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.

Spero> Being a parent doesn't automatically make you kind, loving and wonderful.

In my 60+ years I have never met a mother just out of labour who didn't love the newborn so recently part of her own body. The only exception I have ever come across was a young woman who wanted, but could not get, an abortion. It may not be automatic but it is just about universal.

Spero> On the contrary, the most dangerous people for young children are their parents.

On that, if by parents you mean mothers (or birth mothers as you like) we have to cordially agree to differ. I think you simply could not be more wrong if you tried to be. Mental health professionals are far and away the most dangerous members of society.

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent, moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.... (C.S.Lewis - Irish author 1898-1963)

hollyhbi am going from allegations that Ms Pacchieri published in Italy
nennypops : 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.

Allegedly psychotic. You are assuming the verdict when deciding the admissibility of evidence to be used to weigh the verdict. Just as the court of "protection" did in AP case. Injustice is really easy to cover up in a secret court where the defence is a puppet of the prosecution.

And that is not right. The only evidence available to us is Alessandra's own testimony, so since it is the only evidence it should be assumed to be correct in the absence of any other evidence.

It seems to me that Alessandra wanted to return to Italy months before coming to term and there was a conspiracy to prevent that by needlessly drugging her up to purposely reduce her ability to fight for her rights and confuse her thinking. Otherwise she would have been back in Italy as that was her clear wish. She worked for an airline for gosh sakes, it's not as if transport or identification would have been a problem.

In my 60+ years I have never met a mother just out of labour who didn't love the newborn so recently part of her own body. The only exception I have ever come across was a young woman who wanted, but could not get, an abortion. It may not be automatic but it is just about universal.

Not true for Daniel Pelka.
Not true for Peter Connolley.
Not true for Shannon Matthews
Not true for Stephen Meurs
Not true for Heidi Koseda
Not true for Tyra Henry
Not true for Ainlee Labonte
Not true for Ghanson Lebrosse
Not true for Yaseen Ege
Not true for Callum Wilson
Not true for Kyra Ishaq

Not true for many thousands more.

Not true for the children killed every 10 days by their parents.
www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html

Well, this leads us into philosophical discussion of what 'love' means, doesn't it? You may be right that mothers near-universally feel something they label as love when their children are born; maybe it's something we would all describe as love. But that certainly does not mean that all mothers act lovingly towards their babies, does it? I'm sure my dd's birth mother loved her. Didn't prevent my dd spending her first six weeks going through the agony of drug withdrawal, unsupported or visited by members of her birth family (including her mum). So using 'love' as a shorthand for 'can provide good enough parenting' is not helpful for the purposes of this debate.

Ah, yes Devora. I have fallen into the school boy error of believing that the love a parent feels for a child ought to encompass not beating or starving that child to death or sitting back and letting a boyfriend do it.

But Holly clear defines 'love' as 'feeling strong emotion' or something equally and utterly useless to a vulnerable and defenceless child who is completely reliant upon the adults in his or her life to keep him safe.

Holly - this is the saddest and bleakest statistic on that page.

"The proportion of child homicides in which the perpetrator is a parent is exceptionally high among infants". For example between 1995 and 1999 in England and Wales, 80% of homicide victims under one year old were killed by a parent.

47% of parent perpetrators were mothers. What emotion were they in the grip of when they killed their babies? Was it love?

That's it, Spero. For me, you kind of lose the right to claim to love when you abuse someone. But I'm not bothered by the semantics: family annihilators claim to love their kids, so do many men who hit their partners, so too do many abusive parents. Well, fine. It's just not a very useful concept to use in the circumstances.

If you define 'love' as 'I feel lots of emotion' (but I don't actually get off my arse and DO anything like feed or clean my children) then yes, I agree with Holly; almost all parents I deal with LOVE their children.

So what?

They still hurt them. 'love' (as outpouring of emotion, without action) really and truly is never enough when it comes to parenting.

I couldn't agree more Spero and Devora

Love is emotion but emotion won't care for a child. You can love without feeling real committment. Love without feeling real empathy. You can love but love something or someone else (eg. your partner) more.

I have a friend who didn't love her child for months, because she had severe PND and it was just a horrific time for her. But it didn't, in the end, matter to the child that its mother didn't love it at first, because mum cared for her baby just fine. Baby was fed, nappy changed, washed, and it was give hugs and walked up and down. She did every loving action as best as she could, and that was what was needed. She was determined and committed to caring for her baby right, she had knowledge of what good enough parenting looks like and why it's important to do it, she knows what abusive actions are and why abuse is a bad thing...and if you lack those things, well, it's not going to end well for the child.

On the other hand, to once again use my own child as an example, my DD2's birth mum loves her very much. But love is an emotion not an action, and as such it's nowhere near enough. Love won't feed a child, or prevent them being abused, you can love a child and still abuse them. Her birth mum just does not understand what good parenting looks like and what abusive parenting looks like. She just doesn't know the difference, and no amount of support over the years has enable dher to learn that. Love doesn't help her in that sense.

Would you mind oneof if I cut and pasted your comment into the CPR blog?

I have had a lot of twitter comments about this 'love is not enough' issue and I think it would be interesting to have a post about 'good enough' parenting and the difference between 'feeling' and 'doing'. This would tie in very well with anything Lilka or Devora can contribute about their perspective as adopters.

The blog/website is here www.childprotextionresource.org.uk

Dammit! Fat thumbs.

Real link

Www.childprotectionresource.org.uk

Yes of course you can

Thanks! If anyone else would like to comment to a post on 'love is not enough' please let me know.

The comments of posters like Holly make me think this is important and necessary.

And I now have two contribution ideas for CPResource. Spero I will write the adoptive parent perspective on the system I promised, but I am now thinking also about something along the lines of 'being an adoptive parent' for birth parents, in which I could answer common questions I get asked by birth parents.

I've been asked multiple times on MN by birth parents, things such as "what do adoptive parents tell their children? "what should I expect at the meeting between me and the adoptive parents that SS have organised?", etc. I could go back and compile a list of questions and answer them as best I can, with the aim of helping any birth parents who are facing their children being adopted who read the site? And I can invite people to ask more questions I can answer in the comments section Do you think that might be a good idea?

Spero, I have actually drafted somethingn for the site - just not found time to go back and edit it. I hope to do so this week.

One of - that would be perfect. If you can do a q and a style thing, I will get started on a more general 'love is not enough' post.

Devora, I am not nagging by stealth! There is no rush or pressure. Whatever you can do, whenever you can do it will be great.

Excellent, I'll try and do a first draft today Spero

ps. Did everyone recognise me when I posted? I wanted a name change that still made it obvious who I was, but I think I might have failed, I don't think I've actually been recognised by everyone?

WHO are you?

I have no clue but I always miss these things....

It's Lilka

I made sure I had Lilka in the middle of the new name, and then I assumed everyone would see it, but I think I misjudged, you don't actually read the name if it's long do you? Damn it

D'oh. i did read the 'Lilka' but I thought that was in hommage to the poster of that name.

But the only way I am ever clued up enough to spot name changing is if someone changes their name to 'MypreviousnamewasXbutpleasecallmeYnow'.

You are such a smug bourgeoise lot here! You list a dozen child victims of criminals. Criminals who are a menace to anyone of any age, and somehow liken that to the thousands upon thousands of real mums who are run ragged trying to keep body and soul together for their young kids. And then have to give up time and energy, of which they are desperately short, to "cooperation" with investigations by busybodies who stand in judgment over their failure to provide adequately for their children's needs. Of course they can't provide adequately, you try a bit of grinding poverty and see how it feels. So how adequately you can provide.

And then you blame them when they turn to the underground railroad, just about the only organisation willing to offer help unconditionally and without sitting in judgement threatening to break up their family so that the cute blue eyed ones can be taken into care and fast-tracked for adoption by strangers.

Read this case?
www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/baby-spirited-away-spain-lying-6712112
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/303.html
Note the timing: 60 hours after the Panorama programme, and how many more are in the pipeline one wonders. So now they are imprisoning grandfathers and grandmothers, as if that is going to do anything except cause misery and waste still more money.

What should be done is to stop all this waste on wild goose chase social "services" and bring back family allowances paid to mothers weekly in cash so that there is at least some money to pay for necessaries every week. Annual tax concessions for those with good jobs just don't delivery money where it is actually needed.

Disgusted.

I list a dozen children killed by their mothers.

There are sadly many thousands more.

You early claimed that mothers always loved their children. So we had an interesting discussion about what 'love' actually means and what a child needs.

I am intrigued as to how any of this makes me or any other contributed to that debate 'smug' or 'bourgeois'.

And you will forgive me Holly if I have little faith in your ability to explain this to me, if I judge you by your previous postings.

You list a dozen child victims of criminals

Who were their parents. You can't ignore that. Or ignore the fact that THOUSANDS of the adoptees in this country have permanent physical and mental/emotional damage due to their early lives. And yet somehow you are totally determined to ignore this

Of course they can't provide adequately, you try a bit of grinding poverty and see how it feels

I find that insulting to the thousands of parents who live in poverty and yet manage not to leave their children with permanent emotional and/or physical damage

Interestingly, I HAVE tried poverty. I grew up poor. Very poor. It was not fun in many ways and it would be horrible to be in the same position now, and yet my parents knew the difference between good parenting and abusive parenting, so my childhood was fine and in many ways a very good one

THAT'S the issue here. We aren't talking about providing in terms of buying food. We're talking about the understanding of things like - it's not okay to shake a baby, babies can't be left for very long periods alone without being fed or cared for, you can't leave your child with a convicted child molester in exchange for drugs, that being passed out on drugs for long period leaving your young child alone playing with matches/in a full bath/in the street after dark is not safe. That it's not okay for a child to be caught in violence, or constantly belittled, or whatever else have you

THAT'S the real issue

I'm still low income by the way. Poor, if you like.
So try again

so that the cute blue eyed ones can be taken into care and fast-tracked for adoption by strangers

This old bollocks again

Firstly because there isn't a national conspiracy to steal babies for adoption.

Secondly, guess what? We adoptive parents don't appreciate being told that we are only interested in scooping up cute blue eyed babies. Why? Because its a bunch of made up shit, that's why

We don't give a shit about the colour of our childrens eyes. Nor do social services

We go into this prepared by social services from day one, to parent children who we know have been neglected, physically, sexually abused, who have been affected by drug/alcohol exposure in utero, chidren who have extra emotional needs, children who need parenting differently.

If you went into adoption hoping for a cute blue eyed baby, you'd be disappointed on day one. And the social workers would be very unimpressed. And either you would drop out, or you would learn and come to terms with what adoption usually is - parenting a traumatised child, who has been traumatised by their early life with their birth parents

But please, don't let reality get in the way of your blinkered stereotyping

Yup, another one here who grew up in poverty: second generation single parent, raised on benefits in emergency council accommodation.

And my adopted child is black.

But you wouldn't know that because you didn't ask. You just assumed. Typical of the intellectual rigour of someone who distinguishes between 'criminals' and 'parents' as if these are two categories that never cross.

My dad grew up in poverty and was taken into care for a few years because his dad died and his mum had a breakdown. Does that count?

Or I am just too irredeemably bourgeois because I had an ok childhood. Not rich but not poor.

Maybe you could post some income scales Holly so as to let us know who is allowed to comment. For eg family income over £30k, more than one foreign holiday a year, not entitled to comment on child abuse?