Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

Because there is not a 'hide poster' button on this site, I will simply have to pretend that there is one and operate it.

Unless he comes up with something particularly offensive and untrue which I need to rebut, here ends my engagement.

Can anyone explain to me when the Family Courts etc and the secrecy and the Court of Protection was established. From googling, I get the impression that it may have been under a Tory government in the late 1980s early 1990s, but I can't seem to find anything concrete on it. When was the level of secrecy imposed? Has it always been like this?

Our newspapers tell us of cases that they believe may involve injustices. they don't tell us of the cases where decisions taken were entirely justified. That is fine, because it is the anomalies and potential injustices that require exposure and not the far more frequent cases that were decided on correctly.

If Martin Narey's wishes and recommendations become more frequent in the coming years

"Many more children need to be taken into care at birth"

then our newspapers may contain more cases in their pages.

Even though our family courts are secret, our newspapers are open.

It has got to the stage where we now have

"Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the public had a right to know “what is being done in their name” and called for the courts to adapt to the internet era.

Giving his ruling on a county council’s legal bid to ban the father publishing highly critical material about its social services department, the judge said the “glare of publicity” was essential to avoid miscarriages of justice."

...

Sir James said: “There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency , in the family justice system.

“ Nowhere is this more necessary than in relation to care and adoption cases . Such cases, by definition, involve interference, intrusion, by the state, by local authorities and by the court, into family life .

“In this context the arguments in favour of publicity - in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability - are particularly compelling.”

He added: “ We must have the humility to recognise - and to acknowledge - that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice

“There are a number of aspects to this. One is the right of the public to know, the need for the public to be confronted with what is being done in its name."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10289280/Judge-calls-for-more-transparency-in-family-courts.html

I think it goes back a very long way for family matters. It is not particularly malicious in intent - just to protect the washing of dirty linen in public although I did attend as a random member of the public in about 1978 a family court custody hearing, I remember. It was fascinating. Husband and wife, no lawyers, one judge both shouting and shouting, both very hurt both blaming the other, a local county court. No one stopped me entering or said it was private so may be it was some time just after that more secrecy prevailed.

I'm hopeful it is getting better. I think the family court judges increasingly realise that a lot of their good work (and much of it is good) will only be appreciated if there is more open justice so we get the chance to read their judgments but I think we need continuing pressure from people to lobby for more open justice in this area. It is not a time to cease that pressure.

A lot was driven by the 1989 children act. The court of protection has operated for a long time, but was formalised by the 2005 mental capacity act.

Yes, I thought it was the 1989 Children Act, but did that also impose the level of secrecy or was that subsequently introduced by a later government?

Am I right in thinking in the 1970s when as Martin Narey said

"Only 70 babies were adopted last year compared with 4,000 in 1976 . We need that figure to get back into the thousands so we need to quadruple it over the next few years – and quadruple it again"

that there was not this level of secrecy and there was more transparency even though many more children were adopted?

The 89 act was used to imprison people for talking about cases, but the previous approach was with the formal if pressurised consent of parents. Hence the speed of the process.

The reason why the adoption targets were spectacularly bad was the error in calculating them (using the stock rather than flow as the denominator)

The 89 act was used to imprison people for talking about cases, but the previous approach was with the formal if pressurised consent of parents. Hence the speed of the process.

The reason why the adoption targets were spectacularly bad was the error in calculating them (using the stock rather than flow as the denominator)

I don't think that Martin Narey's language was particularly shocking, and I think he has a point. Look for instance, at Venables and Thompson. They both had a severely dysfunctional upbringing, but when they committed murder they were utterly vilified as inherently evil, with people saying that their upbringing was no excuse and demanding that they be imprisoned for life or even hanged, fgs. I remember thinking at the time that if one of them had actually been killed or severely physically injured by their parents the same people who said they were inherently evil would have been sentimentalising them as little angels.

I think claig is absolutely right in saying we should put much, much more into social and other support services to help the families of such children and, in particular, to ensure that the Baby Ps and the Victoria Climbiés don't slip through the net. But we have a government at the moment which is hell bent on taking funding away from social services with the result that it is virtually inevitable that more Baby Ps will slip through the net, not less. It is also hell bent on cutting down legal aid which would support parents in enforcing such entitlement to help for their children as they have.

And we have an MP who is part of that government who is spending hours on this forum and digging around foreign newspapers promoting conspiracy theories, rather than even deigning to tell us what he is doing about social services provision in his own constituency - let alone what he is doing to push the government into even a vaguely humanitarian approach to its responsibilities. This is an MP who voted in favour of bedroom tax, and in favour of the government's decimation of legal aid. So it's not surprising that people are not impressed, is it?

Yesterday I met two families. A family of 8 living in a 3 bedroom house. I said to them they were not as overcrowded as others. The next family I met were four people (two children) living in a 1 bedroom flat.

I do not think it is humanitarian to ignore homelessness and overcrowding.

It's a different debate, but the point is that, although there are many housing benefit recipients in public housing who would dearly love to move into smaller properties and make way for larger families, they cannot because there is nothing available; and they are being penalised by having housing benefit reduced despite the fact that the situation is beyond their control. The bedroom tax has failed to relieve homelessness and overcrowding, and is costing more than it saves.

I notice you don't seek to justify your vote on legal aid, and rightly so.

It is outside the remit of this thread to have a long discussion about all aspects of legal aid. I am currently arguing with the government that placement proceedings that occur separately to care proceedings should still be legally aided on a non-means test basis.

As a general principle, however, I support the government's financial strategy. These are not cuts that I like generally, but we do need to reduce the additional amount the government borrows each year.

There is also a big question as to what David Lock achieved for Alessandra in the CoP proceedings. I am sure there were legal costs there.

On the social housing issue the fact that the spare room rent is slightly larger than the non-dependent deduction is resulting in less youth homelessness.

@johnhemming

In order to solve all your conspiracies at once, I suggest you to call The Doctor.

Tardis will be really helpful too ;)

My reference to legal aid had more to do with what is required in order to gain children the support they need, both in terms of care and education

Ah I'm just back from my DIL's birthday celebrations that went on over the weekend. I have laughed out loud at some of the posts and marvelled at the wit of so many of you. Mind I liked it a lot less when JH appeared to want to join in the fun.......yuk, yuk and yuk again.

Spero I think JH is threatened by you. I think he realises that he is no match for you and it irks him, which is why he attempts to score points over you. In my view, only losers try to score points. He attempts to be paternalistic "she said she would be good" - "Spero makes a good point (she does sometimes)" and similar comments.
I sincerely hope your letter has the right effect as I would dearly love to see him challenged in some way.

I think that someone, somewhere should prevent this dangerous MP from making his insulting, ludicrous claims about "baby snatching" and "bonuses" for LAs who "snatch babies and get them adopted" and for calling the entire system evil including all professionals, all lawyers and his nonsensical claims that there is a conspiracy between all professionals including the Judge in care proceedings. The fact that on occasions he refutes that he has made these comments matters not, as some of us have documentary proof available.

When he is challenged and evidence is supplied, he moves the goal posts and glosses over the issue on which he is challenged and raises an issue that is not the subject of the debate.

He is utterly and completely unwilling or unable to accept no matter how many times it is explained that the targets and the additional funding that is target-related is in respect of LAChildren and yes some of them will be babies..............

What does he think happens..........that if a baby is presented in A & E with a fractured skull and the account given by the parents does not accord with the injury, and there is fresh bruising to the limbs, that the LA say :

No sorry the baby will have to go back home because we are directing all our resources to finding adoptive homes for children already in our care...........NO of course not, so social workers will need to apply to the courts for the removal of the baby while assessments are carried out and all of the investigations made.

There's been a lot of talk about Martin Narey and him being a tsar for adoption. I don't think we can blame Narey, because Cameron likes this tsar business doesn't he. Mary Portas was made tsar of shops or somesuch and Louise Casey tsar of homelessness I think.

I think it is easier for those of us who have in fact worked on the front line of child protection over considerable lengths of time, it is all too obvious that sadly many children are in fact "born to fail" (it's a sociology book, very old now, but sadly still true) I think Narey could have made his comments about a hypothetical child brought up in a dysfunctional unsafe home, moving through the criminal justice system and custody etc.., without actually naming Baby P which was somewhat emotive. Nonetheless the point he was making is valid.

I would also like to point out to those posters (I particularly remember Mary2010 ) that children only have one childhood - ok that sounds self evident, but I recall Mary saying that she thought children should be in foster care for "a few years" to see if their families could improve on their parenting (or something very similar so don't tie me to the exact phrase)

Children do not have the time to wait in foster* care or children's homes waiting to see if their* parents are able to keep them safe at some point in their* childhood

Do these people who advocate this kind of thing aware of even basic child development. There is now evidence that a foetus can be damaged in utero where there is conflict, domestic violence etc., and if a child's needs are not met in his earliest hours, days, weeks and months in the first year of life, there is the potential for later problems. A child will never learn as much again (and at the same rate) as in the first 3 years of life and these formative years lay down the foundation for later life.............when children have suffered the trauma of early abuse or neglect, the earlier that they can be placed with adoptive parents who can not only give them the permanence and stability they deserve, but can also understand the effects that the early abuse/neglect will have on a child throughout his childhood, and sometimes throughout the lifespan to a greater or lesser extent, the better the outcome for the child.

If anyone doubts this I suggest you read "Why Love Matters" by Sue Gerhardt who has evidence that the baby's pathways in the brain are affected in their early weeks and months dependent on the type of care they receive.

I am making no criticism of birthparents incidentally because as I have said before on these threads, of all the abused and neglected children I have come across in my social work career, they have parents/carers/stepparents who were abused or neglected themselves as children, and so they have no model of "good enough" parenting. Many young women want a baby so that the baby "will love them" in a way in which they never felt loved, and of course this isn't going to happen because the mother has no idea how to meet the baby's needs because no-one ever met her needs, so she becomes angry with the baby for not loving her, and abuse or neglect can follow. She's been let down again.

Sadly there are no quick fixes for these parents who are almost always from the most disadvantaged section of our society and live life "on the margins" of society, with a myriad of problems which are in many ways insurmountable. You can't teach good enough parenting like you can teach cookery or art or whatever. I firmly believe that as parents we are only able to pass on what we have learned through being parented and for those of us fortunate enough to have had parents who gave us unconditional love then that's what we pass on to our children. Incidentally I am not saying that all abused/neglected children will go on to repeat the pattern, as many will ensure that they don't repeat that pattern of parenting, but many others will repeat the pattern, and so it becomes an impossible task for these parents to prove that they can be good enough parents.

If we were talking about dogs, yes we could remove the unruly dog from the owners, and place the dog with people who understood canine behaviour and they trained the dog to be well behaved, and at the same time the owners could be taught how to have a "well mannered " dog, then dog and owners could be reunited and they could all live happily every after............but we're not.

SO how about us all ignoring JH and have a debate about child protection, the court system, what could improve the present system etc etc.

Anyone up for that...........? You're NOT invited JH

Thank you for that invitation. I do not think everyone who works in the system is "evil", but a system that forces people to do things that are wrong is clearly evil.

It is the system not the people.

I thought that was obvious.

A question for Spero (or another legal person who understands these things).

I've read the transcript of the judgement in which the ceasarean was agreed here. In it I noticed the official solicitor suggested to the judge that his client shouldn't be told about the order until after the operation and then she could apply to discharge it if she wished.

I am a little confused. Is it normal practice to suggest your client is not made aware of a court order which would have such massive ramifications for them let alone that they can apply to discharge it afterwards. After all she could hardly ask them to put the baby back in her womb could she?

I suspect the suggestion about not telling the mother came from something in the medical information suggesting it was contra-indicated.

Towards the end of the last thread, JH somewhat patronisingly invited Spero to put together her queries in writing in a reasoned manner and said he would answer. She went to some trouble to do just that, but we don't seem to have seen any reply. There's a novelty.

But Nenny I still don't understand. Surely her solicitor is mean to represent HER not the other side. How can it be of any benefit to her to come round from sedation to face the trauma of what has happened I would imagine that would be worse for mental health then being prepared for it in some way.

As for the option to discharge the order after the operation I am sorry but its farcical. Still maybe Spero will be able to give us chapter and verse from a family court lawyers point of view. From a lay person's point of view I find it horrible :(

(apologies if this point has been covered in the preceding 3000 posts and I've missed it)

Towards the end of the last thread, JH somewhat patronisingly invited
Spero to put together her queries in writing in a reasoned manner and said

he would answer. She went to some trouble to do just that, but we don't seem to have seen any reply. There's a novelty.

She didn't give links. She made spurious allegations such as me suggesting there are bonuses for taking children into care. I asked for her to give links to her allegations and she did not.

I have said that sums of money were paid for adoptions in various ways, but not for taking children into care.

The underlying difficulty is that so many of the children under 5 that are taken into care are adopted that to increase adoption numbers more children under 5 need to be taken into care particularly in cases like this where a family court case without independent evidence is a slam dunk.

I have specifically stated that you are not invited JH - do you not understand? I can't of course prevent you from continuing to post but at least all of us (with one or two notable exceptions) can see you for what you are, and I think will agree with my suggestion that we ignore your comments that never make any sense in any event.

Thefuture I am not a lawyer, so Spero may be along to give her advice. However I would assume that the decision to withhold the information about the planned C Section would be taken with the mother's best interests at heart. In a psychotic state (which she clearly was) patients are out of touch with reality and suffer delusions, meaning that their thinking is affected and they can believe things that are not remotely connected to the truth or reality. They can also be very distressed and confused and can become very agitated and sometimes aggressive. Medication can control a lot of the symptoms of psychosis but this lady's medication had not "kicked in" and she was therefore in a very poorly state. To tell her about the planned C Section may well have caused her more agitation and confusion, and I honestly don't believe the decision was taken without regard for her civil liberties, but in a way to afford some measure of protection for her in her psychotic state. And Not as JH asserted - that the test was "whether the mother was too stupid to give consent..........."

I can understand why people who have never seen sufferers who are in the grip of a severe psychotic episode and are delusional, would think that it was somehow under-hand not to tell the patient of the plan for the C Section. I think it can be observed by the Judgement that you have linked that great care was taken to determine whether the lady in question had "mental capacity" or not, and so I don't believe the Judge would have agreed that she should not be told about the planned C Section without good reason. He demonstrated that he was concerned for the lady in his comments against the LA requesting the police use their PPO (Powers of Protection) for 72 hours, rather than an application being made for an Interim Care Order on the Child. I suspect the LA were thinking in terms of a PPO for expediency.

Incidentally there are some people who are delusional who have not been diagnosed with a mental health condition.................sometimes they hold public office!

Who, however, was arguing her point of view. viz that this was a decision she took before she lost capacity (even if she ever did)?

The future, I agree with what others have said about why she wasn't told. I don't have a huge amount of experience with Court of Protection work but recently I was involved in a case involving both the. Court of Protection and care proceedings and it was interesting to see how it worked.

If someone doesn't have capacity to make a decision about whether or not they need a particular medical procedure then their doctors and the court have to try to decide what is in their best interests. Obviously this is a decision that is going to depend on a number of variables and will be very specific to each individual case.

As it does seem that this particular woman was very ill indeed at the time - all I have read says she was psychotic which I understand means that she would be delusional and not able to understand what is going on. Thus to tell her she was about to have a serious operation could have made her extremely panicked and upset.

I can quite see why a decision was made NOT to tell her, but equally I can see that to an outsider looking on this is a horrific set of circumstances.

That's why I agree we do need more transparency and better circulation of judgments quickly so that we can see what is being done in our name, and also to squash these awful conspiracy stories that a credulous media like to run with because they make exciting headlines.