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.

The views I've very consistently expressed are -

• There is no nationwide conspiracy to remove children to get them adopted
• Anti-Ian Josephs, backed up by his quotes
• Some anti-John Hemming, backed up by

Am I arrogant to think that it's wrong to advise parents to not report someone who sexually assualts their child to the police? Hey, maybe I am wrong - do you agree with Ian Jospephs wetaugust ? Is it wrong to warn people about what Ian Josephs is saying?

I DO feel pretty self assured that I'm right to say that Ian Josephs is wrong, that sexual abusers must be reported to the Police, that JH must NOT associate himself with these views, and that social workers are not running a nationwide conspiracy to snatch children for adoption

I also find it quite scary that some people disagree with that

ooops

That should say - backed up by his previous actions

Claw2, you are absolutely right in saying that some LAs have been known to take child protection proceedings against parents who are taking them to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and indeed against parents who take action to enforce their children's rights to SEN provision in schools and otherwise, and their right to proper care.

I also agree that a lot of the motivation in that is to make money, but in my experience there is a certain amount that is simply down to the ego of the individuals concerned. I get the impression that some people, both in education and social services departments, absolutely hate it when a parent stands up to them and demands that they do their job, and they go down the CP route to try to frighten them off. They particularly hate it if the balance of power changes because the parent has got a lawyer involved. I've seen a case involving the adoptive mother of two children with very serious problems as a result of the dreadful experiences they had gone through with their natural parents. She was utterly exhausted as a result of the problems in looking after them, getting educatiol help, and the near-total lack of support from social services. When she went to lawyers and got some decent but expensive educational provision for one and started pushing for more help with care, the LA started child protection proceedings. That can't have been down to money, because fostering would have been much more expensive than providing more help at home, and seems to have been down to the personal spite of the SWs concerned.

BUT I have to stress that in my experience these cases are in the minority. Whilst I probably share your views about people in education departments, I have also come across social workers who have actually been prepared to support parents - though again they are in a minority. Most tend to stay neutral.

In a way, it's the very fact that there are some useless and indeed harmful SWs out there that makes me angry about the hysterical reaction to this case, especially the papers who have deliberately spread misinformation - Daily Mail, I'm looking at you - and the way John Hemming has cynically used this very sad case to support his personal and massively misinformed campaign. I can see some errors by the social workers in this case. For instance, goodness only knows what they were doing in apparently suggesting they would line the police up to take the baby. However, the idea that they were ready to pounce on the opportunity to take the baby in order to fulfil non-existent adoption quotas is absolutely absurd. Even if they existed, the cost of the adoption proceedings will have outweighed any possible financial bonus. My feeling after looking at the reports and the judgments is that everyone concerned was doing their best in what was a very difficult situation and fully took into account the mother's difficulties.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone suggest there is a mass baby snatching conspiracy going on. It simply makes those making accusations of that kind look very silly and we believe their arguments even less.

Some people, I included, believe that there are some miscarriages of justice and a system which could be improved - that is all and I would suspect most professionals in the field agree. Therefore, in a sense, we are all on the same side in wanting to improve things and thankfully in some (but by no means all contexts) we have some freedom of speech to write about such things.

SENLawyer.

You have identified many issues within the SEN system that many of us, unfortunately, have first-hand experience of.

.

wetaugust: when you feel it necessary to resort to personal attacks you really have lost the argument.

Just so you know, I'm not a "crony" of any other poster on this thread, nor am I a parent of adopted children or a professional in the care or mental health fields. Quite why you should think it wrong for people who, y'know, know a bit about the subject to post their views completely baffles me anyway. Nor am I in any way an apologist for the system. In fact, I think what really annoys me about JH and his supporters is the fact that by spreading what are such self-evident misrepresentations of the true facts, they are diverting attention away from the real problems such as those senlawyer and claw2 have mentioned.

Superb article about JH here - www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/12/05/one-flew-over-the-hemmings-nest/

But Juliet Ian Josephs, Christopher Booker and many parents who have children in the system, or whose children have been adopted, ARE making those exact allegations, and taking action based on the conspiracy belief

That's why I wind up on these thread challenging that, and asking John (given that he speaks at conferences with and talks to Ian Josephs and has previously spoken well of him) whether or not he agrees with Ian and if not, why on Earth does he not publically distance himself from those extreme views, which would give him more credibility

I also believe that there are some miscarriages of justice and that the system could be improved. You will not find any one of us who believes the system does not get it wrong sometimes

I do not believe that this case with this Italian woman is a miscarriage of justice. Some things may have been handled wrong, but nothing has lead me to believe that she did not need a C section, that her baby should be returned to her and she would be an absolutely fine parent in that event

In fact we did discuss ways to improve the system on the last thread as you'll find ALL of us believe it needs improvement. It certainly does

Not only to CB, IJ and others believe in a conspiracy, but the DM latches on to it and has printed conspiracy articles in the past as well, and many of the readers believe every word

We are not imagining it, we see it in front of our eyes and challenge it

Unfortunately, because we have to challenge it, we have less time to discuss what's actually going on, the ways the system could be improved, where it's failing etc

Can I remind everyone of a quote from John Hemming in the Mail last week: "The adoption is now likely to be challenged by lawyers.
It may also be raised in the Commons by Lib Dem MP John Hemming, a long-standing campaigner against court secrecy, who said: ‘It is hard to avoid the suspicion that adoption targets set for Essex may have come into play. We do not know whether she was held in the UK as a favour for Essex social workers.' "

Now, is it just me, or does the reference to adoption targets there very much imply that there are targets to take children into care in order to put them up for adoption?

Earlier on this thread, Hemming posted:

"spero asked this question on the previous thread:
"Every time JH pops up on a thread like this I am going to ask him the same question - where is the proof that LA now or ever were paid a bounty for every baby they took into care?"

I have never said this. I did say that Local Authorities were rewarded financially for increasing the numbers of adoptions."

As everyone else has pointed out, the only targets are to increase adoptions of children who are already in care, but everything Hemming says seems to be promoting the scaremongering view that social workers are rewarded for taking children away from parents in order to be put up for adoption. Otherwise, how on earth could he make a link between adoption targets and the case of the Italian mother?

By the way, it's very annoying when people decide that anything I say must be wrong because I'm an adoptive parent

Some who are IJ and CB supporters think that I'm a baby stealer who support more healthy babies being adopted, no matter where they've come from, that I stole my poor children from some innocent woman blah blah blah

And everyone else thinks that just because my children came from 'the system' that I would somehow be really grateful to the system and therefore shut my eyes to any failings in it

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I am sad that my children couldn't be raised in their birth family free from harm like most children can, I have had some BAD experiences with social workers and have known adoptive parents who were completely screwed over by SS, I want birth parents to be able to care for their children wherever possible etc etc

Sigh

This, from JH's blog, says it all about his profound ignorance of the reality of mental health problems and his attitude to the mother in this case:

However, the question as to how people who are deemed “too stupid” to make decisions for themselves are treated in the process of deciding whether or not they are indeed “too stupid” (ie lack capacity) or indeed what the decision should be remains open.

According to the Ministry of Truth article, he's got form for describing people who lack capacity in that manner. As the article points out, no-one else has ever said that this mother was stupid, and having a dreadful mental illness cannot conceivably make someone stupid. He must be the only person in the country who could seriously state that the meaning of the term "lacking capacity" is "too stupid."

JH, should you be tempted to answer this or anything else on this thread, please answer Maryz's question at 11.18 first.

jh certainly has claimed that there is a mass conspiracy to snatch children to meet adoption targets. The problem is that so many of JH's posts on mn have been deleted that it's impossible to show the evidence. But there are plenty of us on mn who have been on enough of his threads who have seen it. JH has also admitted to having used his own money (paid to him by the taxpayer per chance?) to facilitate mothers who have come under SS' radar to leave the country. I wonder how many children have been put at risk that way...

Juliet.

I asked you if you had read nana's post where she set out the concerns about JH.

You never replied.

You then asked what reforms we would like to see to the system and you got a number of thoughtful and lengthy replies.

You ignored them.

Therefore your accusations that others are 'one sided ' and lack balance are just a wee bit misplaced.

Ok, so here we go.

JH, when you pop up as I am sure you will, please answer me this

Can you provide proof to show that there is now or ever was a bounty paid to LAs to take children into care for purposes of adoption?

better still if you can 'blame' the parents for difficulties, instead of SN's, it costs them next to nothing and yes placing a child with adoptive parents, is cheaper, than a lifetime of provision and support for that child/family.

I'm not sure I understand your conclusion.

Adoption will not magic away SNs

Wouldn't a second set of parents, notice (with help from a new school or GP) that SN is present (despite what was said in court) and make their own claim for lifelong provision ? Regardless of a child's issues being laid at the door of an organic cause or the result of parental treatment, the issues would still exist and provision would still be required for as long as needed, no ?

Wouldn't a second set of parents making the same case for provision as the first leave the authorities at an extrodinarily high risk of being in the diffuclt postion of trying to claim that lightning almost always strikes twice when they adopt children out after tribunals for SN provision leads to the conclusion that the biological parents are unfit ?

Surely from a purely cyncial cost cutting perspective it would make more sense just to provide provision claimed even when there was wealth of evidence that the child's needs were caused by the parents, becuase it would still be cheaper than the costs of the removal/adoption process on top of post adoption provision costs ?

Perhaps I am being hard of understanding, but I don't see where in the process you describe the authorities protect themselves against having to provide lifelong provision for child via adoption and save money by going for a costly legal process.

Unless ... are you saying in Britian adopted children are excluded from provisions for SN?

O sorry, didn't read properly, JH did pop up earlier and is now denying he ever said it!

Ok, I am well aware of the need to evidence my claims. I need to find the complaint letter I wrote about him last year because hopefully that sets out the thread where he said it, or the threads, there are more than one.

When I find it I will post it, it is on my laptop somewhere. I have to Go shopping now but will have time later.

Sorry, this isn't a JH cop out, if I don't present the evidence you will be entitled to criticise me.

But odd isn't it, if he never claimed the targets were to take children into care, why does he say precisely that about this case?

Children with SN and other additional needs are very difficult to find adoptive homes for

It's almost impossible in many cases

If I hadn't adopted my two older children, no one would have

I remember being sooo pleasantly stunned when a 5 year old with autism my foster carer friend was looking after, found and adoptive home. Delighted for the child, shocked that the LA actually succeeded in finding anybody

So accusing LA's of taking children with SN away for adoption is 50 times odder than accusing them of going after relatively healthy babies

Not that I deny that LA's can completely screw over parents who have kids with SN, and in rare cases might intitiate child protection proceedings. But adoption? No way

Also adoptive parents who have kid with SN can apply for allowance money from the LA, the LA are obliged to assess the childs needs and will then find the parents directly fighting them for funding for various things

why is the title not reflecting the facts as we now know them?

Someone asked on this thread why would anyone do this and quite rightly find it hard to believe.

Having experience of this and knowing many others who have experienced it, I have asked myself this question many times and more importantly how can this happen. How can parents be wrongly accused, with so many professionals involved etc.

I don't want to use the exact details of my own experience or anyone elses. However take this scenario for example.

Single parent fighting LA for provision to meet her 'challenging' childs needs, at great expense to herself, both financially and emotionally, as it involves hours of paperwork, sleepless nights and literally having to research the SEN system and legal system to be the best advocate she can for your child, as well as caring for her child.

Now LA really don't want to pay for provision as it costs a hell of a lot. The cheapest option for them is to 'blame parents' for the child's difficulties and try to discredit parents, especially if they know parents will go to Tribunal etc.

They report the parent to child protection on the grounds that parent is 'fabricating needs' as it is in their best interests to discredit parent. Quite a serious allegation, which child protection will take seriously. Now SS are involved, they have no knowledge of the SEN system, mental health issues particularly in children, Tribunals etc, etc or the history involved between LA and parent.

Now SS are focussing on 'fabricating need' and investigating these claims. They do not have to tell parent anything of the accusations, lots of phone calls are made behind parents back and meetings between professionals, who may have previously been 'onside' with parents. Now elements of doubt have been raised, not many professionals are prepared to stick their neck out.

At this stage parents are not entitled to legal aid, as the matter has not yet been raised to child protection proceedings and parent is in the dark about what exactly is being said about them. However behind closed doors, lots of damage is already being done. Not intentionally by SS at this stage anyhow, they are just doing what they have been asked to do.

Now part of CP is to ask parents to sign consent for SS to have access to their medical records and personal information like police record etc and they are told 'its in your best interests to do so' You sign. Now say for example you suffer with depression or maybe an anxiety disorder etc, or you have even spoken to your GP about how much stress you are under or maybe years ago you suffered with a drink or drug problem or you have difficulty sleeping due to the stress and need sleeping tablets are just a few examples. This can be used against you.

and so on and on and on. Many parents are not in a position to fight this, either financially or emotionally.

Do you see how one sided this is? Can you see how mistakes happen?