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.

Sorry cross post, I think we agree

Spero i think we are agreeing on most issues, just from different angles!

I think it has already been established on this thread, leaving children with families and providing services is far cheaper, than removal and foster care, children's home, hostel etc.

So if budgets are already overstretched, why isn't this being done?

According to the stats almost all of the 28,830 children from dysfunction families are removed, placed in foster, then returned with no further services provided. Its almost like a threat, stop asking for services or else (although obviously it could be argued the family has been 'fixed', i find that hard to believe) or have these children been removed when they are in fact not 'at risk' but just 'in need'?

Anyhow, i think everyone on this thread is in agreement (including JH) that reform is needed, regardless of which angle we come at it from.

I think the answer is that when you have an inefficient organisation without clear chains of decision making and clear identification of priorities, a lot of the time professionals end up reacting to emergencies rather than managing a situation away from crisis.

So when the police go round on a neighbours call because a parent is having a pyschotic breakdown or is beating up the other parent, it becomes an issue of urgent action now.

I agree it is a gross waste of resources and means a lot of families are not getting the targeted help they need.

This is why we need our politicians to DO something - they determine policies and budgets! Why aren't they doing anything?

In my view it is because these are difficult, complicated and often quite bleak topics. They don't play well with the Daily Mail, not when there is a nice juicy conspiracy story to 'investigate'.

Claw, I am sure you would also agree that we need to focus attention on genuine issues of concern.

The more time we waste countering JH's bonkers and unevidenced assertions, the less time we have for focusing on issues that matter.

But because he is an MP, sadly some people take him seriously which is why I think I must try to provide some balance to what he says.

Hello ladies,

Keep JH talking please and do not report his posts.

Thanks. I'll be back tonight.

I agree emergency cases did make up those stats and could be situations as you describe. However, those stats also include non emergency child assessments, the stats don't break down how many emergencies and non emergencies. I do believe that children are removed who are not necessarily at 'at risk' just 'in need' due to 'system' failure.

JH may be going at it from a 'sensationalist, publicity, further my career' angle, however at least he is going at it. It would be naïve of anyone to think that any politician or any other professional is doing so from the goodness of their heart, without any other motivation.

We will have to agree to disagree as to whether any remotely beneficial consequences can apply to JH's behaviour.

I really don't know enough about JH to comment further on him personally.

Really? After three detailed threads you feel you can't draw any conclusions?

Really?

Spero, this thread or the others about are not about JH, although it has been hard to tell that at times, i have taken little interest and tried to focus on the bigger picture.

This is probably where we disagree.

I think it is very much part of the bigger picture that a serving MP is prepared to act in this way. Remember that he goes out of his way to advise the vulnerable.

Lots of professionals advise the vulnerable and do not always get it right, including social workers and other professionals. I am finding on these threads there is a lot of defensiveness surrounding social workers and other professionals, yet a bit of free for all when it comes to JH.

I have chosen to take on board what both 'sides' are saying ie yourself and others vs JH. JH makes a comment, others say he is talking bollocks. Such as 1% of low income families for example have children removed and i have found it isn't in fact 'bollocks' just inconclusive by the available stats/evidence. LA's being rewarded for increasing adoptions is another example. Evidence/stats available say this was the case and as i have stated i don't buy into the whole 'baby snatching' thing, however i do have concerns about corners being cut, 'quick fix solutions', rather than long term aims etc, etc.

I am not prepared to take 'sides' or just accept that every single word out of an obviously well educated, intelligent man (albeit in a dubious career choice!) is utter bollocks, just on someone elses say so. Just as i am not prepared to just accept that 'all social workers are evil'.

Lots of professionals may make mistakes based on general incompetence or lack of opportunity to properly investigate an issue because their case loads are inappropriately huge.

Any professional who advises on the basis of deliberate lies and misrepresentation should be dealt with.

These three threads are littered with examples of outright lies told by JH.

I think he should be stopped.

These posts by JH are the reason the whole situation pisses me off so much, with absolutely no facts to back up his conspiracy theories he's spreading these lies - lies which can do so much damage.

Imagine you are in one of those groups that supposedly SS are targeting for baby snatching, you are struggling and need help. If you keep being told that SS will take your children if you dare to come under their radar, would you go for help? Would you even dare go to your doctor if you thought there was the remotest chance the doctor would then contact SS?

This is the real cost of idiots like JH being allowed to spout their unsubstantiated claims, vulnerable people struggling on alone when they could be getting help. He's not doing something brave and bold, he's being short sighted and irresponsible.

exactly claw - Jh stated on this thread "children are removed for low income" and that "the facts back this up"

the publicly available SSDA 903 says only that less than one percent of children "looked after " and "provided a service" were there because of "low income" .

so his statement is not proved.

when pushed he said he knew of "between one and five" children. removed due to low income. if forced adoption there would have been a lot more to each case. a low income family who nonetheless provide for their children wouldnt be removed... however if low income meant child living on the streets and sleeping on a park bench or in a doorway - then surely putting the child into foster/adoption was better option for that child? eg if parents refused to accept help/shelter/etc? there is low income and there is low income...see the problem? there is always going to be more to each individual story. even if the sole category under which they are recorded is "low income".

i any case the stats bear out that we talking very small numbers.

you are right to focus on the broader issues - but helping families cost money.
the coalition is cutting all services that help families.

I could go back over 3 threads and try and find the examples you speak of and comment on them, but i really don't see the point.

I rejoined the discussion when i thought we were discussing the system as a whole and its faults, rather than individuals, yet here i am again being asked to defend my position of what i might or might not think about JH. As i have stated previously, i do not believe any one person is responsible for the system being crap, it seems to be based on a whole series of decisions by a varied bunch of people and is very complex and cannot be unpicked by a casual discussion on a MN thread!

As i stated, on the whole i do not see giving potentially 'wronged' parents a voice as an entirely bad thing. I do not see how pointing the finger at one particularly person is productive or how it will improve the system.

On that note, i will bale out again.

personally ss have been a great support and help for me and my disabled son. i have a good package of care/respite. thery were there for me when my ex attacked our son. putting the dc on at risk holding case conference helped to move things forward when it came to court hearings and protecting my dc from someone who was very unwell and aggressive.

i assume that therefore my dc are also a statistic in the figures. they have not been snatched.
and yes probably because i have a good job and am not classed as "low income" helped.

and yet there are families i know who wont go to ss to seek help for eg disabled child because of their fears and the stigma and what jh puts about in the DM.

Murdergoth, after my own personal experience with SS i wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, not due to anything that JH may or may not have said.

You wouldn't have to try very hard. Almost every single thing he posts does not stand up to scrutiny.

My favourite so far is the 'proof' he sent me that a social worker was sacked for recommending reunification of a family. It showed nothing of the sort!

As Carl Gardner says, this man - or rather men as I include booker and Jospehs - ARE part of the problem and ought to be part of the debate.

Sorry, but I don't think it is acceptable to 'sit on the fence' when you have clear evidence that a serving MP is prepared to tell lies to support his very dubious theories.

If he is not deliberately lying then he is very stupid - as Maryz says quite unable to understand the demands of referencing and evidence.

Either way, very, very disturbing.

Cest, now you see myself and many others i know, in circumstances where we should have been offered respite/support etc, for our disabled children, have received the opposite we have been hounded, accused and threatened by SS with child protection proceedings.

and our fears have nothing at all to do with anything that JH puts about in the DM, unlike you, my stats are probably the stats that JH puts in the DM.

Spero from personal experience i can state, SS do get it very wrong, obviously this is only one case and i will stress again i am sure they do lots of good and get it right too. It doesn't change the fact that they do sometimes get it very wrong and rather than chase JH, i would rather address the system as whole and more importantly what can be done to ensure less cases of SS getting it wrong. As SS getting it wrong, does have a terrible impact on vulnerable children and their families and causes so much damage.

1. SS do get it wrong.

1. They do lie or maybe a nicer way of saying it would be 'provide inaccurate info, 'mislead' other professionals.

1. When they do realise they have made a mistake they do try to cover their tracks. For example all info relating to your child is 'lost'.

So based on personal experience, not every word out of JH's mouth is utter bollocks.

These threads have been appalling in picking on JH when he and we all just want things to be improved. It is one of the worst examples of treatment of anyone I have seen on mumsnet.

If people could just talk about the issues themselves on which we are probably all united it would be much better.

JH and some journalists like Camilla Cavendish are some of the very brave few prepared to put their head about the parapet on these issues and they are to be commended. Children have so very few defenders.

Of course things are done wrong. Some cases are handled terribly, and I do agree that when mistakes are made, there are often moved to cover the mistake rather than admit it and fix it.

I've heard enough horror stories and seen enough mistakes being made. I've been misled, not helped and let down over the years. I've also been helped very much by amazing social workers. Quality of help and social workers has been very variable

Where JH and I differ is on whether the system needs fixing because it makes mistakes and cases can be very poorly handled, or whether the system is completely corrupt and as a whole is stealing children from innocent parents on a very wide scale to get money

I'm sure very few people would disagree that the system has many problems and mistakes are made. I'm sure there are a very small minority of adopted children who might have been able to stay in their birth families with proper support, but I just don't believe it's anything other than a tiny minority because there's no evidence that there's anything bigger going on than some individual cases being fucked up

I would be interested to know whether Camilla Cavendish would be pleased to be lumped in with JH.

You claim to be a lawyer op, but you are not remotely concerned by dangerous assertions being touted as evidence.

Why is that, I wonder.