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

Dear god no. SS is a very important job and I believe that the vast majority are not only good at what they do but try their best. I just hate the idea that a foreign national would get the short end of the stick when jurisdiction should have been their home country.

@spero

I just think the AP case could and should have been handled better than it was. Hopefully with Munby their will be new guidelines to ensure such cases are handled far better.

Fair enough.

Redding:

"On this occasion the pregnancy made it very difficult to treat Ms X as medications would have affected the unborn child.
Unless the Health Trust is lying they did not medicate AP til the c-sect. Nice try but please try harder next time.

"Very difficult" does not equate to "impossible", which is what you are contending for.

Really, you are going by public comments on a blog as your source of official information? Try getting official statements from people involved in the case.

No, I am aware that this was fully referenced at the time, and amongst other things was cited in previous discussions on MN to which I have referred you. Go back to them if you want the references. As Claire said, life is too short to plough through 4000 posts to find something which you will ignore anyway.

If you read this story the judge gave the go ahead for a court ordered c-sect if necessary.

So what? Different case, different facts. And if you're absolutely right and they should have applied earlier, where does this take you? Are you saying that the outcome would have been any different if the case had come to court a month earlier? The reality is that they would have presented the facts to the court, including the fact that they were treating AP and they hoped she would get better. In which case the court would have said either: "Fine, come back later and tell us how the treatment is going and we'll make a decision then"; or "No, not enough evidence available as to whether your concerns will still be valid by the time she is due to give birth, reapply later if you're still worried"; or: "Fine, we'll leave it to your discretion". What difference would it have made to the outcome?

the belief that the the english court is a better at judging the fate of foreign nationals than the home countries of said foreign nationals.

The trouble is that the foreign court decided not to intervene.

@nenny
1st
Keeping people in a stupor certainly would render them mentally incapacitated.

2nd
If it had been applied for earlier then the OS and judge would have had a chance to do a proper review of everything involved.

3rd
They were not invited to participate until many crucial decisions had already been made.

4th
"No, they don't. As you have in fact acknowledged in your later post, they state that this should be done if there is a real doubt as to capacity."

You do realize under the same conditions that the patient in the St.George's case the hospital had declared that she had no capacity and the court did not run legal test to confirm. The whole point of such guidelines is to make sure the court acts as a safeguard against the health trust declaring incapacity without the court confirming it.

@nenny

They could have repatriated AP according to her wishes of wanting to go back to Italy to give birth. They could have could have given her a mild sedative for the ride back home since her condition was not severe enough to qaulify for restraints, and since sedatives are not nearly as bad for pregnant women as anti-psychotics. It would have been in her best interest to be treated by her own doctors as they would know the best course of action, resulting in greater level of care.

Redding:

Keeping people in a stupor certainly would render them mentally incapacitated.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that AP was mentally incapacitated purely you allege she was kept in a stupor and for no other reason? What's your evidence for that? And how do you reconcile it with the fact that she had a documented history of serious bipolar disorder, going off her medication and having psychotic episodes which traumatised her children, having been deemed incapable of looking after her older children, and having been hospitalised at least three times previously?

If it had been applied for earlier then the OS and judge would have had a chance to do a proper review of everything involved.

So what's your evidence for supposing that they didn't have a chance to do a "proper review" this time?

They were not invited to participate until many crucial decisions had already been made.

Who's "they"?

You do realize under the same conditions that the patient in the St.George's case the hospital had declared that she had no capacity and the court did not run legal test to confirm. The whole point of such guidelines is to make sure the court acts as a safeguard against the health trust declaring incapacity without the court confirming it.

Yet again, what is your evidence for that? How do you know that the evidence satisfying the legal test wasn't fully set out in the papers? Further, her legal advisers appear to have accepted that she didn't have capacity, and indeed another judge who saw her five weeks later had serious doubts about her mental health even then. The point is: a number of very experienced doctors and lawyers dealing with her at the time and with full access to all the relevant records considered she did not have capacity. Are you seriously claiming they were all wrong?

They could have repatriated AP according to her wishes of wanting to go back to Italy to give birth. They could have could have given her a mild sedative for the ride back home since her condition was not severe enough to qaulify for restraints, and since sedatives are not nearly as bad for pregnant women as anti-psychotics. It would have been in her best interest to be treated by her own doctors as they would know the best course of action, resulting in greater level of care.

Right, you've seen her medical records and you know all this, do you? Upthread you've been insisting that she had to be restrained full time, what's changed? Do you seriously contend that an airline would have agreed to transport a woman in the grip of a manic bipolar episode on the footing that a mild sedative was guaranteed to keep her safe? Do tell us which airline this would be so that we can all avoid it.

1st
You stated previously that doping MH patients is how they keep them under control. What happened to your take on it being that they didn't bother to plan ahead for any alternatives do the doctor's belief that she would make a full recovery before birth? Also even with her problems Italy did not decide to end any all contact between AP and her children for life.

As for the 5 weeks later part, what parent wouldn't be seriously disturbed if this had happened to them?

2nd
Rushed application and judgement with no time for fact finding.

3rd
The Italian authorities.

4th
The health trust stated to the court that the patient in the St.George's case was mentally incapacitated. There was no question of her capacity and the court did not bother to check until afterwards. Maybe if you read the judgement you would understand why the guidelines were created.

5th
You are the one stating earlier that she was not restrained. I am merely saying that if you were not full of BS, than they would be able to repatriate her. They could have hired a private plane, did you seriously not know these exist. In doing so they would have saved the country a bundle in care cost as well as court cost.

Did you know stress is harmful to pregnant women and people in general? Can you imagine the stress of being detained against your will by a foreign country, with people that don't speak your native language, surrounded by strangers whose only knowledge of you is from telephone calls to Italy? In Italy she could have gotten better care from doctors she knew, who had already built a level of trust. This would have not only created a less stressful situation it would have it would have meant that Italy would have been able to handle its own problems.

Redding:
You stated previously that doping MH patients is how they keep them under control.

No I didn't. Don't put words into my mouth.

What happened to your take on it being that they didn't bother to plan ahead for any alternatives do the doctor's belief that she would make a full recovery before birth?

Again, I didn't say that. I postulated that one reason for not making the court application sooner was that the doctors may have hoped that she would recover sufficiently (not necessarily fully) to make a try at a vaginal delivery possible.

Also even with her problems Italy did not decide to end any all contact between AP and her children for life.

But we know the same arrangement wouldn't have been possible for this child because the grandmother couldn't take her in. Would it really have been better for the child to spend her life in children's homes and foster care?

As for the 5 weeks later part, what parent wouldn't be seriously disturbed if this had happened to them?

Oh, come off it, there's a massive difference between being upset and showing the signs of serious mental illness. And I note you are artistically ignoring the point I made about the previous well-documented history of this. Are you seriously suggesting that you know better than the psychiatrists treating her at the time, and that a woman with known unstable bipolar disorder and a history of manic episodes when she comes off medication was in fact perfectly fine when she came off medication this time?

Rushed application and judgement with no time for fact finding.

This is getting circular. There was plenty of time for fact finding, especially in a case where it would appear that the evidence on the salient facts was agreed.

The Italian authorities.

The information published at the end of last year was to the effect that the Italian authorities were informed and were content to leave this with the UK authorities.

The health trust stated to the court that the patient in the St.George's case was mentally incapacitated. There was no question of her capacity and the court did not bother to check until afterwards. Maybe if you read the judgement you would understand why the guidelines were created.

No, if you have read the judgment you would know that it was much more complicated than that. The two situations are not comparable: in particular, in the St George's case the patient was not represented or given any notice of the application. There was a known serious doubt on the capacity issue - the psychiatrist involved had regularly said that she thought the patient had capacity, and even when she wavered on that the most she would say was that the patient's decision-making capacity might have been affected. None of that was drawn to the attention of the court.

In the AP case the patient was represented, the application was made on notice, and those representing her would have been able to check the evidence as to her capacity and to contest it if they thought that appropriate.

You are the one stating earlier that she was not restrained. I am merely saying that if you were not full of BS, than they would be able to repatriate her. They could have hired a private plane, did you seriously not know these exist. In doing so they would have saved the country a bundle in care cost as well as court cost

I didn't say she was not restrained; I questioned your statement that she must have been restrained 24 hours a day for several weeks, and others pointed out that mental health care doesn't work that way. Do tell us your personal knowledge and experience of transporting pregnant patients in the grip of manic bipolar episodes, how many pilots would be willing to do so, and whether that is really more in the patients' interests than treating them in a mental hospital where they are? Should we put financial considerations ahead of the welfare of the patient and her baby?

And can I remind you of the MN rules about personal abuse? Apart from anything else, it is always a clear sign that you are losing the argument.

As for your comments on stress, I repeat that this was a woman suffering a severe manic episode - it's really not clear that she even knew where she was at the relevant time. How do you know she wasn't dealt with by people able to speak her language? As for the suggestion that the doctors' only knowledge of her was through phone calls to Italy that, is, with respect, laughable. We do have things like emails these days whereby full medical notes can be transmitted very quickly. As for the suggestion that she was desperate to be dealt with by doctors she knew, she apparently didn't trust them sufficiently to take their advice before coming off medication and travelling abroad.

Yet again, why are you so desperate to find sinister plots without offering any motivation?

What? Why?

What a surprise...not

Can we know any more please?

Nooooooo! I have lost Edward, now redding too! There won't be anyone left with which to have a heated debate at this rate. Has Redding been advised to leave the jurisdiction? Or been incarcerated in secret UN baby farms for the purpose of increasing world wide adoption targets?

Come on Maryz, don't be so cryptic.

That kind of makes sense Maryz

will you tell us more?

Do we think MN noticed an uncanny similarity between Redding's IP address and Ian Joseph's certain others?

OK by me, really, it was getting quite boring pointing out over and over again that he had no evidence for his allegations, was contradicting himself, was misrepresenting what everyone else said, and was offering no motivation for his conspiracy theories. But no doubt the next incarnation will pop up soon and Spero won't be deprived of heated debates.

I ahve to say I do not know how you benny, spero, Lilka and all the others keep on doing this, I tend to just lurk on these threads (as I have no first hand experience) and still some of the comments make me want to bang my head agaist a brick wall. repeatedly.

You're all amazing!

You are too kind. But as a middle aged single mother, this constitutes my social life!

I am sure the others are driven purely by noble reasons of promoting truth and reason and I need to get out more. Or at all.

Up to a point there's fun to be gained from dealing with someone as incapable of basic research and coherent expression as redding, but ultimately it becomes so childishly easy answering his points that it does become somewhat tedious.

However, the more serious point I suppose is that it really is necessary to ensure that the likes of redding do not remain unchallenged. Obviously there is no chance of changing his mind, but I would really hate to have someone read and accept his nonsense just because it has gone unanswered and unrefuted.

Agreed nennypops I just don't want anyone to read and go "yeah that makes sense" when actually, it's a load of bollocks. Having said that, I'm nowhere near as useful as you or Spero to have around, I don't anywhere ner enough about the law etc, to challenge some of the bollocks that needs challenging.

Although actually I first got suckered in to these threads because of some of the anti-adoption brigade's favourite past time of trashing adoptive parents, which made me feel rather defensive. Over time, I'm starting to find the trashing slightly more pathetically amusing, than anger inducing.

But WHY HOLLY WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Why would the OS deliberately 'throw' a winnable case?

What is the MOTIVE for all of this?

As Wall LJ said so memorably to John Hemming when he accused a solicitor of forging documents in her file 'why would she do this. What's in it for her?'

What is the problem you have with the OS representation?

the Judge said

G is represented by leading counsel instructed by the Official Solicitor. Ms Richards QC has been punctilious in ensuring that G's views are not only put before the court but that any argument in support of those views has been articulated. The Official Solicitor also submits that G lacks capacity under the MCA in one or more relevant respects i) as to who should live with her; ii) as to contact with other people; iii) as to managing her own financial affairs and vi) as to litigation. It was submitted that Dr Barker was correct in his view that she lacked capacity in all four areas under the provisions of ss2 and 3 of the MCA 2005. Both the OS and the local authority submitted that the evidence of Dr Lowenstein could be disregarded as he lacked the relevant expertise and lacked experience and training in undertaking an assessment under the MCA.

On behalf of G it was submitted that the court must consider the contrary points; i) the presumption under s 1 that the subject of proceedings has capacity; ii) that G is intelligent; iii) that G is a capable person; iv) that she is fiercely independent; v) that she has a good long term memory; vi) that she has a good understanding of many of the issues before the court; vii) that the court should prefer the evidence of Dr Lowenstein against that of Dr Barker in the dispute over short term memory loss and viii) that she has clearly expressed her views about the first two in the list of relevant areas of decision making (who she lives with and contact with others). That she would say she can make her own decisions without assistance and that she wants no outside interference from the local authority or from any other source. She does not want anyone sticking their nose into her life. I have kept these points in mind.

And this is what was said about what the 94 year old 'G' was suffering:

Initially Ms Murray visited G at home on the 6th March 2013 and G told her that C and her husband F had moved into her home around May 2012; they had been introduced by a friend at church. G said she needed help at night so the arrangement was that C would move in to provide it and that she would live there, rent-free, in return. G said that C wanted to order her around and she could only go upstairs at 9 pm and not before and her access was blocked; that C had taken over the house and told her to stay out of the kitchen; that C ignored G's wishes. G confirmed that C would not leave the room when the carers were attending to her and ignored requests to leave and that C was very possessive. C listened in from the other side of the door and entered the room shouting and ranting, saying she did not like the questions G was being asked. However when the social worker returned the next day G retracted the allegations saying she could not remember the visit of the day before, she did not want to be asked questions and felt she was being harassed.

I am thankful that as a society we are looking out for people like this and trying to protect them.

I really don't see the problem with this case at all.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.