Parents 'should go abroad to avoid family courts'

[ScrambledSmegs]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25641247

Yep, that's the BBC. Currently trending as one of the most read pages on the site.

I know they've tried to make this balanced by referencing CAFCASS, but it doesn't feel like much balance when the headline is something as scaremongering as that. It feels quite irresponsible.

Yes, I know that they're trying to drum up interest in their Panorama program, but I think they'd have been better off not publicising JHMP and his ramblings. Unfortunately, he's dangerous. Ridiculous and foolish, but dangerous.

Holly I think we are probably agreeing on human rights but where we put the emphasis may differ. This is inevitable when 'human rights' involves a number of competing rights in conflict with one another, most particularly in family law when you have to juggle the right of the adults to keep their family together against the right of their child to grow up as healthy and stable as possible.

But I don't understand what you are saying when you say that real evidence usually cannot be effectively challenged due to process secrecy

Is this the (wrong) belief that parents don't have legal representation and/or aren't allowed to see the evidence against them?

Because nothing could be further from the truth. It is my job, along with thousands of others, to examine that evidence and challenge it when appropriate.

In cases such as the AP case should courts apply for forced sterilization after it has been determined that the person can never hope to be anything other than a horrible parent? Doing so would eliminate any risk of future harm to children she might have had later on. I think it would be a bit extreme, however as several of you have said adults rights are nothing compared to protecting children from possible future risk.

You can't protect a child that doesn't exist. You can only protect already born humans

Also, no, the idea of forced sterilisation is destestable. You're talking about violating somebody's body

It's not in any way comparable to child protection proceedings

redding, its about balance and its about proportionality. Proportionality is the key concept in family law as it underpins the operation of Article 8 which is of course a qualified right.

I cannot envisage circumstances where it would be considered a 'proportionate' response to sterilise a woman who has had children removed via care proceedings.

There have been applications to the court to authorise sterilisation of adults but this has involved adults with significant disabilities who wanted to enjoy sex with their partner but who could not even begin to deal with or understand the idea of pregnancy. I think the court has authorised that on a few occasions and the test always is what is in the best interests of the adult concerned.

I note with interest that a Local Authority has recently applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with regard to a six year old in their care who is seriously disabled following her birth mother's abuse of alcohol during pregnancy. That could open up a whole new can of worms so I suppose we always have to be on guard against the slippery slope. If the LA succeed then drinking alcohol excessively will be considered a crime. I wonder what the proportionate action will then be?

@lilka

What do you think will happen if she gets pregnant again, she will go into hiding without any support or safety net for the possible child. This would probably mean death for the child and possibly the mother. You have already proclaimed that you could care less about the rights of the birth parents. Yet you have no problem turning people you detest into perpetual broodmares.

'perpetual broodmares' ??

are you for real? How on earth do you take ANYTHING lilka says and come out with this tosh?

AP has a serious mental illness. She obviously doesn't have insight into her condition as she has now had three children removed from her care. she clearly is not motivated to manage her condition or get the help she needs.

this is really sad for her and her children. But if she decides to get pregnant again, I hope she does this with help and support from her mental health team.

how on earth do you think anyone here wants her to be a 'perpetual brood mare'?

Your mask of rationality is slipping.

@spero

Your UK court judged to to be a horrible parent without the ability to ever be a fit parent due to her chronic illness. So she has the right to get pregnant and yet not the right to have a family.

you don't understand what was happening in AP's case.

After her child was born she wanted to go back to Italy. the Judge was very concerned by this decision, but the doctors said she was well enough and she wanted to go.

She came back 15 months later and tried to contest adoption proceedings.

Her daughter would have no idea who she was. It could have been so different if she had stayed, worked with her mental health team, taken her medication, been assessed as a carer for her child.

But that would require her to have insight into her condition, which she clearly doesn't have.

If she gets pregnant again in the UK, the LA would probably have to issue care proceedings given the history, but if she works with them they will support her to keep her child if she can show she can parent safely.

What support package did the LA have for her to stay in the UK? Also this would not change the belief that AP would stop taking her meds in the future which was as I recall their reasoning behind proclaiming her to never achieve the ability to become a fit parent.

"this would not change the belief that AP would stop taking her meds in the future which was as I recall their reasoning behind proclaiming her to never achieve the ability to become a fit parent"

Redding can you provide evidence for that please. I don't remember reading that anywhere but happy to be corrected.

Fear that she wouldn't take her meds was not a reason for her NEVER being allowed to parent but the risk that she would once again fail to stick with her necessary treatment was part of the reasoning behind why it was not in her child's best interests to attempt reunification after 15 months. It would be very cruel to that child to reintroduce her to her mother and then take her away again of the mother again relapsed into serious mental illness.

If the mother can get another year or two under her belt showing that she can manage her condition I can't see any reason why she wouldn't have a good chance at parenting any future children.

I had one client who had a breakdown and plotted to kill herself and her child. She was supported by her mental health team and a volunteer advocate who came to court with her. It is a slow process but last time we met her contact with her child had just been increased to overnights at home so I hope the eventual outcome is good. But she understood she had had a breakdown and worked hard to stay well.

@redding13

Your UK court judged to to be a horrible parent without the ability to ever be a fit parent due to her chronic illness. So she has the right to get pregnant and yet not the right to have a family.

Well I found this link on Spero's blog and following Italian laws, an Italian court would have done the same. You can use google translator, if you like:

www.intrage.it/rubriche/famiglia/adozione/nazionale/index.shtml

To be honest, if the translation got it right a parent had only 30 days to oppose the decision of a court to give a minor for adoption in Italy.
It doesn't seem that much of an improvement to me compared to UK.

hollyhbi am going from allegations that Ms Pacchieri published in Italy

You are presenting as reliable evidence the allegations of a woman who was at the relevant time in the grip of a full blown psychotic episode, and you are saying that that is your only evidence. I think that's the end of that discussion, don't you? So let's hear no more about that particular allegation.

You have already proclaimed that you could care less about the rights of the birth parents. Yet you have no problem turning people you detest into perpetual broodmares

Oh dear. Cheers for making me laugh though, I think you've made my evening

I think the childrens best interests should be put first, ahead of the birth parents best interests, which come second. I'm not really sure how you can turn that into me not caring about the rights of birth parents

I have no issues with removal of multiple children if it is necessary to prevent the children suffering significant harm. I think it's an absolute tragedy for all concerned, and deeply upsetting, but still, if it must be done, it must be done

As for saying I detest birth parents, that's a little fantasy that you've constructed in your head. I would hate the real me to get in the way of that, and yet I feel I should say that you are so hopelessly wrong it genuinely made me laugh.

Also that I've been told the total opposite by real birth parents, real people who have lost their children, and whom I have tried to give some support to (either in real life, or by messaging on MN. I've been very touched to be thanked by birth parents and told that I have changed their opinions on adoptive parents (for the better) or been a help to them at such a horrific time in their lives. I will give their opinions of me and my advice about a thousand times more weight than yours.

@lilka

In your previous posts throughout the thread you proudly proclaim that all parents involved in proceedings are pedos who want to harm their children, and also that they don't deserve any rights. Now you make a 180 pretending to care about parents? A lot of parents involved in proceedings are more likely than not bad parents, yet I don't paint them all as evil.

Your about face is rather amusing.

She never said that.

The only reasons you would offer such a clumsy misrepresentation of what she is saying is a) your reading comprehension levels are very poor or b) you are a bored and sad individual who thinks that this kind of thing is amusing or clever.

If it's b) please believe me when I say it's neither.

You know what, I actually can't be bothered to once again reiterate what I said upthread in simpler language which you might be better able to comprehend if more complicated sentences are too much for you

You are totally determined to just read what i say, then twist it around and pretend I said something else.

Well guess what? It's not a smart thing to do. It's actually really pathetic

If you want to debate with me, debate with the REAL me. Don't debate with an imaginary me you've constructed in your head, who has completely different views to the real me

ps. Also since imaginary me has totally different views to real me, that makes real me and imaginary me opposing each other. I do think it's unfair that you're expecting me to debate against not only you, but imaginary me as well. I would say a fairer argument would be 1:1 not 2:1

And I don't get into arguments with imaginary versions of myself, as a general rule. Nor do I get into arguments with any figments of other people's imaginations. It's a bit of a weird thing to do after all.

Crikey Lilka, I had no idea what a horrible person you are till redding pointed it out

Ah well it's okay Devora, you know now

Although it's odd, that you've been talking to me on here for the best part of 4 years, and in all that time, you never ever noticed me say anything bad about birth parents in general, never noticed any hint of hatred/dislike or wild generalisations at all

You're quite unobservant, now I think about it

Crikey Lilka, I had no idea what a horrible person you are till redding pointed it out hmm

hahaha you made my day with this!! Yes, never noticed either, Lilka is very good at hiding those bad traits of her lol

I guess redding has a case of 'pot calls kettle black'.......

A lot of parents involved in proceedings are more likely than not bad parents

It depends on what you mean by that, cuz a lot of parents are abusive as heck but they live in denial.

Depends on the situation. But that child care isn't really protecting children is quite clear.

I think it's wrong at all times to take children away from their parents. I'll give my reasons:

• If an organisation has got the power to take children away from their parents. Then parents won't ever trust them or ask them for help when they need help. From the start parents will be against social services instead of working with them.

Result:
When parents and children do need help. They won't get it. Out of fear of loosing their children. Don't forget that loosing a child is the worst thing that can happen to a person!

• When children are being taken away the foster. These 'new parents' do get all the help in the world. Not only that they also get a good financial reward for what they do.

From this site: www.actionforchildren.org.uk/fostering-and-short-breaks-service/why-choose-action-for-children

They get:
Excellent support: we provide 24-hour support. You can phone us whenever you need assistance. You will also have regular discussions with your own fostering social worker for support and guidance.

Continuous training and development: we are committed to helping our carers develop further skills, knowledge and qualifications. During the application process, you'll attend a course to learn more about fostering. You'll also have continuous training and development opportunities throughout your career.

Experienced children's charity: as an experienced UK children's charity, we put children at the centre of everything we do, and share your passion for transforming children and young people's lives.

Breaks when you need them: being a foster carer can be exhausting, so we make sure our foster carers get regular paid breaks.

Competitive allowances and fees: by being paid, carers are able to focus their time and skills on caring for children and young people. You will be given allowances to cover the costs of care and recreational expenses and paid a fee to reflect the complex work you do as a carer.

Support groups and social events: we organise events where you can meet with other foster carers and learn from each other.

Give this support to the real parents and I think that most, absolutely most problems will be solved with this kind of support.

• In my opinion people don't just abuse children. There's a reason a story for why this happens. Maybe the parent suffers from a depression or a different illness. Something else that's going on. Just help them with what the real problem is. Instead of taking children away from someone.

• In case the parent can't look after the child.

In that case the parent need some extra help. Or be in hospital or a mental institution. In that case someone else can look after the children.

In the end of the day no one can protect every child. Even in care children aren't safe. We all have seen these things in the news.

It's the worst thing to loose a child and the child is also scared for life when it's being taken away from it's parents. Even if people abuse their children. There's a bond between them. You can't take a child away from their parents. W

I think it's wrong at all times to take children away from their parents

Do you think Daniel Pelka should have been taken away from his mother before she killed him?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Daniel_Pelka

Do you think Peter Connolley should have been taken away from his mother before she sat back and let her boyfriend kill him?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baby_P

Do you think any of the children murdered by their parents or carers should have been rescued? There is about one a week I think.

Look up Lauren Kavanaugh's story - should her birth parents have been allowed to get her back after they finished all the surgeries to her damaged body and fed her enough that she no longer looked like a holocaust victim?

You have to recognise that some parents will never ever change or be able to parent appropriately, no matter how much support you give. To assume anything other is frankly naive to such an extreme it becomes stupidity

I hate to use the sexual abuse example again because inevitably someone is going to suggest that I think that everyone is a paedophile or some other such nonsense But oh well....I'd love to know what support you will give to say, a father who is sexually abusing his child, and the mother who refuses to believe it and refuses to leave him. Or lets say both parents are sexually abusing their child. Are you going to politely tell them to stop? Send them to a parenting class maybe? Pay them the same wage as a foster carer, on condition they stop abusing their child? Well done, you have't molested your child all week, have £200?

Also, whilst I absolutely know and appreciate the depth of the bond between the vast majority of children and their parents, it is wrong to pretend it exists in 100% of cases

Some children are quite literally terrified to be in the same room as their parents. Why would we force such a child to live with their abusers? That IS abuse in itself.

I have an adult daughter, who suffered a great deal of abuse as a young child. Does she have any contact with her birth parents as an adult? No, nothing. She is STILL extremely angry with them and also...scared. That fear that pervaded her life as a small child, hasn't ever gone away. Now why on Earth would anyone be stupid enough to have left her with her birth parents after finding out what was going on? Also, how could anyone dislike/hate/be so indifferent to a child so much that they would NOT rescue them from a horribly abusive situation?

I agree Lilka.

Also listen on i player to the interviews Jenny Molloy aka Hackney Child has given recently to Women's Hour on Radio 4 and to Jeremey Vine on Radio 2. She went to the police aged 9 and asked to be put into care. the LA insisted she had continued direct contact with her parents, which she hated as they would turn up to her primary school drunk. But she wasn't allowed to stop seeing them until she was 13 and could decide for herself.

There are many, many stories like this.

Being a parent doesn't automatically make you kind, loving and wonderful. On the contrary, the most dangerous people for young children are their parents.