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.

But they did not, the Swedes found no defect whatsoever with Miss B

The reports don't actually say that - it's probably better not to theorise without data

cory Tue 14-Jan-14 21:47:15 Could you comment on this, Holly?

I don't think so, not usefully. It reads like a rant.
You are asking me questions about your situation and what you might have done. And I had no idea that you were an MP, but it explains a few things.

The saddest part about this whole affair is that now parents will be reluctant to take their children for treatment if they have minor injuries for fear of misdiagnosis

The problem is that, if parents really are reluctant, it is down to the scaremongering propagated by people like JH and his followers; it bears little resemblance to reality. The plain fact is that A&E doctors are so rushed off their feet that they really aren't going to subject themselves to all the hassle involved in a child protection investigation unless they are seriously concerned. The simple reality is that thousands of children are treated by GPs and hospital every day without social services getting called in.

Lioninthesun Tue 14-Jan-14 21:43:07 > No Holly - ten years ago it was just the same.

Really it wasn't. Ten years ago there was near universal public trust in doctors and courts.
After last night's Panorama programme a lot of parents will think twice about having children's minor injuries treated professionally.

And secret courts are extremely corrosive. Not just Pacchieri but also Snowden. That's why England abolished them in 1641 only to bring them back in the 21st Century.

After last night's Panorama programme a lot of parents will think twice about having children's minor injuries treated professionally.
Exactly, if you can't see the harm in that scaremongering backed up by an MP telling people to flee the country (rather than sort it out from Parliament himself of course) then you may need to re-read the thread.

cory > If he keeps quiet, that (as you admit) is horrible and risks doing enormous harm. If he intervenes, then he risks getting it wrong and destroying public trust in his profession.

The doctor can't do right for doing wrong. It's not always the doctor's fault that her less than certain medical evidence has been misused and as a result trust and confidence in her profession has been destroyed. And it's not in the doctor's power to cure it. It's not obvious how you restore trust after it has been destroyed. Trust has to be earned, it does not come by grace.

Exactly, if you can't see the harm in that
Of course it's harmful. But you can't blame Panorama for doing investigative journalism and televising exposés.

That wasn't what I would call a balanced debate (Panorama). They went for a sensationalist story because they had a quotable MP. All for highlighting the cases where the system failed, just don't pass it off as what happens to the majority. One is doing severe damage to the country he is meant to be looking after.

Agreed, Lion. Panorama suffered from the defect most of these reports of care proceedings have, namely that it is impossible for the other side of the story to be presented.

Ten years ago there was near universal public trust in doctors and courts.

Not that I remember. We'd been through Cleveland, the Orkney Islands and Rochdale, and Sally Clark was freed by the Court of Appeal in January 2003.

If the Family Court was not such a closed off, secret affair then perhaps we wouldn't be having this debate at all. I feel very uncomfortable that if a parent is accused of something to do with their child, which could result in them losing custody of said child, they should have the same rights as any other accused person. So, their case should be heard in open court and they should have proper representation and the evidence against them should be tested in court as for any other misdemeanour.

Sorry didn't make sense! I meant that I feel uncomfortable that they don't get afforded those rights.

As I said on another thread today - Open it up!
SS will be able to tell us in great detail all of the horrific things some parents do to their children. I just hope those abusers still think it is fair when that happens, as most of them honestly don't seem to believe they are doing anything wrong.
They will however be hounded by the press, along with their children, family members and co-workers, neighbours until the mob gets what the mob wants.
Daily Fail democracy in a jar. Won't we all be better off for it?

80s mum, why do you think that parents in care cases aren't represented and can't test the case against them? In fact they are automatically entitled to legal aid irrespective of means, and they have every opportunity to challenge the local authority case.

HollyHB Tue 14-Jan-14 22:03:29
"Lioninthesun Tue 14-Jan-14 21:43:07 > No Holly - ten years ago it was just the same.

Really it wasn't. Ten years ago there was near universal public trust in doctors and courts."

Sorry to be pedantic here, but the Munchausen by proxy scandal started 20 years ago.

The Cleveland abuse scandal (led by a couple of incompetent doctors) started in 1987.

The satanic abuse scandals of the 80's and 90's...happened in the 80's and 90's.

If people really believe the late 20th century was a time of naive trust then all I can say is people have short memories.

sorry crossposted with nennypops there

I am still struggling to get my hand round this one:

Anxious parent: I am really worried about dd; she keeps having these strange pains/bruises/bleeds and I am worried it could be something serious. Should I take her to the hospital?

JH: No, no, no, they might suspect you of harming her. Get out of the country instead. As soon as possible. Go into hiding, keep under the radar.

AP: But if I do that, how can I get her diagnosed and treated? I won't have the right to a doctor there and I won't be able to get hold of her medical records. How if it is something serious and she dies?

JH: Well, that is tragic but the doctors have only themselves to blame if the public have lost faith in them. I saw it coming, I warned them.

AP: Yes, but what about dd...?

Sorry, get my head round it.

Holly, I am not an MP. My questions in my earlier post meant:

a) What kind of parent would I have been if I had responded in that way in the face of symptoms that for all I knew might have been threatening dd's life? (answer: a selfish one)

b) And what kind of MP is JH when he responds in that way to a parent who is dealing with a sick or injured child, the severity of whose problems are still unknown? (answer: an irresponsible one)

Holly

As someone who was raped as a child by a British mental health profesional I think I am allowed to bear a grudge.

No you're not. I'm a rape and abuse survivor who was CIA-interrogated and treated as a terrorist by a whole bunch of police officers.

Would that make me entitled to go and shoot police officers because I've an axe to grind against them? No, because that would make me appear as bitter and stupidly self-entitled.

Honestly, bearing grudges against a whole category or system because you were wronged doesn't make you better than them.

And remember that people like JH play on those feelings, because he is sexist and mysoginist, he couldn't care less about you, the mothers or the children. He wants to restore a patriarchal family model. I hope that less abuse survivors won't fall for his tricks

cory

Sorry to hear what happened to you :(

b) And what kind of MP is JH when he responds in that way to a parent who is dealing with a sick or injured child, the severity of whose problems are still unknown? (answer: an irresponsible one)

Yes, he is very irresponsible in advising that. That's why there is even a petition online to get rid of him.

There was an on-topic programme on BBC Radio 4 today an hour or so ago. In the series "Face the Facts".
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tmlp

80smum your post about parents accused of abuse etc is incorrect. Birthparents are always allowed to have their own legal representative and legal aid is available. Believe me lawyers for the parents "fight their corner" very robustly. Everyone who assesses the parents and writes a report is cross examined by the parent's lawyer. These cases go on for approx. 5 days (or more) and every professional who has written a report is cross examined - it is not uncommon for cross examination of the social worker in the case to be of 3 or 4 hours duration. All other professionals e.g. psychologist, psychiatrist (if there are mental health issues) social workers, family support workers, GP, etc are also robustly cross examined.

In addition a children's guardian is appointed in all of these cases. He/she is a social worker but is independent of the LA - they work for CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Service) and their role is to investigate all of the circumstances and produce a comprehensive report. They don't always agree with the LA social workers and they are very influential in court. Also they appoint a lawyer to act for the child.

Additionally in many cases where the case has got to a final hearing, the lawyers for the birthparents will request that a further assessment of the parents is made by a completely independent social worker. If all the parties are agreed then such a social worker is appointed. They have to have at least 10 years experience in child protection. I was often appointed in the role when I worked as a freelance after retiring from LA Children's Services. If I was in agreement with the LA (and this was usually the case) I would be cross examined for several hours.

The reason that I was almost always in agreement was because the assessments of the parents were evidence based rather than based on opinion. Also the evidence based reports of the other professionals involved were comprehensive and it was usually clear that every effort had been made to re-unite the child with the birthparents but this was finally considered unsafe and hence the application to the court for a Care or Placement Order. I can recall one case where I didn't think the LA had given the parents the opportunity of a residential assessment (carried out at a centre where the parents live with the child and are monitored by the staff) who also write a report for court. It was agreed that they should be given this opportunity. The mother ended up leaving the residential placement without the baby and the father refused to be involved. However I was satisfied that she had been given this opportunity.

The only reason I would want the family courts opened up is so that people can really see what happens and how much evidence is heard and how much cross examination there is and how the Judge makes the final decision. Otherwise I am totally opposed to it as I don't think it fair that all and sundry can have detailed information about the innocent children at the centre of these proceedings. How can that be fair?

I think 80smum you should learn more about exactly how the system works before making such inaccurate posts.

That's a brilliant, informative post nananina

hear hear, Nina