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 said nananina.

I agree with all your post.

I couldn't have said it better NanaNina :)

Another on-topic article
www.pressgazette.co.uk/high-court-judge-admits-he-powerless-stop-slovak-mother-talking-foreign-media-about-her-child-care

Which boils down to it is OK to publish secret family court proceedings provided they are not published in English. Or, one presumes, Welsh our other official language.

So it was OK therefore for Alessandra Pacchieri to complain in the Italian media that being represented in court by a stooge lawyer with an obvious conflict of interest who did not even speak with her or write to her to ask her views ahead of "representing" her in court fell slightly short of someone who would fight her corner very robustly.

So why was her lawyer a 'stooge'?

What do you mean by that? That he was corrupt ? That someone was paying him to look the other way?

So why was her lawyer a 'stooge'?

That she did not appoint him, would not have appointed him if she had been offered the opportunity and the lawyer did not, in her opinion, represent her views. When she was no longer prevented from appointing her own attorney she chose someone else, Stefano Oliva.

The fact that the stooge lawyer did not even confer with her is, as the Americans would say, clear and convincing evidence that he(?) did not robustly represent them since he could not possibly have known what they were except retrospectively.

It is compounded by the fact that the court proceedings were kept secret from her embassy until after the event. Though that is not the main issue.

By the way, I'm not saying that, as a matter of established fact, the lawyer misrepresented Alessandra's views for reason of being unaware of them. I am saying that Aleesandra made that allegation in the Italian press in Italy in Italian. Which we now know she was, and is, entitled to do, thanks to the recent rulings in the case of the Slovak kid.

A stooge

Holly, you still haven't answered my question:

how can it be responsible to advise parents who have reason to suspect that their child has an undiagnosed medical condition of unknown seriousness to go into hiding and take the child away from her medical notes?

Not ranting, a simple question.

I think this monologue about APs lawyer might make more sense posted on your thread (that is actually about her), rather than here, what looks like you trying to derail this one (which is about panorama, medical evidence, and jh telling parents to flee)?

Not that i am the thread police of course, you can post whatever you want :)

how can it be responsible to advise parents who have reason to suspect that their child has an undiagnosed medical condition of unknown seriousness to go into hiding and take the child away from her medical notes? Not ranting, a simple question.

Simple answer follows:
I don't know.

I think this monologue about APs lawyer might make more sense posted on your thread (that is actually about her), rather than here, what looks like you trying to derail this one (which is about panorama, medical evidence, and jh telling parents to flee)?

Pacchieri wished to "go abroad" (more exactly to return to Italy) to give birth there. She feared (correctly it turns out) that the British authorities might prevent her from doing that. I submit, her case is on point.

Thank you for positive comments on my last post.

HB If I remember rightly AP was represented by the Official Solicitor and it wasn't possible to take instructions from her as she was (on the evidence of psychiatrists) in the midst of a psychotic illness before, during and after the birth of her baby. I am sure you are aware that a psychotic illness means that the sufferer is out of touch with reality. This is a severe mental illness and it is common for there to be delusional thoughts and agitation. It would be totally unfair to expect someone in the grip of this illness to be able to instruct any solicitor.

I understand that you have suffered trauma in the past and the effects of this can of course affect a person to a greater or lesser extent through the lifespan. I hope you have been able to access therapy and forgive me if this has already been discussed. I do think though that you seem to be unnecessarily hostile against all professionals involved in child protection cases, and I find your last comment about "stooge" lawyers particularly offensive.

YES I thought the thread was about the Panorama Programme, medical evidence and JH's advice to parents. It might have already been said on Twitter (and I'm signed up but don't understand it!) and I had the dubious pleasure of hearing JH on the Midlands News last night and Panorama.

In the Midlands news he made some comment about the fact that because babies were taken into care it meant that children like Kyra Ishak were overlooked. This of course was his belief that babies are routinely taken into care (sometimes from loving parents) so that they can be adopted and the LA get a bonus. It is true that children have indeed been overlooked especially in Birmingham City Council and there have been several deaths that could have been avoided if BCC had been fully staffed with experienced social workers in child protection, but not because social workers were too busy removing babies to get them adopted, which was being inferred by JH.

I worked on a contractual basis for BCC for some 5 years as a freelance social worker from 2005 - 2009 and the standard of social work practice was very poor. There were around 30% vacancy rates, workers off sick with stress related illnesses and significant numbers of agency workers. The team managers did not in the main appear to possess the competency and professional wisdom that such a post requires, and were therefore unable to properly supervise their team of social workers.

I don't know why I should be surprised by JH anymore, but to hear him state quite categorically on Panorama that "some odd decisions are made in the family courts" (or this might have been said in the Midlands News) and that "it is not possible to get a fair trial here and so his advice to parents whose children had not been removed but were being investigated under CP procedures was to flee the country" - I think he added "lawfully" as an afterthought. If that doesn't cause consternation for Nick Clegg then god knows what will, but we have been able to observe his lack of principal and general spineless behaviour whilst in thrall to David Cameron and his ilk.

I'm not sure if anyone wants to discuss the content of the Panorama programme so I will desist for the time being as I know my posts are long...............

Well nana, your posts may be long, but they are certainly educational, well written and have a purpose, so I'd love to hear what you thought about panorama :)

*> how can it be responsible to advise parents who have reason to suspect that their child has an undiagnosed medical condition of unknown seriousness to go into hiding and take the child away from her medical notes? Not ranting, a simple question.

Simple answer follows:
I don't know.*

And yet you have some very strong opinions on other things, why not this?

Nananina > If I remember rightly AP was represented by the Official Solicitor and it wasn't possible to take instructions from her ...

Put simply she has contested that and she asserts contrariwise as to the latter part. And asserts that there was not even the very slightest attempt to seek instructions. Essex tried in court to suppress her from publishing (in Italy) that argument as to injustice consequential to the "representation" of the (let us be polite and merely say unrobust) lawyer but Essex lost. Is unrobust offensive enough?

And yet you have some very strong opinions on other things, why not this?

If you will carefully examine your question you will find it contains the answer that you seek.

anyone wants to discuss the content of the Panorama programme

There is one thing I found to be hugely disappointing in both the Panorama programme and the Radio Four programme addressed to much the same topic -

That the BBC did not give the social workers involved with those particular children a chance to tell their side of the story. I assume it is because they could not be found or were not willing to speak. I am angry if it is that they were not offered the opportunity to speak in their own defense or were prevented from speaking by their employers.

Holly - you have repeatedly missed people pointing this out to you.

SS cannot discuss cases.
Unlike JH who likes to publicly out people without consent, they can't because they have to adhere to the law.

That is why it was NOT A DEBATE.

HollyHB Wed 15-Jan-14 23:03:46
"> anyone wants to discuss the content of the Panorama programme

There is one thing I found to be hugely disappointing in both the Panorama programme and the Radio Four programme addressed to much the same topic -

That the BBC did not give the social workers involved with those particular children a chance to tell their side of the story."

Is it possible that someone can be unaware that professionals are not allowed to divulge confidential information about cases they deal with? This is for the protection of both children and parents.

We were innocent of the abuse we were suspected of. But it would have done us an awful lot of damage in the local community if the suspicions had been publicised. It might even have put our lives in danger: that's the kind of thing that can get lynch mobs going.

Once again it's about being responsible and protecting the child at the centre of the case.

cory spot on with the lynch mobs. One other thing JH doesn't seem to get when he goes on about open courts/stop the secrecy, yadda yadda, is just how much information the press will then have to all of these cases.
Does anyone honestly think they will focus on the odd child who has been wrongly adopted? Or do we think they may go for the juicy details in all other SS cases we will suddenly be allowed to read through?
I hope all of the abusers are ready to take that hit.
The more I argue about it the better I think it sounds, if only those pesky kids weren't going to bear the brunt of it

HollyHB - I don't really understand your response to my post about AP as it doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to be honest, but I think you are saying that AP is denying that she was severely mentally ill before during and after the baby was born. Psychiatrics maintain that she was indeed suffering from a serious psychotic illness and was not in a fit state to give instructions in her case.

I don't know whether AP is still mentally ill and obviously I hope that she is now well again. There are very good drugs for psychotic illness and can be very effective. It is often the case that once mentally well again, patients will not have any memory of the time when they were psychotic and out of touch with reality and in a delusional state. This may well be the reason that AP is contesting what actually happened in the past.

I simply don't understand your last sentence about Essex as it appears to be jumbled.

You really do surprise me about your comment that the social workers in the Panorama programme were prevented from giving their account on the basis that they couldn't be found or were not willing to speak.

Do you not realise that all matters related to child protection procedures are absolutely and strictly confidential and because of this no social worker can comment on a programme like the Panorama one. Do you honestly think that it would be right for thousands of people watching the programme to know the intimate details of a case involving a family being investigated? This is why these programmes and newspaper reports are always one-sided because the LA have to maintain confidentiality and so the other side of the story cannot be given. I am certain that no social worker or manager would disagree with this need for confidentiality. I am shocked that you think otherwise.

Can I ask if you are a resident of the UK? You might not wish to say but I am beginning to wonder if you are in any way aware of the law in this country.

Tomba sorry not exactly sure what you are asking - I know that the Scottish childcare law is different from ours, but I have no details. I think if you scroll back there is a post from Spero saying that childcare cases in Scotland are dealt with by 3 lay people - if so that is truly scary in my opinion. She might come back and give more details.

beyondthelimits - I will post about the Panorama programme tomorrow as I am fast losing the will to live!!!!

I don't blame you

I thought I was stuck in Shropshire with no signal but my lovely mum has found her wifi password!

Here is a case about the Scottish system when it was challenged in the European Court. To my shame, I haven't read it yet, but this is good incentive to do so.
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/30.html

Apologies, should read before I post, that case is VERY dense, I am struggling.

But this statement of general applicability is helpful:

^First, the making of an adoption order against the wishes of a parent is a very serious intervention by the state in family relationships. It follows that the court will not lightly authorize such intervention. It did not require the Convention to teach us that. The point was made in Axa General Insurance Ltd, Petitioners [2011] UKSC 46, 2011 SLT 1061, para 153, that legislation has to be construed bearing in mind the societal values which Parliament can be taken to have intended it to embody. As Lord Hoffmann stated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, the courts presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. This point is also reflected in the observations made by this court in In re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17, [2010] 1 AC 678, paras 6-7:
"In this country we take the removal of children from their families extremely seriously … it is not enough that the social workers, the experts or the court think that a child would be better off living with another family. That would be social engineering of a kind which is not permitted in a democratic society."^