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.

My biggest concern with this case is that by turning into an attack on bipolar women, rather than the obviously rational decision to keep a child in care rather than return the child to a mentally and financially unstable mother, is that it has made people, particularly women, with bipolar worry that they will not receive support to parent and will instead have their children removed.

I wonder if the people staunchly suggesting they are 'thinking of the mother' have in fact thought about the affect on thousands of mothers that their actions and words have?

It is rather sad that financial instability is used as a justification for forced adoption.

It isn't, by 'financial instability' I was referring to the lack of secure home back, the lack of ability of the father to get a job (being an illegal immigrant) the lack of support of the family, the lack of savings, of a place to live.

Children NEED these things and the second that child was born, its stability became more important than its mothers stability, that is a GOOD thing, it is a positive effect of our first world society.

This woman could not offer her child any of the basic things it required to grow and flourish.

The child should not be some pawn in HER game, it has its own life to live.

Ie financial stability. Actually a small number of children each year are adopted "from care" in England that were taken into care because of the low income of their parents. I do a lot of welfare rights casework every week and I think this is wrong.

It is also wrong to put a child up for adoption because of the parents political views.

Not quite a sad as asserting there is a conspiracy to steal children to meet imaginary adoption targets surely?

What you are saying doesn't make sense John, there is no way a child would be removed from a loving family due solely to a low income, the thought is ludicrous.

Sigh.

Here we go again.

the 'low income' of parents is NOT A REASON FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO BE TAKEN INTO CARE.

It may be a contributory factor to the fact that they neglect or abuse their children because they are stressed, unhappy and facing financial insecurity.

But having a low income in and of itself is NOT A REASON FOR YOUR CHILD TO BE TAKEN INTO CARE.

Please, please don't listen to this man.

Neither is being bipolar.

It's scare mongering, how do you sleep at night John?

Ok, I have to go to bed now.

But JH know this. In my job I have a lot of waiting around. I have my two thumbs and an iPad. If you ever think I am going to get bored of this, think on.

Every time you come on here with a dangerous inflammatory lie, which you claim to be able to prove but you never, ever can, I will be back to point this out at great and tedious length until mumsnet gets sick of it all and bans us both.

Unless you can possibly think of something more constructive to do with your time? Maybe representing your constituents?

John, please explain your claim that children are taken into care solely based on their parents political views?

I don't have bi-polar, but I do have a life-long depressive illness.

No one has ever suggested my child be removed, or even that ss should be involved.

Ever.

Lake, re IJ contacting the mother, he probably did it before there was an order in place.

Define "political views " .

Voting lib dem ? Or what ?

But Angela, that is just supposition.

we like facts here, don't we?

If you want to find about children being taken into care because of the mothers political views, which were misrepresented, read my speeches in Hansard.

For example, there would be a big difference between holding racist views (as many do still in our society) and coaching your toddler to say 'fucking muslim/black/Indian cunts'

One is just well the way things can be. The other is an incitement to racial hatred.

And even then I think it would come as point number 45 on the list of problems within a family.

Because that's proof isn't it?

didn't we have this chat about 'fact' versus 'assertion' yesterday?

Shall we have it again?

MUST TURN OFF COMPUTER AND GO TO BED

But the force is strong.

If Spero emails me for the stats on children adopted in the year to 31st march 2011 who were taken into care because the parents had a low income I will send it. Not many, but it does happen.

In this case, I was being generous and assuming IJ would not break a court order. Happy to make clear I've no idea what happened, actually.

JH, could you summarise those speeches please?

I think this is JH's wittering on about some one who belonged to the EDL and THIS ALONE was the reason her children were taken into care.

Yes of course. That one simple fact alone. Nothing else eh? Like drugs, drink, violence, criminality, neglect, abuse.

Nope. Just her membership of a political party.

got anything other than your Hansard speeches as proof.

(If I offer to pay someone, will you come round and cut the cords off all my chargers? This can't go on)

Yes please, send me all and every single bit of proof you have to evidence this claim that children are taken into care for the single reason that their parents are on low incomes.

Provided of course you do not breach any parties confidentiality or break any court orders.

And if you are right and I am wrong, I will apologise.

I'll be over here with the winged pigs, waiting.

your speeches in Hansard are just yet more of your opinion and don't prove anything because they simply just reflect what many perceive to be your very biased, inaccurate and ill-informed views.

Theres only one person I can see in all of this who is mis-representing anything.

It is also wrong to put a child up for adoption because of the parents political views

Oh good God. NOT TRUE.

Who genuinely thinks that social services can submit a report to a Judge saying that a placement order is necessary because the parents support the BNP? FFS

Parental politics is only ever an issue when combined with other things that are harming the child - the best example I can think of is the case of the parents in the USA who were neo-nazis. Remember, the ones who made headlines because a shop refused to write a birthday message for their son on a brithday cake because his name was Adolf Hitler . They called their first daughter "Joycelynn Aryan Nation" and the third child after some other Nazi official. Now naming your children after Nazis is probably over the line into emotional abuse (IMO). The social services took all 3 children into care. The parents went to the press complaining that they were being targeted only because of their neo-nazi beliefs and not because they were bad parents...actually it turned out that domestic violence, a scary home environment etc were the biggest problems, and the children had emotional and behavioural problems because of the parents. You'll all be thankful to hear that those children have now been adopted...and obviously had a complete name change along with it!! The birth parents are still complaining that it was because of their Hitler adoration rather than their not-good-enough parenting.

So if a UK couple love the BNP and EDL, that's fine (in child protection terms). If, on the other hand, they love the BNP and EDL and name their child "Purewhite Hate Immigration Jones" etc, then there's problem for social services

Saying that parents could lost their children forever based solely on their private political beliefs is ludicrous and pathetic