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.

[claw2]

Maryz, foster care could even be part of provision needed to meet this child's needs, parents of very challenging children, might need periods of respites. Provision to meet a 'challenging' childs needs for a life time, is extremely expensive, particularly if a parent might have needs of their own.

how much does adoption cost? when the LA have established through court proceedings, child doesn't have this level of need, its the parents fault.

[nennypops]

Carpe, I think you're right, LAs tend to use the threat of CP proceedings against the parents of children with SN but generally don't follow through on it precisely because it is so expensive to put children into foster care. I suspect that what happens is that either they succeed in frightening the parent off, in which case they "reward" them by not pursuing CP action; or the parent isn't put off, the tribunal finds that the parent was absolutely right, and the LA realises that with the tribunal backing the parent they don't have a leg to stand on anyway.

I heard about a dreadful case involving a child with serious physical problems and severe learning difficulties which included her regularly having meltdowns lasting several hours when she became extremely aggressive, and also being awake most of the night demanding attention. When her parents pushed for more educational and respite care, the LA completely spooked them by threatening to take the child into care. Their lawyer advised them not to worry about it because the chances of the LA finding someone able and willing to take the child on would be virtually nil and the costs would be prohibitive, and she was proved to be absolutely right.

It's certainly absolutely obvious that no LA would conceivably try to fill these mythical adoption quotas by targeting children with SN, precisely because they are the hardest to place with adopters. Also adopters tend if anything to be even more committed to fighting on their children's behalfs than at least some natural parents, and will have all the more grounds for doing so given that the SN will be overlaid by difficulties arising from the children leaving their parents. So targeting such children would if anything simply cause more grief for LAs in many cases.

[claw2]

Apologises for popping in and out of thread, I need to get on with stuff, have my hands full.

[Mignonette]

He has yet to answer the previous questions about whether he endorses the repellent views of IJ.

Until he does answer we have to presume tacit approval and endorsement by a man too cowardly in his convictions to admit as much on here because he knows he would be pilloried publicly for it and quite rightly so.

Kind of like a secret Holocaust denier.

Not that I am implying JH is one of them MNHQ in case you need that clarifying. Just to make that clear.

[Mignonette]

Oh and as a MHP myself, can i make it quite clear that Lacking Capacity does NOT mean a person is 'too stupid' to make a decision.

Only somebody with exceptional prejudices, and stereotyped views of the Mentally Ill would ever say something so ignorant.

[Spero]

Back from Argos. Have found my letter.

Here is the introductory part which may help people understand why I take the stance I do about JH. It was sent to my own MP last summer. She responded to say that there was nothing she could do.

Dear Ms Primarolo

Re: Mr John Hemming MP
Making a complaint about a Member of Parliament pursuant to paragraph 15 of the Members Code of Conduct

I am writing to you for assistance in this matter as I am not familiar with these procedures and I would be grateful for some guidance as to the best and most appropriate way to make such a complaint.
For some time now I have been very troubled by the activities of Mr John Hemming MP.
Summary of concerns
For some years now Mr Hemming has set himself up as a campaigner against what he claims are serious injustices in the family law system ¬ a useful summary of his campaigning history can be found here: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/08/hemmingsway]. He has particular concerns about care proceedings and adoption.
I am a family law barrister who has been in practice since 1999 so I have experience of the family law system.
Mr Hemming as an individual has a right to express his views and I agree there are legitimate issues of public concern about the operation of the family justice system in general and care proceedings in particular.
However, I think there is a serious problem with Mr Hemming’s activities in this field whilst holding himself out as a Member of Parliament. He expresses views about care proceedings which in my view are either highly exaggerated or untrue. In essence, Mr Hemming believes that the entire family law system is ‘evil’ and systemically corrupt and that professionals routinely tell lies in order to get children removed from their birth families.
Mr Hemming is extremely active in his campaigning and on line activities. He states his views in person, in print and on a variety of public electronic communications networks, including his own website Justice for Families [http://justice-for-families.org.uk].
In particular he is a very active member of the mumsnet forum, of which I am a member. It is through this forum that I have become increasingly concerned over the last few years about his views and activities. Mr Hemming frequently initiates and joins conversations on this forum and has caused considerable distress to other forum members in discussions about adoption in particular.
However, it is clear that he not merely campaigns but advises parents who are involved in care proceedings. I am deeply concerned that, given the clear views he holds about the inherent corruption of the system, that in this advisory role he will persuade parents to disengage from proceedings or even leave the country and thus may cause or has already caused serious harm to vulnerable parents and children.
His website notes that he receives a ‘large number of enquiries’ and operates an on line forum where visitors can discuss matters with other like-minded individuals. On the on line forum is a topic called ‘Talk about your own case’ for discussion of individual cases. [http://justiceforfamilies.freeforums.org/]
Further, his activity as a campaigner must raise serious questions about the boundaries around his work as a constituency MP and his use of Parliamentary resources. I note in particular that as of July 2012, his parliamentary assistant is Ms Wilson-Gavin and she receives remuneration only as his Parliamentary assistant. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/120720/sponsor-03.htm]. Yet she is also the named contact for his Families for Justice Website and listed as a Director of that organisation.

[Spero]

And here is the proof that he has repeatedly said babies are taken into care to meet Gov targets.

If he no longer believes this, that would be great and I would be very grateful if he could take the time to say so explicitly in order to reassure people, who must find it very frightening to think such a thing is true.

In no particular order of importance, in my opinion the most dangerous false assertions repeatedly made by Mr Hemming are:

1. That care proceedings are initiated to fulfil government targets to bring babies into the ‘system’ to be adopted. Although he claims that this target no longer has Government sanction he maintains that Local Authorities continue to operate towards a non-existent ‘target’. It seems he is confusing this with official policies to try and speed up adoption for children who are already in care and who need a permanent family. This has been pointed out to him repeatedly on the mumsnet forum and elsewhere, but he is either unable or unwilling to understand this point.
   a. See an interview by David Chaplin in Family Law Week www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2360 ‘He already claims that he has exposed the oft-denied adoption targets with the admission by Hammersmith and Fulham, through a press release in March this year, that they had achieved a target that awarded them with an additional £500,000 of funding for achieving a target of 100 adoptions or secure placements over three years.’
   b. See: Mr Hemming’s Parliamentary website [http://john.hemming.name/news/index.php?yr=11&mth=0] ‘At least 10,000 young children have been dragged from their families and needlessly adopted due to a flawed target at the heart of Government, it was claimed last night Last night backing came from MP John Hemming, who said the policy led to the unnecessary adoption of 1,000 children every year’
   c. See the Families and Social Services Information Team Website [http://www.fassit.co.uk/judge_orders_social_workers.htm] Mr Hemming added: "There are financial rewards - a fund of about £35million - for getting children adopted. Admittedly, it has been proposed that adoption targets are scrapped on April 1, but clearly there are still problems."
   d. See John Hemming’s contribution to the thread on mumsnet on 26.05.11 at 12:36:30 [http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1222266-to-think-that-John-Hemming-is-a-dangerous-man/AllOnOnePage] ‘In order to increase adoption numbers here more young babies were taken into care. I can email the stats to anyone who is interested.’

[Spero]

If anyone is still reading, note the very last example where he promises us 'stats' from the 2011 thread.

We are still waiting.

[nennypops]

Spero, it does seem pretty wet of your MP to say there is nothing she can do. At the very least she could raise this directly with the Lib Dems, and I would have thought she could have asked questions when Clegg is taking Prime Minister's Questions. However, since she isn't doing anything, are you sending an updated version of that direct to the Lib Dems? I really can't see why they keep him under their banner.

[Spero]

but he is not drawing attention to the issues that need attention. He is distracting from those issues by continually pushing his consipracy agenda

Here is the evidence for my other criticisms of him. JH repeatedly asserts...


2) The majority of those professionals involved in care proceedings are corrupt, for example experts who report in care proceedings are instructed by the Local Authority and routinely lie in order to continue to be paid by the Local Authority and parents’ lawyers routinely and deliberately fail to act in their client’s best interests;
a. [http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/machine-for-injustice-by-john-hemming/] I am watching a case at the moment where it appears that the judge is going to make up a case against a father. I am also watching a case where a judge has specifically banned a father from talking to me about the case. What do these people want to hide? … One of the worst things that can happen normally happens only to mothers. That is that the local authority pays an expert who says that the mother is “incapable of instructing a solicitor”. Then the Official Solicitor comes in and normally concedes the case against the mother. ~(24.05.09)
b. An interview with David Chaplin in Family Law Week in 2008 [http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2360] ‘At this point, he ventured into his self-confessed "nutter" territory by accusing some experts of being in the pay of local authorities. I suggested that was going too far – although experts get well paid for what they do most do it professionally and with an open mind but he was resolute; an expert relies for a great deal of income on this work and they know who to keep on side’.
c. [http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/corruption-in-the-family-court-and-child-protection-system/] ‘SOCIAL workers are regularly “sexing up” dossiers on problem parents to remove children into care and even to place them for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.…The findings were last night described as a “national scandal” by one MP who is now demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system .Lib Dem John Hemming will raise the issue when he appears at the Education Select Committee on Tuesday.

[Spero]

And this is possibly the worst thing he does. He encourages vulnerable people to leave the jurisdiction.

3) Parents should leave the jurisdiction rather than co-operate with professionals during care proceedings;
a. Mr Hemming’s blog [http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/state-is-not-your-friend-thought-police.html] ‘However, I do not think association with the EDL is good cause to remove a new born child from a mother. She has no real choice but to emigrate because the care system is so orientated towards adoption.’
b. [http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/04/27/john-hemming-sub-judice-and-the-public-interest-no-abuse-of-parliamentary-procedure/] John Hemming April 30, 2011 at 21:52 ‘The problem is that when the judicial process is so badly flawed that it is essentially broken then the only real option is to emigrate’.
c. [http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1222266-to-think-that-John-Hemming-is-a-dangerous-man/AllOnOnePage] his comment on 26.05.11 at 10:59:11 My warning to people is that although leaving the country is likely to get a positive result it is very difficult now to get financial support from foreign benefits systems. Hence people … need to be self-financing

[nennypops]

Holey, the trouble is that JH is emphatically not speaking out on the valid issue that claw2 and wetaugust have raised with regard to parents of children with SN. If only he were, he could actually do something constructive towards getting those children adequate support.

He is also not doing anything helpful for parents such as the Italian lady: he has quite deliberately sought to categorise what happened to her as a Caesarian forced by social services for the purposes of getting their hands on her child, and he has proved to be 100% wrong on that. Therefore he has diverted attention from anything which might actually have gone wrong with her case and, more seriously, has put her into the spotlight without apparently caring about the potential effect that would have on her mental health.

And, most seriously, he continues to ignore completely the most important issue in all of this, namely the welfare of the children concerned. The fact that he continues to refuse to state that he disowns the views of IJ (particularly his advice to parents of children who are being physically and sexually abused by their partner not to involve the police and social services and not to leave their partners) speaks absolute volumes about him.

[Spero]

I am not naive enough to think anything I can say will have an impact on the people who are directly posting here.

I was shocked to re-read my 2011 thread last night and see, for example, there was Claig. So either she has forgotten all that was discussed 3 years ago or she doesn't care.

Why I am doing this is for anyone who is reading, who may be facing care proceedings and who is scared out of their wits at the system JH describes.

I want to try to reassure these people.

Yes, there are problems and things that urgently need improvement - more and better foster placements, more and better early intervention and support for families in crisis, more and better supported social workers who aren't drowning in impossible case loads.

But the problem is not one of systemic and deliberate corruption

To argue that it is and to use this case as an example is not simply wrong, but crosses a moral line for me into deliberate wickedness because it is simply so wrong and may have serious consequences for those frightened into believing it.

[Spero]

Nenny, I send a copy of my complaint to my MP, to John Hemming directly, to Nick Clegg and to the commissioner for parliamentary standards (I think?)

I got a snotty and patronising response from the standards people, saying they would only investigate financial corruption, a 'we can do nothing' from Dawn Primarolo and was ignored completely by JH and Nick Clegg.

O, hang on, he didn't ignore me, he made a complaint against me to my professional body.

[Spero]

And here is my plea for an answer in May 2011. I utterly reject any suggestion that I refuse to be balanced and accept that there are any problems with the system.

• I have found it very interesting to hear from everyone and I agree that we urgently need a greater degree of transparency so people are less afraid of the system and what it tries to do.
  
  I hope those deleted threads of Johns weren't actually answers to my questions; doubt it.
  
  I will try one last time; JH will you answer my questions?*

[Wannabestepfordwife]

If jh is unwilling to provide the statistics and files he has, as he is always drawing attention to them could they be subject to a FOI request?

[Spero]

And, finally, you will be relieved to hear... this is very interesting. It just shows for HOW LONG he has been allowed to get away with this.
He should not be allowed to make these claims whilst a serving MP. Why doesn't he resign his seat and dedicate himself to being a full time campainger? He has a considerable private income.

Why do I pay taxes to fund the salary of someone who so abuses his position?

As early as 2007 Mr. Hemming has been criticized in Parliament [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070726/debtext/70726-0001.htm#07072638000735 House of Commons Hansard Debates 26 July 2007]. Kevin Brennan (then the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families), in answer to a question from Mr. Hemming commented:
‘what is not legitimate is—sometimes in pursuit of a headline in a popular newspaper—to accuse the Government, professionals in the social care sector, local authorities, and indeed the courts, of not trying to act in the best interests of children, which is what the system is designed to do.’

[Spero]

The problem is he claims he has statistics for something that doesn't exist - i.e. that there were targets to take children into care to be adopted

Targets existed to speed up adoption for children already in the system

We can make a request for information that doesn't exist.

Ergo, if he has the 'stats' he needs to share them with us.

Unlike Mr Hemming, if I am proved to be wrong, I will apologise and change my views.

[Spero]

sorry, we can't make a request for information that doesn't exist...

[Wannabestepfordwife]

I thought that would be the case but hoped if a request was denied due to their being no information he might end up with egg on his face

[Spero]

Good point! Hadn't thought of it that way... a colleague of mine is very adept at making FOI requests, I will email her and ask for her help.

But on this thread he is NOW saying he doesn't say that.

See how he wiggles?

[Mignonette]

He is a Straw Man.