but I despair of the whole "family" ethos pedalled (it has to be said, generally by outsiders/foreigners looking in) about Italy and Italians.

There are just as many (if not more) dysfunctional abusive families here, it's just that omerta' comes into play so no-one talks about it. You only have to look at the whole "feminicidio" thing. Only now they are starting to realise that 250 women a year killed by their partners might be a leedle bit unacceptable.....

Indeed. My brother (doctor) was asked to change an expert witness report (not in family law) and refused as his duty is to the court and the law firm sacked him from the case!

I only remember one suggestion when I asked how it coudl be improved which was throw more money at it. There may have been more on the other thread ut lik most people I am working and not taking a PhD in who posts what.

I have just never seen on mumsnet such a concerted series of comments which have become extremely personalised in a way I don't feel is helpful to any parties.

@Juliet123456
I am usually quite sensible in posting on the internet, rarely I feel compelled to take it personal. But I don't feel ashamed to say that the title you chose for this thread is clearly one-sided and misleading.

Worse, the British people on 'that' side of the issue continue to completely ignore all the posts written by Italians or Uk expats living in Italy who keep telling the Brits that your knowledge of Italian affairs is, at best, low and full of stereotypes.

Italy is not Dysneyland and above all in every list concerning women's rights is at the bottom, see DrankSangriaInThePark post for confirmation

but why am I telling you this whilst you will keep thinking that Italians are happy spaghetti-eaters under the sun? Psst, must tell Cameron that all his polls about Italian migrants coming 'en masse' to UK to escape financial disaster are fake lol

@Drank yes, absolutely right. Only a few foreigners can understand that 'omertá' is not just related to mafia but to other social Italian structures. In the end i panni sporchi si lavano in famiglia, no?

The point, however, is that what is done is supposed to be in the best interests of the child and not the best interests of the local authority.

The difficulty arises from where decisions are taken in the local authority and the grounds upon which they are taken. If people are subject to a conflict of interest in fact they should recuse themselves from making a decision.

However, what happens in practice is that the minister says to the LA Cabinet Member for Childrens services "more adoptions", the Cabinet Member says to the Chief officer "more adoptions," the Chief officer says to the divisional manager "more adoptions" and the divisional manager says to the team leader "more adoptions" then the team leader says to the social worker "don't send that child home".

John Hemming: However, it was her view that she did not need further assessments and the evidence points to this.

The underlying issue is that the judicial system relies on the opinions of the social workers being their opinions not those of their managerial heirarchy.

Where precisely do you say it is provided that the opinion of the individual social worker is the last word on whether a child does or does not need further assessments? That way disaster lies, particularly given that inevitably some SWs have much less experience than others. the individual SW's manager will normally be a more experienced and senior SW, and if that person considers that further assessments are needed before a final opinion is expressed, it is, to say the least, incredibly arrogant to steam ahead without this. That individual may have thought that the child did not need further assessments, but others apparently did; who is she to say they are wrong? Supposing a further assessment resulted in conclusive evidence that the child would be irreparably damaged by being returned to her parents? Or, indeed, the senior SWs might reasonably have taken the view that, although she was probably right about the child being returned, the evidence needed to be strengthened before she expressed a final view since otherwise the judge would not be convinced?

You imply that the managerial hierarchy in social work department is purely administrative. Manifestly that is not the case. Look at the report on the Climbie inquiry, for instance, for an illustration of how social workers at different levels within the hierarchy were all rightly held to account.

I notice you are yet again ignoring most of the points I made that are inconvenient to your agenda.

Juliet, if you can seriously only remember one response to your invitation for comments, you haven't been following your own thread. It is really incredibly rude to castigate people for their responses when you haven't bothered to pay attention to what they are saying.

Comments are only personalised in relation to one individual who has chosen to put himself forward very prominently in support of the proposition that social workers are child stealers. He didn't have to come on this thread. It is inevitable that responses to him will be personalised to him.

Indeed. My brother (doctor) was asked to change an expert witness report (not in family law) and refused as his duty is to the court and the law firm sacked him from the case!

Not relevant, with respect. This was an independent law firm, nothing to do with councils, in an independent contractual arrangement with your brother. They should certainly not have tried to make him change his opinion. However, in that situation if the firm does not want to use the expert's report it does not have to. Even experts aren't infallible.

Juliet, I made a variety of suggestions for reform, including one where JH and I were actually in agreement, namely an upper age limit for SW to ensure professionals in this field had the requisite life experience.

Why do you persist in so clumsily misrepresenting the views expressed on here?