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.

Italian. A mafious one lol

LokiIsMine Fri 17-Jan-14 17:55:01 > Not a good option as a country to flee to.

You keep using the word flee. I submit that flee is needlessly rabble-rousing and does not contribute positively to the debate. Even the despicable Hemming used the more neutral language that some parents travel abroad legally when they feel threatened. Flee implies a fugitive who is convicted of, or does not wish to trail for, criminal wrongdoings. Or alternatively successfully escapes from a mental hospital wherein detained in search of a better life elsewhere.

Just because most of the things that Hemming writes are unequivocally wrong does not mean that he is wrong on all issues. Notably secrets courts, one-sided proceedings and children who are foreign citizens.

I request that you stop writing 'flee' inappropriately.

LokiIsMine Fri 17-Jan-14 17:52:56 > Re Holly's ethnic origin, she is from Sockland (not to confuse with Scotland ahem...)

I'm not familiar with Sockland. A quick check on thesaurus.com threw up nothing useful. It is a euphemism for being some kind of half-breed? Or in-bred? Or just a typo?

I subscribe to the view that British commoners are a mongrel race, and I'm proud to be part of it.

Arf @ sockland

HollyHB, is there any chance of you answering the questions NanaNina put at 17.45?

There's a rather more accurate and detailed account of what Sir James Munby said about cases involving children from other countries here - www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed126810

It wouldn't in fact have made any difference in relation to Alexandra Pacchieri, because the Italian courts were asked whether they wanted to take over and they basically said they weren't interested.

loki I find your xenophobic attitude at 17:55 disgraceful. Shame on you.

I watched the Panorama programme again last night and as usual and for good reasons we can only hear one side of the account, that of the birthparents.

It was difficult to believe that any of the parents featured would actually harm their child, but sometimes we have to "think the unthinkable." The pertinent issue seemed to be the issue of fractures showing up on x rays but a breakthrough seemed to be made in the post mortem of the child who died and whose bones were soft enough to break without trauma, and soft and connective issue cannot be seen on an x ray. This raised the issue of depletion of vitamin D in the mother and the baby and causing the bones to be soft and diagnosed as rickets.

The mother in Spain claimed that her daughter who had been removed on suspicion of child abuse was being treated for lack of vitamin D for a significant period after her removal, but the family were not advised of this. I think the LA said that the family had been informed "in good time" - but regardless of when they were told it does seem to be an issue that should have been taken into account in the care proceedings.

I was however unconvinced by the baby's father who had made admissions of ill treating the baby in a police interview. He later retracted his admissions and claimed that he only made his comments so that the baby wouldn't be removed from his wife. I might be wrong of course but I find it a bit surprising that someone caught up in such a traumatic event would have the presence of mind to make a decision to make false admissions in order to ensure the baby wasn't removed from the mother. However this was the same baby who was found to be have been deficient in vitamin D and so it does raise concerns about whether this could have been the cause of her fractures.

Given the father's admissions to the police, I think the point was made by the LA that had the mother separated from the father and agreed not to allow him unsupervised contact she would not have needed to flee the country. I can however understand the panic of the mother in this situation, and she presumably believed her husband had not injured the baby.

The other couple whose child wasn't adopted till he was 4 had apparently taken the baby to hospital with a swollen leg and fractures were found on x ray. It is simply not possible for anyone to know what the cause of the fractures were although the court were obviously convinced that the fractures were caused by trauma. I think it was horrendous that the baby had been moved between 3 or 4 foster carers if indeed that was the case and not adopted till he was 4 years old.

At least the social workers and other professionals involved in the care proceedings of these children couldn't be blamed because when you have paediatricians giving evidence of fractures that could only have been caused by trauma, that is not going to be questioned by non medics.

It certainly seems that there needs to be more research into this issue of very small fractures in babies under 1 year of age showing up on x rays and the possibility of depletion of vitamin D being the cause rather than trauma. This point was made at the end of the programme.

Would be interested in the views of others.

Just because most of the things that Hemming writes are unequivocally wrong does not mean that he is wrong on all issues. Notably secrets courts, one-sided proceedings and children who are foreign citizens

He is, unsurprisingly, wrong on those issues also. As the Family Law Week website demonstrates, it has in fact been normal practice to publish Family Court and Court of Protection judgments for some time. Adoption proceedings are certainly not one sided, and a lot of trouble is taken - notably by the provision of legal aid to all parents irrespective of means - to ensure that that is the case. And so far as I know, all Hemmings says about children who are foreign citizens is that they should always be sent back to their country of origin even when there is no relative there prepared to look after them and even when that means they will spend their childhood in a succession of children's homes or foster placements. If you seriously think he is right about that, do tell us why.

LittleBairn

Xenophobic? Get a sense of humour, it was obviously sarcasm!
Anyway, if you want to know, it is part of Salmond's campaign the "hate" against the English....... And it is no mistery for whoever lives in Scotland.

Where do you live, the moon?

Holly

It is Hemming who uses the word 'flee', I report what he says.

See for yourself: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-mp-advises-parents-suspected-6499798

Get a grip, really.

nennypops Fri 17-Jan-14 18:39:53 > HollyHB, is there any chance of you answering the questions NanaNina put at 17.45?

I can, and I will this one last time but I believe it is not (should not) be about me but about the Panorama programme (into which I had no input)

NanaNina > Fri 17-Jan-14 17:45:10

Do you get it now???
I do. I understand that declining to comment on a case in which you are involved is entirely different from an arguably hostile party deciding (without consulting you) that you are unable to comment and therefore you will not be offered the opportunity to accept or decline. Arguably hostile party includes BBC TV, Official Solicitor and others.

Do you know John Hemming MP?
Never met the man. The first I read about him was here on mumsnet.

If so, are you one of his volunteers?
No, it would in any case be incompatible with my political party membership (Co-operative Party for many decades).

If you have read his views on MN do you agree with him?
Mostly not, but yes in part. Notably about secret scourts.

Do you find it difficult to understand and accept some of the points made in posts in response to yours?
Many posts are opaque and incomprehensible. Some appear to be intentionally double entendre. Some are clear and make good points that I agree with.

Now, again, this is not about me, it is not about you, back to Panorama and children being uprooted please.

LokiIsMine Fri 17-Jan-14 19:14:48
It is Hemming who uses the word 'flee', I report what he says.
See for yourself: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-mp-advises-parents-suspected-6499798

It that reference it is a reporter for the Birmingham mail who uses the emotive word flee not Hemming.

Have you a better citation?
Does it make me a bad person that I defend a bad person from unfair smearing and misrepresentation?

Does it make me a bad person that I defend a bad person from unfair smearing and misrepresentation?

I wouldn't care less about him. So that proves you've an interest in his politics/policy (I hope nothing more... just for you, that's it).

There are a lot of good people to defend. The fact that you're defending a bad person doesn't make you appear a lot better than him.

You come across as a lawyer defending a rapist. Just saying (and don't jump to useless conclusions, mine was a metaphor about you, not saying that he is a rapist).

About flee

www.lukesarmy.com/content/mp-john-hemming-tells-parents-suspected-child-abuse-flee-abroad

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mp-john-hemming-tells-parents-3016598

news.uk.msn.com/abuse-parents-should-flee-uk

Do you want more. Sorry but I can use the word flee as much as I like. Period.

Thank you for answering my query about your ethnicity Holly and you certainly have an interesting mixed heritage, but surely two eighths English equates to one quarter, but hey that's me being pedantic. My ethnicity is white UK so very boring.

I would however welcome a response to my earlier post of 17.45 and if you answer I promise not to use the word "flee" again!

Hi nennypops thank you for your link about Sir James Mumsby's comments on children from other countries but I'm afraid I don't have the necessary intelligence to understand and assimilate the contents.

But I must comment on your post about JH's views in that he wants children sent to their home countries even if there is no one to care for them and they will spend a life in foster care, you are overlooking the fact that the child is saved from forced adoption and surely anything is better than that - hmmph - haven't you learned anything from JH. Tut Tut.

Oh and yes LittleBairn have a look for your sense of humour - it might be in JH's sock drawer.........sorry I'm in need of food and I think my brain cells are tired.

Are cross posted there. I have made a post about the Panorama programme. As for defending JH about "unfair smearing and misrepresentation..........." I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

LokiIsMine Fri 17-Jan-14 19:30:35 > Do you want more [references]. Sorry but I can use the word flee as much as I like. Period

I would like one that shows that Hemming advised fleeing. None of the ones you cited do. Of course you can say that Hemming advises fleeing, totally entitled to say that. But I find no evidence to support that assertion, perhaps you have first hand knowledge of listening to him?

I don't agree that it is fair for you and the newspapers you cite to misrepresent what Hemming says. That he says thing that are wrong does not justify putting words in his mouth.

Of course you can write flee. But doing so is a strawman argument that you are perfectly entitled to make. I request that you refrain, in the interests of accuracy, but feel free to misrepresent Hemming's words.

Now, back to Panorama.
Let us put ourselves in the unenviable position of a parent who might be faced with a choice of, as they see it, in their own opinion, right or wrong, protecting their child from foster care or obeying the law. Many parents would choose to break the law. Foster care has, rightly or wrongly, a reputation of damaging some children and a parent can be forgiven for believing that reputation irrespective of whether the belief is well founded.

I for one would have emigrated with my young child (when I had a young child, mine is grown up) if I were wrongly accused as portrayed in Panorama and if the child were not in immediate need of medical services. Who here would choose obeying the law over protecting their child? Not me.

Request denied, Holly.

You don't rule this thread, Mumsnet does.
And I don't think to misrepresent a man that I consider sexist, mysognist, abuse apologist and that he exploits vulnerable people for his political agenda.
End of. If you don't like it, skip my posts. I guess I'm entitled to my opinion given that you are entitled to yours, right?

I wouldn't break the law for anyone, not even my children. What kind of education and legacy I'm leaving to them? A mother fleeing abroad to protect them?
Following your reasoning, people killing their children are entitled to do that in order to protect them.
Sorry but it escapes my logic how murder and breaking the law can solve things. I guess we will agree to disagree.

Maybe it's my Italian heritage speaking here, but life values are important. If you don't think so, it is really your business. Don't think many parents would agree with that.

Goodnight.

Oh forgot. About firsthand knowledge of him, yes I have given he was posting here "advising parents to flee the country".

Of course you are free to believe otherwise, as any Hemming supporters does.

NanaNina Fri 17-Jan-14 19:31:40 >Thank you for answering my query about your ethnicity Holly and you certainly have an interesting mixed heritage,

I know. It's amazing that when I tell them that my great grand father came from a long line of wealthy people in New York City so many of them remark "You know, it never occurred to me that the ships sailed (and migrants travelled) in both directions!". The family legend is that he abruptly went to sea in dubious circumstances as a teenager and jumped ship at the first port of call, Liverpool. Considering he was a notorious philanderer in later years one can only guess that those dubious circumstances in New York possibly involved a pregnant female!
He told everyone that he was a naturalised British Citizen. After long and expensive research we came to the conclusion that that was another of his lies.
My mother (born in 1921 in England) hated Americans and every thing American her whole life. I only discovered after her death when I researched immigration law for personal reasons, that she was a US citizen her whole life and never knew it.

LokiIsMine Fri 17-Jan-14 20:08:20 >Oh forgot. About firsthand knowledge of him, yes I have given he was posting here "advising parents to flee the country".

Good. Please could you point me to the posting in which he wrote "flee" so I can see that I need to apologise?

Holly - does it really matter whether he said 'flee' 'emigrate' 'skeddadle' or whatever?

This is a serving MP, paid wages out of public purse, advising people to leave the country because the child protection system is corrupt and LA want to steal their babies for no other reason than to meet a wholly fictitious 'adoption target'.

And your problem is the use of the word 'flee'?

Might I respectfully suggest you re-examine your priorities here.

"I for one would have emigrated with my young child (when I had a young child, mine is grown up) if I were wrongly accused as portrayed in Panorama and if the child were not in immediate need of medical services. Who here would choose obeying the law over protecting their child?"

But if your child was presenting with worrying physical symptoms- how on earth would you know how soon they would need medical services? How on earth would you know that they would be safe without a diagnosis?

Having been in this position, I can assure you that the fear that haunted me in those terrible days at the hospital was not whether I would go to jail in some distant future but whether dd had something dangerously wrong with her that might be overlooked because everybody was barking up the wrong tree.

As I found out later she might well have done- her symptoms were also compatible with Marfan's syndrome which can cost lives if undiagnosed.

Even with rickets- surely that can be serious if not treated? And wouldn't the chances of it being diagnosed and treated be greater if the child was with a foster family and kept getting the same symptoms than if child and parent were both in hiding somewhere abroad without access to medical records?

So to put your question another way- who would choose to take the risk of their child dying from an undiagnosed disorder rather than risking the punishment of the law?

Holly you say that "foster care has a reputation of damaging some children and a parent can be forgiven for believing that reputation regardless of whether it is well founded."

The point is that the vast majority of children who end up in foster care have been abused or neglected (or both) by their birthparents/step parents. This is what causes emotional harm to children as no matter how young they are when the abuse/neglect begins, the effects of that trauma will continue to cause them great distress, which manifests itself in a variety of difficult behaviours, depending on the individual child and the circumstances.

Hence when these children are removed from their parents and placed with foster carers they are already emotionally harmed and they will (dependent on their age) be confused, distressed, angry - often hostile to the carers and their children, destructive, telling lies and stealing. If children have been sexually abused they will often exhibit sexualised behaviour. These are just some of the behaviours that foster carers will see in children who are placed with them.

Of course foster carers vary in their ability to care for these emotionally damaged children, as in all other walks of life. However the vast majority of them will do their utmost to help the child settle and try to cope with all sorts of difficult and challenging behaviour. In many cases through the consistent care of foster carers, these children will begin to settle and will show more of their positive personal qualities.

I would not pretend that the state is necessarily a good corporate parent. There is a national shortage of foster carers and so children often have to be split up from their siblings and are moved between foster homes as demand far outstrips supply.

Does this make any sense to you?