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.

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

Juliet, every time we've started discussing actual issues, you've totally ignored us and not taken part in the discussion, instead you vanish until posts about JH start appearing again, so I'm not really convinced you actually want to have a discussion about the issues.

JH is not brave to peddle conspiracy theories. They aren't helpful in getting the system fixed, and they certainly don't help protect children. To be quite frank, conspiracy theorists are only going to end up hurting children because they cause families not to seek help for issues, given misleading advice etc

if one person has bad experience and another has good, what does it prove?

nothing - except that quite possiblky there are good and bad SS (my borough gets good scores, perhaps yours does not. birmiingham has had big problems for sure. ).

as others said they have had good and bad SW thru the years.

my local pct is good - north staffs was not.

this does not amount to a conspiracy. peddling the ss baby snatching conspiracy does not help and this is what posters have been saying.

it does amount to something that needs addressing. training etc.

Lilka, i agree with your previous post.

Although i do think, its only by families of the minority being able to speak out about their treatment which will help to identify where mistakes are made and changes needed.

Cest, if one person has bad experience and another has good, what does it prove? that mistakes need to be identified and changes need to be made to safeguard children further.

I haven't actually seen any poster peddle the ss baby snatching conspiracy on any of the threads.

JH may be going at it from a 'sensationalist, publicity, further my career' angle, however at least he is going at it.

I think it is dangerous to take this line, which we have also seen from holey. It isn't good enough to say, "Well, he might not be entirely right but he is at least doing trying to do something about it" without looking at what he is doing and whether it is helping the people he professes to care about, or whether it is harming them and/or their children.

It seems to me that the reality is that he is harming them. All too often it appears that he takes up some parent's cause, gets them all over the papers, and then we hear no more about it. This case is absolutely in point: he plus people like Booker and Reid have splashed Ms Pacchieri all over the tabloid press with a highly emotive story much of which has substantially turned out to be false. As a result, the tide of public opinion, particularly in Italy, is turning against her. Putting such an incredibly vulnerable person into that position is in my view unforgiveable.

However, the bigger picture is that he is damaging the cause of parents generally. We all acknowledge that there are things that go wrong, but in effect he is causing this sort of problem to be bracketed in the public's mind as lunatic fringe stuff. I even saw one comment on a Mail article suggesting that it was their favourite bugbear, the "lefties" who would be gnashing their teeth when the true facts came out, despite the fact that generally I think it is the right wing that supports Hemming and his mates. But that is a measure of how these issues will be sidelined. As we've said, if he genuinely wanted to help he would be using his position to address the issue of proper support for parents, and he seems to be totally uninterested in this because it doesn't provide him with soundbite opportunities.

To some people its just one case, to me and many others i know, its the life of our child and life changing for parents/children involved and not in a good way. Do you have any idea how far spreading the damage is caused by a bad decision, getting it wrong or whatever you want to call it is to a disabled child and their family. How detrimental it is not only at the time but for years to come. How it influences the help and future help and support that child is likely to receive. How it colours people's judgment and views of your child, your family and your parenting.

It is life destroying and it takes years and years of trying to put right the damage done.

I am sorry that happened to you and your family. I can completely see why you have such strong feelings.

except that quite possiblky there are good and bad SS

It's not a one way street. If you asked my parents individually about my family's experiences with SS with regards to child protection they would both castigate the SWs roundly.

My dad would tell you they are state sponsored nosey parkers who should mind their own business and how very very dare they have suggested his priority was his own wants well over and above his children's needs and seek to get him to rejig his priority meter.

My mum would tell you they were utterly useless becuase they didn't magic away the issues caused by my dad (becuase obviously SW can change gov. policy in ten seconds flat as long as they want to) and how very very dare they have suggested services and resources aimed at helping fragile people who don't cope so well with stressors like poverty and family breakdown to her of all people. Becuase she wasn't part of the problem. No siree.

I would tell you that SWs made me feel like a responsible adult, (who could actually see us three kids as real live humans, not pawns to be shuffled and sacrificed in an adult game of mind chess) was there for us. It was a releif to have somebody who fighting our corner pure and simple, while unencumbered by loyalities to one parent or the other, becuase their loyalty was primarily about us, the powerless and option-free members of the ewuation.

So it's not just that diverse experiences points to both good and bad service providers, it also points to the diveristy of service users perspectives, defences and ability to be more objective about why help was considered necessary and the form that help took.

Spero i see it as a vicious circles, JH recommends or doesn't speak out about recommendations of families not seeking help from SS for issues such has difficulties with mental health. I can totally understand why this advice has been given. The very thing that could help them manage better as a parent, can be used against them too.

We can all condemn JH for condoning this advice (which will only affect the minority of people anyhow ie people who are 'wronged' by the system) or deal with the root cause, which is dealing with the 'wronged' cases, identifying where mistakes were made and putting this right. So everyone can feel confident in SS.

Carpe hits nail on the head again. The vast range of problems and potential solutions means that the system will probably always struggle to deliver consistent and meaningful intervention

Good point Carpe, it can be hard to judge which cases are actually 'wrong' based on opinions of the people involved and which cases are actually 'wrong' based on evidence.

And yes claw I agree - we want the same things. For the vulnerable to get the help they need but also for children not to be left in situations where they will be hurt.

But some appear to be advocating for the right for the family to do what it likes, free of any state oversight. I don't think that's right.

The family can be a source of wonderful joy and support - but on the flip side, a place of suppression and misery, as so many threads here show.

In my case there was a 'happy ending' in as much as after receiving formal complaints from my solicitor, although the complaint and various reminders were never answered or even acknowledged, the SW dealing with our case was removed, all of ds's files totally vanished from SS systems, we were assigned a new SW who commended my parenting skills and my tireless efforts to get ds's needs met in writing and prompted closed the case.

I often wonder what would have happened if i didn't have 15 grand to instruct a solicitor and as i said the after effects, even after the case is closed are far reaching especially when you have spent years and years fighting to have your child's needs met.

I think that ss is like any profession there are good and bad but most people are mediocre.

Some things that I think would improve the system are (not sure if they are in place already)

1. Sw's to decide on an area of expertise eg cp, sn or supporting families
2. People choosing SN should be given more thorough training and encouraged to support parents more
3. Higher rates of pay for a all social workers especially those in cp- IMO they have the greatest stress
4. I think on all SCR their should be lay people ( who have been trained) who have no allegiances to ss, police or nhs so they can make impartial decisions.
5. I think there needs to be more liaising between ss and the community they have a really bad reputation lots of people think they are useless or like me are suspicious of them
6. Smaller case loads
7. MORE FUNDING (sorry felt it needed caps)

Advocating for the right of a family to do what it likes to a child, is obviously very wrong, i think that goes without saying.

Would that it did claw. But read Ian Joseph's advice about not reporting sexual abuse

Why won't JH explicitly dissociate himself from this ? Why does he link his website to IJ?

Good post wanna. Any comment op?

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.

Sorry, when an MP goes round publicly talking about baby stealing by social services, and endorsing prominent press reports containing what he must know to be lies, then he puts himself out there to be challenged robustly. He doesn't get any special dispensation because he does so on a public discussion forum, whether Mumsnet or anything else.

And when he then refuses to engage with anything which is inconvenient to his agenda or which means he might have to admit he has made serious mistakes, he puts himself up to be challenged even more. Seriously, do you really think bleating "But I just want things to be improved" is a free pass for anyone, even when what they are doing is in fact actively harmful?

"I haven't actually seen any poster peddle the ss baby snatching conspiracy on any of the threads."
what started all of the threads was a "baby snatched from womb by SS" story amplified by quotes from the likes of JH.

JH has popped up on these threads to say things like "SS take away away your child if you on a low income/have political views" etc

wannabe's number 7 - 7) MORE FUNDING - is that going to happen? unlikely...

Claw I'm really sorry that you think I was "treating you like an idiot" in my post late last night. This really wasn't my intention at all and I think I was just tired and frustrated at JH's beliefs that he can "prove" things when this is clearly not the case. I do think posters had tried to explain that removing children simply because of low income alone was not the case, and I added my voice to those.

I'm sorry also I "pulled rank" about my 30 year career in social work, and of course that is no indication of a person's competence or ability to empathise and treat people with respect. I have known managers in the LA where I worked that would have had an equally long service but should never have been social workers or managers, as they did not possess any of the personal qualities needed to either manage their staff and more pertinently to be part of a good service deliver to users of the system.

I did want to say something about the term "looked after" as I think you raised it. Prior to the Children Act 1989 the terms were "voluntary care" and "statutory care" (obviously the former with parental consent and the latter by a court agreeing that a child needed to be removed through abuse or neglect). Now the term is "Looked After" for all children though some of those children will be "looked after" under S20 of the Children Act (i.e. voluntarily) and others under S31 where care proceedings have been initiated but they will all be living with foster carers or in children's homes.

Where there is concern for a child the parents will sometimes give consent for the child to be removed and placed with foster carers whilst assessments are carried out, and of course some of these children will be returned home. However on occasions the concerns are so serious that if a child is "looked after" under S20 and the parent decides they want the child returned and the view is that this is not in the child's best interests, then the LA have to apply to the court for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) which lasts for 7 days. The parents are encouraged to attend that hearing before magistrates, where the LA present their evidence and the parents have a right of reply. If the EPO is granted, then the LA proceed to request the court to make an Interim Care Order.

Once again I do apologise for causing you further upset from a social worker (albeit that I am now retired) and I can well understand your feelings about social workers as you clearly have not have the services needed for your special needs child.

I would say however that all professionals/employees make mistakes. A GP fobbed off my sister for many months and by the time she was investigated she had advanced lung cancer and died within 5 weeks of the investigation. I don't however think all GPs are incompetent. We hear of mistakes being made in the NHS all the time, and the lack of care of patients in Stafford Hospital. The UK rates for death from cancer is very high and this is in part due to the incompetence of GPs in spotting the warning signs, though of course it is also the case that patients present too late for any kind of curative treatment.

Sorry I am digressing.............

Yes Carpe you have indeed hit the nail on the head.

No worries Nana and i am not suggesting that all social workers are incompetent despite my experience of them. One of the social workers i meet was actually extremely nice and nothing like the previous one. She didn't actually offer any services, however she was very supportive of me and what i was trying to do ie have my son's educational needs met. I am far from a social worker 'basher'. I had a good relationship with her and bought her some chocolates in fact, as a thank you!

Nana maybe JH can learn from you about a gracious apology.

The pigs and I will be waiting.

Me again - I think the thread could usefully consider the difficulties being faced by LA Social Service Departments at the present time. I worked for a Shire county and by and large I think the standard of social work was of a reasonably high quality and we treated our foster carers very well, initiating NVQs for them as one example, and rewarding them at particular points in the foster care career. There were of course social workers and managers in the County who were anywhere between highly competent and caring to those who were woefully inadequate and lacked the compassion and empathy required for good service delivery.

I retired from LA social work in 2004 but worked independently until 2009 and I worked for other LAs in a variety of capacities, e.g assessing foster carers and adopters, training and consultation, chairing foster and adoption panels. I was also commissioned by the courts on occasions to provide an independent assessment of birth parents whose children have been removed by the LA and were approaching the final hearing of their case.

During the time that I worked for other LAs I was at times very frustrated and concerned at the poor practice that I witnessed. Some LAs were trying to run a service with a 30% vacancy rate, there were high sickness levels and a disproportionate use of agency workers. In addition there was often an absence of any administration staff, or a very depleted service. I found that some Team Managers were unable to properly advise their social workers how to proceed in complex care proceedings and I spent hours of my time (unpaid) in assisting social workers in this respect. Many of them were at the beginning of their career and struggling with work overload and very little support.

Rolling the tape on.........I am still in contact with many of my ex colleagues and I find that the Shire county in which I worked has gone the same way as some of the LAs I mentioned above. The buildings have been sold off and social workers are sitting in car parks with their lap tops! They are allowed to have a desk in one of the "hubs" for a limited period. Morale is at an all time low and social workers are leaving and working independently or taking early retirement. Some 50% of the workforce of this LA are going to be made redundant in order to make the massive savings demanded by this coalition.

I read in the Guardian yesterday that Birmingham City Council (where JH is an MP for one of the suburbs) is set to lose hundreds more staff in order to make these savings that are forced upon them. The City Council has been declared "unfit for purpose" by OFSTED and the Guardian report states that the Director is of the view that "the City will no longer be able to provide statutory services" in the light of these massive cuts and loss of staff. That means leaving children in unsafe homes as there won't be the staff to carry out the necessary work and lack of funding to pay foster carers to look after the children.

I think LA social service departments the length and breadth of the country are in a similar position.

My Question is : Why isn't JH raising the deplorable state of BCC and their potential inability to protect children who are suffering abuse and neglect

INSTEAD of continually pushing this nonsense about "baby snacthers" and "forced adoptions"

What is he doing for his constituents who are losing their jobs

What is he* doing for 18to24 year olds who cannot find jobs ..........I understand that the West Midlands has one of the highest rates of unemployment for under 25s in the country.

Cest, the poster who started that thread was just quoting a headline, she didn't say that was her view.

and yes JH did pop up to say low income children are removed, to which i took it to mean purely on the basis of income. The stats were inconclusive, there was a category for stand alone 'low income' however it didn't say if those children were removed or just in receipt of services.

Wanna

1. There is a 'disability' team within SS who i hope would have more experience and expertise in dealing with disabilities and associated difficulties. referral to this team often results in services such as respite. CP team is already 'separate' from them and again i would hope have more experience and expertise in dealing with 'at risk'

The overlap seems to be CP team don't appear to have much expertise in dealing with the difference between 'at risk of' and 'in need of' and i would like see disabled children receive assessment from the disability team, before or if it is decided to pass to CP for safeguarding issues, to raise a better understanding of the difficulties associated with disability or those difficulties which are not as a result of disability. Or maybe even joint consultation between the two teams when assessing a child with a disability.

Claw I agree. Different teams have to talk each other and want to listen. Doesn't always happen.