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.

I don't know, Spero, that was an extreme case, as the mother knew her partner was a fugitive accused of sexual abuse. You would not need input from anyone to fear (rightly) considerable SS intervention in that scenario.

Spero

I have read the judgement. I understand the words, but I am hazy on the meaning and even hazier on its significance. I am deeply crap when it it comes to legal English. Is there a linkable translation for lay people available ?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162825/Lianne-Smith-trial-Mother-killed-children-Spanish-hotel-room-pronounced-guilty.html

Sorry it's a Mail link so must go scrub myself.

She killed the children because she thought British Social Services would put them into care and she considered this a 'fate worse than death'.

If it was clear from checking her computer or telephone records that she had received certain advice from certain people, could those other people be guilty of any criminal offence, such as aiding and abetting an assault on the children?

Probably a bit far fetched I grant you.

But there clearly are very vulnerable people out there who don't need to be encouraged in further delusional thinking.

Carpe - don't worry, I read it through and wished I had the 'explanatory note' for the lay people! I will need to read it through again when caffeinated.

All I took from it was that the little girl has been placed for adoption and she must not be identified.

It means, I think:

-the order doesn't apply outside England and Wales, except to the parents and to anyone who got notice of the order inside the jurisdiction, is subject to the jurisdiction and one or two other exceptions;

-the child can't be identified as as child who has been taken into care, subject to (forced) adoption and having no or restricted contact with its birth parents;

-the child and her present carers and their whereabouts can't be identified in connection with the case (ie as the child in the Italian forced Caesarian case and her foster carers). Presumably if they were in the local paper as family X seen attending the switching on of the Xmas lights with no link to the case, it wouldn't matter;

-you can publish reports of any court hearing that isn't subject to an order preventing reporting;

-you can approach the carers and others seeking information but you can make enquiries of the lead LA solicitor and limited other enquiries.

Sorry, can't approach the carers. That's not stated but it is implied otherwise I don think the order makes sense.

Spero

I remember the Smith case. I'm a home educator(ish) so it got a lot of attention in circles in which I ran away from screaming

In the case of Lianne Smith I don't think it could ever be proved that any advice she took from a specific person was the advice that counted in terms of legal or ethical responsibility.

Becuase it could so easily be argued and proven that the "Babysnatcher Gestapo SS" style of advice advice is very engrained in some HE corners of the internet. Thus it would be impossible to say which of many voice was the one which persuded her to take it on board. i suppose it could even be argued that the collected cacophany rather than lone voice was the trigger.

But I am not lawyer so the above is more "well this looks like common sense to me" kind of legal analysis rather than "I actually know and understand the law" kind of analysis.

I think you must be right. Causation would be very difficult to prove.

Just sometimes in my darker moments I wonder what would happen if the police found very specific emails advocating a particular course of action, such as leaving the jurisdiction or not reporting sexual abuse.

Thank god we live in a country where our elected representatives would never dream of exploiting the vulnerable for publicity.

Nana

Heaps and heaps of for you. You are brave and strong. I take my hat off to you and all others who have to use our creaking MH system and I wish that we could do better by you.

But we don't snatch babies -IJ and JH. Nor do we needlessly detain people. Not enough beds. My local trust (for whom I do not work for Thank Goodness) is lifting sections off acutely unwell clients because despite being admitted, there are no beds.

Thanks for your kind words about my post about my mental health. The only reason I didn't say before is because I thought JH would try to use it against me, though I don't really care what he thinks really. He wouldn't know that depression is a mood disorder and not a thinking disorder.

I have a close friend whose son was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in his early 20s (as it often emerges in early adulthood) and he is stabilised on meds but very often stops taking them and then he becomes very unstable and deluded and has to be sectioned time and time again. I doubt very much that JH and his ilk have any experience whatsoever of mental health issues. They have probably never seen anyone in the grip of a psychotic episode. Decisions about C sections are made on the basis of clinical need and that would be true for the Italian women at the heart of this case, but of course JH would know better wouldn't he.

One good thing about this thread is that JH and IJ have very little support (and I'm ignoring the one or two that are critical of the majority of us) but I still worry about the numbers of young mothers on the MH threads who really do think their children could be removed if it is known they have a mental illness. I work hard to disabuse them of this notion and sometimes I'm successful.

As I understand it this child is now 15 months of age and I'm wondering why this case has only just hit the headlines so to speak. I am assuming she is still with foster carers although I understand a Placement Order has been made.

The fact that JH is "assisting" this poor Italian women is shocking, as I'm sure she will be taken in, like others before her that he can intervene in the legal process.

Nana, even if you have only been able to reach out to a handful of people and helped them to understand, you can be proud of what you have done. I hope you still have the energy to carry on, it can be frustrating at times I know.

My understanding of what has happened is that it takes a long time for a child to move through the system to adoption; this is what the government is insisting be speeded up as research shows that it is damaging emotionally for a child to have to keep moving placements or not be able to form a relationship with a consistent primary carer.

Also I guess this little girl will not have been easy to place as she is mixed race with a significant family history of mental illness. So I am not at all surprised it has taken this long to place her. Again, it is surprising that arguments can ever be made that this situation provides a financial benefit for a LA - foster care can cost about £30K per year to finance.

Therefore I am betting that the story has re-awoken once the mother was served with notice of an application to adopt - she is entitled to apply for leave to oppose the making of that order. I would never want to deny a parent that. I just wish she had been able to find better people to help her.

Oh meant to say that the Spanish case is truly awful. It's almost impossible to believe that mother wasn't suffering from mental illness.

We reap what we sow on the whole.

I wish I could believe that is true.

JH and IJ have been sowing a truly repellent crop for many years now. I see no sign of either being called to account.

But hopefully it is just a case of the mills of god grinding slowly, but grinding exceeding small....

Did we really need another thread?

Sadly people do not reap what they sow. Others eat their poisoned crop I find.

Two words.

Jimmy Saville.

We reap what we sow on the whole

Bullcrap.

That's just Karma-bollocks lite for the hard of being realistic.

Geckos. Obviously some of us felt we did.

If you don't, why come and comment?

Thanks Spero I definitely won't give up on the MH threads and I am in PM discussion with several posters, who do trust me. I am also useful on the Adoption and Fostering threads and much as I don't want to give JH any further ammunition, I have become concerned and frustrated that foster carers are often not getting a good service from LA social workers.

However, I put the blame for this squarely and fairly with the coalition (of which JH is a part of course) as they have swung an axe at the budgets of all public services, and they have an agenda of privatisation, as I'm sure you're aware. It has become hugely difficult to recruit and retain experienced social workers and of course posts are frozen because of budget cuts.

I agree with what you say about placing this child, especially in relation to the mental health issues. I don't want to say anything more on this open forum but obviously I am well aware of what foster care costs, and especially if the LA have to buy placements from the Independent Fostering Agencies.

Hey one good thing - JH seems to have gone to ground........

@Gecko48
I wish there were more of 'these' threads, because as a British resident but not a citizen, I didn't know much of any of the issues that were talked about here. It was a learning experience for me and I thank all those kind posters who took their time to write informative and intelligent posts.

@Juliet
"We reap what we sow on the whole"
Yeeaaahhh you wish!! Hahaha is that the evening joke?
My mum stopped saying that 20 years ago, when she acknowledged that all the harm my father was doing wasn't going back to him. It never did. So you don't reap what you sow, unfortunately other reap what you sow.
Sad but true.

Hah! I thought he had gone to ground for most of this year, but he has popped back in truly spectacular fashion.

Unluckily for him I still have two thumbs and an iPad...

Nana, I have no doubt that foster carers are not always getting a good service from LA social workers. And I think it is very important to have an open and honest discussion about WHY.

A discussion that doesn't involve accusations of baby snatching.

Yes, wotcher Juliet! Now you are back, do you agree that there WAS someone pushing a baby snatching conspiracy on this thread and those of us who noticed were not therefore hysterical?

@AngelaDaviesHair

the child and her present carers and their whereabouts can't be identified in connection with the case (ie as the child in the Italian forced Caesarian case and her foster carers). Presumably if they were in the local paper as family X seen attending the switching on of the Xmas lights with no link to the case, it wouldn't matter;

Why was the Italian case an exception? I mean, IJ has stated he did everything in his power to contact this woman and offered her his 'services', wouldn't that be a breach of... privacy? I mean, to contact someone involved in a case... it wasn't the other way around, i.e. it wasn't the woman contacting the two wackadoodles we were speaking about above....

@Spero
"Now you are back, do you agree that there WAS someone pushing a baby snatching conspiracy on this thread and those of us who noticed were not therefore hysterical?"

Pfft... a follower is a follower as a non-believer is a non-believer... I wonder... Are these people on remote control, they pop up when told or suggested?

Next thread from childsnatching conspiracists: Mumsnetters involved in suspicious threads are the ones stealing babies from British homes!!

Some people live in sci-fi plots even in their real lives.
Sorry, going to bed now. Must not miss the last daily bus to the Enterprise. Spock will resume his childsnatching way tomorrow. Nannighhttt!

O Lake, I know, I know. I don't kid myself that anything I say will have any impact on posters who won't or can't read what is on the thread.

But when they pop up and say things which are demonstrably untrue for e.g. 'no one is suggesting a conspiracy to steal babies you mad hysterical harridans'

i think it must be worth pointing out that actually their lizard overlord one poster said EXACTLY that.