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.

So, I post a link to a story which justifies my criticism of the system (as being obsessed with adoption by people not related to the child)=

The first response from one of the apologists for the system is to imply that the story was reported because I paid the telegraph.

This highlights the absurd arguments being used to defend the indefensible.

So, John Hemming, your only response to the many thoughtful responses to that article is to fix on one post and ignore the rest. Do you contend that Devora's and Maryz's responses are absurd? Why not answer those points, just for once?

Oh, I know, you're just going to slide away again, because answering those would entail admitting that the case you quoted is irrelevant.

By the way, the case obviously doesn't justify your criticism for the entirely sensible reasons that others have given

Some excellent posts.

I agree it is most curious that JH persists in his tactics as by now it must be apparent to even a small child or Daily Mail reader that 'proof' is not simply 'repeating my allegations'.

And I agree that the mistake about the Court of Protection is revealing - it shows the journalist just didn't understand what was going on.

@nennypops

It is amazing he chose my post this time defining me as a 'system apologist' (it is a pity mumsnet website doesn't have the ROFL smilie), after ignoring the other 20 posts I wrote where I clearly stated that I am an Italian citizen (therefore I don't vote for any party either!), I am not a social worker or anything remotely connected with NHS, LA or social services, and I just ended up on the first thread because of the blatant lies written by The Telegraph about someone who lives (approximately) where I used to live until a few years ago.

The fact that he is defining me as an 'apologist' shows he is completely derailed.

@johnhemming

The only way to have an inaccurate, stupid story with no evidence or research to back it up is paying to have it published. Just common sense, it doesn't take a genius to understand that.

Italian citizens in the UK are entitled to vote in some elections. Any Italian living in the UK would know this. Therefore I doubt that you are what you claim.

Maybe she isn't the UK? D'oh.

Cest, I still think there is more to it and hopefully an investigation of the facts will bring to light or not as the case may be.

SW was acting on the instructions of the Local Authority, as was her manager, when I complained to her and her manager about the LA's behaviour ie education dept reporting me to SS, I was told 'we are the local authority' After my complaint was lodged with Head of services, about her not following her own guidelines or procedures and her conduct (at this stage to be threatening me with child protection proceedings, an initial assessment and core assessment should have been completed and she had done neither). The only thing I had in writing from her was an agreement which I was asked to sign, saying that I was agreeing to child protection proceeding being started!!

I was called to their offices, as I had stated I did not want her in my house after she tried to force ds out of the door. He was mentally unwell, laying on the floor curled up in a ball, rocking and meowing like a cat and she still continued to try and force him. He even run away from her and locked himself in a bedroom and she chased him and continued from the other side of the door. I had to tell her to leave him alone.

I thought I would get an apology at least in their offices. However, I was handed a draft core assessment, her manager was present too. I was asked to read it and agree to it. I told her it was filled with inaccurate info, dates etc. For example the core assessments was dated a certain date, trying to make it look like it had been completed months before, yet the chronology included dates from the day before, so obviously written the day before!

I then lodged another complaint about the core assessment, correcting all the inaccurate info, which was based purely on her opinion and totally ignoring all the written evidence.

The whole thing was a sham from start to finish.

JohnHemming as the case you have posted and the Caesarian case are both under Essex County Council it's obvious your bot happy about the service provided.

What action are you taking over this? Are you calling for an ofsted investigation or are you liasing with the council to improve services

Not even

Italian citizens in the UK are entitled to vote in some elections. Any Italian living in the UK would know this. Therefore I doubt that you are what you claim.

Your doubts are based on a lack of understanding of the realities of being an expat. And being hard of reading. She said I don't vote for any party, not I can't .

A key word is "some" elections. Which kind of does not encourage those of us abroad to really engage or get to grips with the poltics of New Home, and that maks it difficult to feel qualified to vote in the handful of elections we are eligible to vote in.

Hense the don't in her post, not the can't that you profered in yet another accusation happily slung around based on inaccuracies of your own creation.

Nenny, I could take it further and it wouldn't be hard to prove at all, although all of ds's files have vanished from ss system, I still have copies of the draft core assessment, copy of the agreement which I was asked to sign and her emails where she actually admits to calling ds a law breaker and trying to force him out the door and threatens me with child protection proceedings, if i dont do as she says etc, etc.

However, last time it cost me 15 grand, it was extremely time consuming and emotionally draining. I have a disabled child, who needs constant supervision, day and night and I am still fighting the LA to have his education needs met. My time and energy is better spent ensuring that ds's needs are met.

I don't even know if she is still working for SS. She was removed from ds's case following my complaints without explanation. I was told verbally ds's case was being passed to a different team, hence the change of SW. However it wasn't, same team, just a different SW was assigned. New social worker didn't know any of the history as all of ds's files had vanished.

It is very selfish of me not to chase this up, as I should be trying to ensure this doesn't happen to another child. Once I have finished my battle with the LA to ensure ds's needs are met, then maybe I will.

Anyhow I am dominating the thread with my story. The whole point of me telling my story, was just to show that SS can mess up and get it very wrong, hence why I will continue to be open minded about this case and any other.

Claw I am just finishing my direct access training. If you want to instruct me pro bono I am happy to do an initial advice or consider any papers.

I believe injustice and poor practice should be investigated.

The thing that strikes me about the article that JH linked to, is grandparents/parents etc claim to have been left in the dark, not invited to meetings etc.

This was very much my experience, lots of phone calls to professionals made without your knowledge. Lots of meetings without being invited. SS are then given the opportunity to paint a picture, no matter how inaccurate this might be.

SS guidelines is for parents etc to be involved and informed at every stage (unless there are very good reasons not to) This is what concerns me 'the very good reasons not to', how does anyone know just how good these reasons are unless parents are given the opportunity to know these reasons. Its very one sided and if parents know exactly what they are being accused of they should have the opportunity to answer these allegations.

@johnhemming

read Carpe post. Difference: she's smart and intelligent enough to research things before putting her fingers on a computer/ipad keyboard, you are not

It is quite easy to understand, for anyone here, that I am not a native Briton, given the frequent spelling and grammar mistakes. Yet, as usual you claim you know I am not Italian because it suits you to say this.
It is out of your logic that someone with just a bit of common sense (regardless of nationality) disagrees with you and your ramblings.

I don't vote because I have no interest in doing it, not that I can't. I don't know anything about British politics and its parties and I don't follow any.
The only elections I could be interested in voting for are the parliamentary and EU citizens can't vote. Check your facts, you're even an MP!
You are a scandal.

However, if one day I will able to vote for anyone here in UK, pretty sure I will avoid your party, look what kind of people they send to Parliament! Had no idea the lib.dem. party allowed such a person to sit in the House of Commons.

By the way, should I send you a picture of the passport? Or well, given your attitude to bend the truth, you'd probably try to transform my passport in something alien... In order for you to prove that everyone on this thread has an agenda against you.

Wow Spero, thank you so much that is a very kind offer and I will take you up on that offer. I have ds's annual review pending and I am busy writing up a) his sen statement (the whole thing needs rewriting) and b) possible tribunal if LA do not agree with the amendments to his statement. Ds is still very unwell (although attending school now) and when he returns from school needs full time supervision to ensure he doesn't harm himself, when going through a 'bad patch', so I am a bit pushed for time at the moment.

After Christmas, I will try and put something together.

Is anyone able to phone into LBC? Nick Clegg is on his "Ask Clegg" phone in: it could be worth taking the chance to get his views on Mr Hemming's activities.

John Hemming, a constituent of yours asked you what you are doing about the effects of funding cuts on the performance of social services in your area. Please could you answer?

Claw pm me whenever you want.

At the risk of adopting more offensive racial stereotyping, when Lake thought I was insulting her country she was so cross I had no doubt she was Italian.

@claw2

I never had any experience with the SS, LA, etc etc. (until this thread I didn't even know what those acronyms meant, to be honest).

I totally believe that you had a bad experience and that you had to spend so much money to get things right for you and that you feel you have the right to prove that those institutions and their employees/workers messed it up.

Yet... Do you think that your experience prove that all the cases mess up at some point? Did your experience change your thoughts about the SS and the LA so much to believe that all cases are messed up somehow?
Or is there a chance you were one of the few?

I am honestly curious, just curious about your answer.

I certainly have never seen such vitriol against a poster as against JH. We need more not fewer advocates for parents and children. The comments no the three threads speak for themselves.

The sad thing is that everyone on both threads has the same aims - the best interests of children and fairness for all so there is no need for any in fighting at all.

Also too many people are trying to suggest those of us who want reforms believe things we don't. No one on any side in this debate thinks all social workers are wrong, the system is 100% bad etc etc. It is just that some appalling of miscarriages of justice occur and more publication of judgments will help people to understand what is going on.

Juliet no other poster that I am aware of has ever before behaved with such a breath taking arrogance and contempt for truth and the rule of law.

All while taking a salary from the public purse.

This explains the level of astonishment at this behaviour.

I note you still don't wish to engage with any posts about reforms etc.

Funny that.

Juliet

I think that you and some other posters on here want to see what they believe and nothing else.

I just say that this case is unlikely to have been a mistake. Period. From there to say that the system is 100%wrong or 100% right is a big stretch.

And if you believe that the system does need a reform, go and start a petition, gather people who had problems with it and so on. As you can see, many had problems.

My argument is... To choose as your cause champion such a misinformed, debatable person does actually no favours to your cause at all and I can't understand, from my perspective, how you are not able to apply any logical judgement to what he is doing.

Juliet- you ignore all the posts and discussion then come along with another ridiculous post supporting JH that sounds like a sound bite
are you married to him?

JH has his own murky past and problems with the system. He seems unable to see that 'the system' is many parts and not one big conspiracy. If there is a 'big' conspiracy then as an MP he is part of it
He is not interested in improving the system or helping people
I would love an impartial MP to take an interest in real improvement
But not one who believes parents have a right to keep children in an abusive family
I am struggling to see your motivation for this thread Juliet, unless you are connected to JH
JH prevents real debate

Lake, I dont think that my experience proves that all cases mess up at some point. I have also stated that I am sure that SS get it totally right too. Even in my case they did get it right in the end. I am also in touch with lots of other posters from MN who experienced similar to me. On the SN board, LA's messing is a frequent daily occurrence. LA's often use SS and CP as a bullying tool and to try and discredit parents in SEN Tribunals.

I am sure there are many clear cut SS cases, which probably don't involve education or disability and they probably get it right in these cases.

However given that there 770,00 disabled children under the age of 16 in the UK which equates to 1 child in 20 (rough figures, this figure is probably higher/lower depending on where you look) who will probably be in need of services at some point. Although still in the minority, I do wonder just how often they do get it wrong. Or how many families are scared off from pursuing services for their children by LA's and threats of CP.

Where disabilities, particularly mental health are involved (which SW's and LA's are not experts in), I will remain sceptical until the full facts emerge and yes my scepticism is based on my own experience and those of many others I know.

claw2 may I pm you?