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.

WHY do italics never work for me?

Now THIS is much better. Confirms that Children's Hearings are conducted by 3 lay people who 'volunteer from the community'.

So if that is really what you want to see in our country, by all means keep up the scaremongering and the government will be delighted to strip away your expensive lawyer! paid for by the state and give you a nice community volunteer to decide where your child lives.

www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/scotland/system_wda87551.html

Don't think that link worked .

www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/policyandpublicaffairs/scotland/system_wda87551.html

Link doesn't seem to work, but just google 'child protection in Scotland' and it's about 4 down.

Hollyhb

You must one of those Hemming supporters who consider evidence as a funny word to play with.

About AP, which is not the topic we are discussing, her father cleared every single doubt there could be about the case. It was a "bufala", filled with horrid details to support Hemming political agenda, nothing ELSE.
If you keep believing the crap printed by papers like the DM, it is your business. Don't act like you have 'inner' knowledge of a case that is simpler than it was believed at first.

For the rest, I agree with what NanaNina and Beyond said, social workers couldn't have given their side of the story because they are not allowed to.

We created the debate, Panorama didn't, for obvious reasons.

Holly, do you have any evidence other than what Ms Pacchieri herself stated for the proposition that her lawyers did not visit her to take her instructions? As has been pointed out, her own memory is likely to be unreliable. I keep asking that question of Hemming and his supporters, but I never seem to get an answer.

I don't know one way or the other whether a lawyer saw her. As NanaNina says, if they didn't, the explanation may well be that she was simply totally unable to give coherent instructions. But it may also be that in fact someone did visit her and she just doesn't remember: so far as I know, normally when the Official Solicitor gets involved someone from that office or from an independent firm of solicitors will try to visit the patient if at all possible. In any event they clearly had long discussions with the treating medics.

I like your statement that you accept what her Italian lawyer says. This is the person who was giving interviews saying the baby was delivered 4 weeks early, when even Ms Pacchieri accepts that it was at term. He also claimed that, when sectioned, she was only suffering from a panic attack - notwithstanding that he did not even know her at that point, and we have evidence from highly qualified and experienced medical professionals that actually she was having a repetition of a full-blown manic episode having stopped taking her medication.

Holly, I am intrigued. As Loki pointed out, you talk as if you have intimate knowledge of this that we are all unaware of?

So far, we established on your "mental" thread that you are not a doctor and have no medical knowledge, and on this thread - due to you not knowing SS cannot talk about any cases - I think we are safe to assume you are neither a lawyer nor a social worker.

I would love to know what gives you such a unique and privileged view of these cases, that puts you above us mere morals?

I was googling for something else and found this, also Panorama related, should expert witnesses be named or not?

It would appear holly has gone again?

She is having tea with Edward and Wizard.

Edward and Wizard - am I missing something? I was beginning to think she was posting on behalf of JH.......

They've both been arguing JHs side since his banning and have been banned themselves.

Make of that what you will...

Nana, don't worry, you missed NOTHING

She is helping JH tidy up his sock drawer.

Lol she is not doing a good job, there are lots of socks everywhere, twitter included bwahaha

Socks all over the place. Very untidy. I try to put matched pairs in according to colour.

Holly - you have repeatedly missed people pointing this out to you.
SS cannot discuss cases.

Lioninthesun you seem to miss the point that there is an essential difference between declining all comment on a case and not being offered the opportunity to discuss a case in which you are personally involved.

Getting back to Panorama, there is a recently published on-point article apparently suppressed in England but published by a Spanish/Argentine website, however written in English so we all can read it here:
libreprensa.com/k/sir-james-munby/391029#s/1653271

No court can order a child from Europe to be taken from their parents or given up for adoption, said Britain’s most senior family law judge, Sir James Munby.
Overseas authorities should always have a say in cases involving their nationals, and the future of foreign children must be decided by courts in their own country, he said.

The couple with the baby who became a Spanish citizen and the Italian woman separately newsworthy can take heart. There are to be no more forced adoptions in England without permission of the courts in the child's country of citizenship.

HollyHB Re your post to lioninthesun you seem to have missed the point that social workers or other professionals involved in any case are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone other than professionals directly involved in the case

It's called CONFIDENTIALITY

and any social worker found breaching this strict and necessary rule would most certainly be disciplined and could lose their job if the breach of confidentiality was serious enough.

Do you get it now???

Holly a poster Beyondthelimits said she was intrigued by you and wondered why you posted as if you had knowledge above us mere mortals. I too am curious. You usually answer questions even if it's to say "I don't know" so :

Do you know John Hemming MP?
If so, are you one of his volunteers?
If you have read his views on MN do you agree with him?

Do you find it difficult to understand and accept some of the points made in posts in response to yours?

Oh and the link doesn't work. I can't do links but I think they have to be in blue to work.

Oh and do you mind my asking what is your ethnic origin Holly

Spero> Now THIS is much better. Confirms that Children's Hearings are conducted by 3 lay people who 'volunteer from the community'.

You will recall(?) that no-one asserted that Scotland has a better system. Only that it has a different system. Which means that by moving to Scotland parents who feel threatened in England or Wales have a chance to have their case decided using all new investigators by all new people under a totally different system. Which is (in some cases) a lot better than nothing.

Incidentally volunteer from the community is not a verbatim quote and I don't see how it is so insincere or bogus as to justify scare quote.

Oh, and by the way, Spero, the italics feature in mumsnet is by the paragraph.

NanaNina

Hemming and all his supporters ignore the meaning of confidentiality or he wouldn't have published stuff, children names and other docs that were not meant for the public.

Re Holly's ethnic origin, she is from Sockland (not to confuse with Scotland ahem...)

Oh and do you mind my asking what is your ethnic origin Holly

Born on Merseyside (a town in Cheshire at that time but not now). Half Scots, two eighths English, one eight Welsh and one eighth American descent.

And yours?