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.

Well that's all very well but now I have no one to play with

No need to apologise, Maryz, I don't see why he should get away with blatantly breaking the rules. Also it was getting a bit tedious, I was beginning to wonder whether there would ever be an end to his increasingly bizarre arguments.

And I'm sure he'll be back to play very soon.

Holly, I'm fascinated that you think the case of the 94 year old was "easily winnable". She had various concerned friends expressing their worries about her and about what was going on with C, the person living with her, and there were a number of reports that G, the old lady, had told people independently that she didn't like C's behaviour, that C could be heard shouting, and various dubious things that C was doing. There was also evidence from an independent medical expert and an independent social worker that she lacked capacity.

If you think that case was easily winnable, Holly, I suggest you go into the law immediately. You're clearly a better advocate than even the most experienced of QCs.

Yes nennypops, the document Holly has helpfully linked makes fascinating reading and the history set out there bears little resemblance to the way it was represented in the DM.

I was very interested to read the Judge's opinion of the report produced by the psychologist C took the old lady to see.

I'm going to copy and paste a few passages, with some added emphases...

63. The evidence of Dr Lowenstein was undermined by his having no instructions; he said in his oral evidence that he deduced them from what was said to him by C. G herself was brought to see him in his place of work by C. How his report came into being is a matter of concern, it appears to have been instigated by C, who paid for it; where she got the funds to pay for it is not known. C was given Dr Lowenstein's name by a third party active in family rights campaigns.

64. When Dr Lowenstein saw G she was over two hours late and had been travelling for some time, he then interviewed her in the presence of C for some 3 hours. Dr Lowenstein had no knowledge of the background to the case at all except that there were court proceedings and that C and G were saying she, G, did not lack capacity. He was introduced to C as G's niece. When he discovered during his evidence that this was not the case and their relationship was not lengthy he was very surprised. Dr Lowenstein took no notes of what was said to him by C prior to his interviewing G and preparing his report and he could not remember what was said. He said that he fashioned his instructions from those given to Dr Barker and set out in his report.

65. His evidence was further undermined when it became clear that he had not, as he said, read and assimilated the documents disclosed to him by C (without leave of the court) namely the social worker's statement, the report of the ISW and Dr Barker's report for, had he done so, he could not have failed to pick up that G, C and F are unrelated and have known each other for a relatively short time. He would have been better aware of the extent of the concerns about C's influence and control over G. As it was, he accepted that it would have been better for him to interview G on her own, without anyone being present. This is a matter of good practice, a point that Dr Lowenstein accepted, conceding that it was all the more necessary when he realised that the close family relationship as it had been presented to him was false.

66. Dr Lowenstein brought with him some of the results of tests he carried out with G; tests which indicated some low results indicating a lack of ability to think in abstraction and decision making. He did not accept the need to think in abstraction to reach decisions but did accept that in order to make decisions one had to retain information and that there was evidence that G was not able to do so. I do not accept this evidence it is part of the essence of reaching complex decisions that one is able to think in the abstract.

67. Dr Lowenstein lacked the requisite experience and expertise to make the assessment of capacity in an old person as he has had minimal experience in working with the elderly, has had no training in applying the provisions of the MCA and very little experience in its forensic application, this being his second case. He is a very experienced psychologist in the field of young people, adolescents and children but has no expertise in the elderly. In the tests results he showed the court G consistently had very low scores but he frequently repeated that G was "good for a person of 94"; any tests in respect of capacity are not modified by age and must be objective. If, as appeared to be the case, he felt sympathy for her and did not wish to say that she lacked capacity that is understandable but it is not the rigorous or analytical approach required of the expert witness. When questioned about capacity he seemed to confuse the capacity to express oneself, particularly as to likes and dislikes, with the capacity to make decisions.

68. Dr Lowenstein clearly had considerable concerns about G's ability to manage her own affairs and recommended that she should be represented by the OS, as it was his opinion "on the balance of probabilities that G would have some difficulty in litigation matters." He also recommended that her property and financial affairs should be managed by an independent authority "such as the Court via an Official Solicitor [sic] or someone else working with the court." This was set out in page 17 of his report. This directly implies that Dr Lowenstein was of the opinion that G lacked the capacity to take decisions related to litigation or connected with her property and financial affairs. When asked about this in cross-examination Dr Lowenstein reiterated these recommendations and felt it all the more necessary in light of the misleading picture he had been given of the relationship between G and C.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions

It's fascinating isn't it! With your Daily Mail goggles firmly in place you can cite and rely upon documents which to everyone else actually say he opposite of what you assert!

John hemming had a particularly fine pair of DM goggles. I wonder if Holly is borrowing them.

I've been wondering the same thing Spero!

79. In respect of financial matters there is evidence that G is unaware of her financial situation, of her income and expenditure. While there is good reason to believe from what she herself has told others, that this information is being kept from her and that she is fearful of C should she try to regain control, there is also evidence that she has difficulties in retaining information and formulating decisions as described by Dr Barker [46]. Both he and Mr Gillman-Smith considered the influence and controlling behaviour of C and F to make decision making even more difficult for G; it is obvious to this court from what she has said that she is at times almost paralysed by the threats regarding her removal to a care-home or to have F take over her personal and intimate care.

80. The impairment of G's brain has affected her ability to retain information relevant to the decisions she has to make, as described by Dr Barker. She has difficulty in understanding the necessary information and to use and weigh the information. G could not remember the details of her will, and did not know the name of the advocate present when she saw Dr Barker or why he was there, despite having told Dr Barker his name the previous week. G referred to C and F as H and R (the previous carers) and expressed paranoid ideas about social services and previous friends from the church saying they were after what they could get from her.

81. There is evidence that G understands some of the information relevant to decision making, for example she well understands that she is frail and needs assistance with her personal care and house-work to be able to remain in her home and that C provides that care. At the same time G is either unaware of or unable to remember details of C's and F's backgrounds; she could not, for example, say how old they were. She also understands that C and F have taken control of her finances and has complained about being shouted at and physically shaken but she is unable to use the information to make a decision about her own welfare and care and allows them to remain in her home. This information about C and F living with her or not is relevant for the purposes of s3 (4) as it includes the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deciding one way or another or failing to make the decision. The decision as to contact with others and whether or not she should see other people falls into this same category. She does not foresee that to allow visitors would have benefits including oversight of her care and treatment at the hands of others. I accept that the influence and controlling behaviour of C and F described by the witnesses and in the documentary evidence before the court will have further compromised the ability of G to make decisions and understand what is happening to her.

So, Hollypops, you consider that an outcome that protects C from G and F is undesirable and means that she has lost the case. Please explain why?

It is quite extraordinary how people can read the same document and come to exactly opposite conclusions!

actually holly seems to have gone too?

BoreOfWhabylon

in drawing my own conclusions I put the following words into google

'Dr Lowenstein john hemming'

and looky what came up!

www.forced-adoption.com/usefulcontacts.asp

Sooo... I did a little digging (oh, how I love the interwebz) and found a post by IJ on a blog, in which he states

I RECOMMEND Dr Lowenstein though I have never met him because he does not like social workers or the family court system and the ss object if parents nominate him as their expert !

So then thought I'd see if I could find out why Dr L doesn't like social workers and they don't like him. I discovered (bear with)...

... this

www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Judgments/j731/317.%20Ludwig%20Fred%20Lowenstein,%20Katherine%20Brenda%20Lowenstein%20v%20Hampshire%20County%20Council.doc

So that's the standard of 'expert' recommended!

Crossed posts Westmorland

[shocked]

that is some worrying reading.

I hope that something like that would never be able to happen now!

Ah, our old friend IJ is mixed up in this. What a surprise....

Thnaks for doing the research Westmoreland and Bore

And yes that is really worrying reading

THERE IS A BOOK (written by none other that IJ)

AND IN THE BOOK IS A POEM

books.google.co.uk/books?id=tzdKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Dr+Lowenstein+forced+adoption&source=bl&ots=zPk2V4qbFT&sig=gXwe8yX4uEE_oAdYLD1RR4Ag_FE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PfERU_u-M4qPtAbI_oCgAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Lowenstein%20forced%20adoption&f=false

actually holly seems to have gone too?

Holly seems to have a curious habit of posting something, disappearing, then coming back with something else whilst studiously ignoring all responses to her previous post. She'll be back.

Ah they can do better than poems, John Hemmings has a song available for purchase on iTunes

His "book" is so odd, it's just his website in paper form. Pointless

Good grief:

"The Appellants [i.e. Dr and Mrs Lowenstein] have inappropriately chosen to rely on the experience of Dr Lowenstein including his experience as a wrestler."?

"In March 1996 in the face of further information concerning mistreatment of young people by Mr Small, previously unknown to the Inspection Unit and the Appellants, the Appellants refused to accept that his recruitment practice had been unsound and continued to maintain that Mr Small had been unfairly treated and should be given a chance of employment with children;??"

IJ and JH have some mighty strange bedfellows, don't they?

And why on earth would anyone take a 94 year old to an educational psychologist (and wrestler) for a formal assessment of her mental capacity?