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.

Spero if you only had minutes to familiarize yourself with a clients case upon reaching the courtroom, would you feel able to represent your client to your full ability? If the answer is yes why meet clients beforehand discussing cases?

No I would not. If this was not an emergency, I would ask for an adjournment. However, some cases are emergencies - the police have removed a child to a place of safety and a decision has to be made NOW. In these cases I do the best I can in a short space of time to get to grips with the case and to advise my client. That is what my training and experience equips me to do.

Of course in every case lawyers should only proceed on full knowledge of the facts and with full knowledge of their client's instructions. However, if your client is currently in the middle of a psychotic episode, it is highly unlikely they will be able to communicate usefully with their lawyer, and it may not even be safe to try and arrange a conference.

The problem of urgency in the AP case is somewhat hard to justify as they had detained her for a fairly long period of time before birth. The NHS has already stated that they hadn't given medication for fear of harming the foetus, if she suffered from bi-polar, schizophrenia, and psychosis then there was no way she was going to regain capacity before birth. Waiting til the last moment to get a court order is somewhat troubling especially given the guidelines set by St.George's.

Also the mass panic this story has caused could have been solved if the hospital had for Vienna Convention guidelines and contacted the Italian embassy or consulate upon the detention of the Italian citizen. Instead they have set a precedent with cases such as this opening a window to allow other countries to ignore VC in respect to UK citizens.

I agree those are both legitimate concerns and the article from 39 Essex Street is a good one.

What a shame however, that Hemming and Booker both hijacked the debate in a rather more hysterical way.

Ah the "throw the abused children under a bus instead of giving them loving secure adoptive homes, children don't have a right to such a thing as a permanent family to grow up with" brigade is back

Thankfully most people support adoption because they actually give a shit about the childs rights

@lilka

Who are you referring to? If you have a problem with what I have posted state the specifics instead of a hateful, foul mouthed rant. I hope they don't let you around children with such a foul mouth.

Well the evidence remains that Britain is out of step with almost all of the rest of Europe (except Croatia) on this issue. That evidence that is prepared by British social services and presented in British secret courts is invariably taken at face value. But when that same evidence examined in open foreign courts it is invariably found to be more damning of the mother than the views of comparable or more highly qualified local experts.

ITV (Independent Television This Morning) has just published a list of resources that families who are threatened can avail themselves of:
www.itv.com/thismorning/social-services-and-family-courts-support-helplines

Now spero, UK social services may be right or wrong, we can argue till the cows come home. But unquestionably they are out of step with all of the rest of Europe and mothers who have their cases heard on the continent or in Ireland will fare better or sometimes the same. Irrespective of whether UK and Croatia are wrong or all 26 other EU member nations are wrong.

As to the recent case in France published by the Telegraph it would be courteous if Bedfordshire would accept that they got it wrong and apologise to the family and to the French psychiatrists involved. Don't hold your breathe expecting decency or courtesy from Bedford though, your lips may turn blue.

That is not to say that the UK SS is necessarily intentionally malfeasant. They have to deal with a society whose trust has been destroyed by secret courts and they have inadequate training. It is time to call for a moratorium on social workers with less than five years on the job from handling cases involving children who are less than about eight years of age (and are so able to speak for themselves).

"and this struck me (a baby who could not care two hoots in hell about privacy in all likelihood)
Babies do grow up you know. Into people with autonomy and an identity. Who may not want the most intimate details of ...

That is really feeble. Almost anyone could do better than that. Does anyone really think it is likely that a grown woman will care very much what was published about a case that happened many years before when she was a baby?

Or is it more likely that a lawyer accused in newspapers of misrepresenting a wrongly detained woman will decline to produce exonerating evidence since lawyers are trained to keep their mouths shut when the only evidence, should it leak out, is damning. Because stonewalling is what lawyers are trained to do to hide nasties?

Of the two which is more likely then.

redding foul mouthed? Seriously? I said shit. I could say a lot worse if I wanted. Easily - because the whole anti-adoption thing is very frustrating and upsetting

I'm not sure I can be much more specific. Would it help if I rephrased that as, "condemning abused children to spend their whole childhoods in care, in full knowledge of all the adverse affects and poor outcomes for children in care, is denying that child one of their most fundamental rights - the right to have a secure family to grow up in". Anti-adoption is a position where you believe the rights of the adult trump the rights of the child. The child is a possession of the birth parent rather than an individual with human rights. No matter what happens to the child, no matter what terrible things their birth parents might inflict on them (and believe you me, there are thousands of children in adoptive homes and in foster homes, who live daily with PTSD, with scars, with memories too horiffic to imagine, with permanent brain damage and permanent emotional issues), the parents rights trump the childs. The abuse is a life sentence on its own for some children, but then just to pile it on, they are supposed to be left in a position where they are forever denied the thing that so many millions of children take for granted - a loving secure and permanent home.

I have no time for people who could look at children such as Baby P, the children abused by Ian Watkins, Lauren Kavanaugh, Dani Lierow, Daniel Pelka and countless unkonwn children - and want to deny them that human right.

ps. I have 3 children. My own children, who I adopted from the care system

Of course now someone is going to take the opportunity to claim that this means I totally support everything SS have ever done. Nope. I recognise that miscarriages of justice can happen (in ANY system).

One of my children is now an adult of nearing 30. She has very strong opinions about the rights of children like she was, and her right to have home. Borne from her memories and experiences. She and I both think it's odd that it's EVER so easy to say "no child should be adopted without parental consent" from behind a computer screen, but no one who does that really wants to look into the eyes of a child who has suffered abuse, and tell them that they can't have a mum and dad/mum and mum (etc) like everyone else because their abusers don't want them to have that.

I suppose I will reiterate what specifically about my posts has set lilka off. Using foul language is a clear sign of failure to communicate as a mature adult.

If someone were to using such language around my children I would take umbrage and explain the situation to them in as polite a manner as possible. To some this may seem strange, to others they realize it is a sign of being an adult in a civilized world.

PS. I believe all people should have rights man, woman, young, old, mentally ill, disabled. I am sorry if you feel equality of rights is not worthwhile.

And when the rights of the child and the desires of the adult are direct polar opposites - what do you do then? Say, the adults are paedophiles who have been abusing their child, and there are no relatives who can care for the child, and the childs best interests would be served by adoption.

See, you would take the camp that the adults desire takes precedence. I take the opposite view.

Insulting the way I choose to express myself instead of my arguments, does not reflect well on you

Redding - I would far rather my child swore like the proverbial trooper than resorted to the kind of snide passive aggressive insults that appear to be your leitmotif.

You are sadly not half as subtle as you seem to think you are.

Also - there is nothing inherently bad about swear words. They are just words like any other, and one of many ways you can choose to express your thoughts.

I find your attiude to simply be out and out snobbery, not based on any real logic or sense

But this isn't a conversation about the English language, insulting people's choice of words is simply a way to distract from the conversation when you don't want to continue it. If you can ignite an argument about words, your poorly thought out views don't attract so much attention

@lilka

What argument? You have only made statements of your position. As far as taking children away from parents I believe it is sometimes unfortunately necessary, however they do need actual evidence in order to do so. If the only evidence is hearsay than I believe they need a stronger case. Also what is your obsession with paedophilos, some parents who lose there children do so for many kinds of abuse including but not limited to pedos. Bad parents who are harmful to their kids do require adoption sometimes, yet SS and the courts really should do a complete investigation into allegations against the parents.

Also I agree, you are extremely passive aggressive and snidey.

That makes me highly suspicious - passive aggressiveness, which aside from being the kind of unpleasantness no sensible parent could ever want their child to pick up, is a defining characteristic of certain people who come onto forums deliberately to insult people and start arguments, because they gain a kind of perverse emotional pleasure from doing so, rather than from any genuine desire to take part in discussions

Neither of you have answered my question from earlier? Advocating for children to swear like troopers is somewhat odd. They allow such language for children in schools and public? I try and teach my children to rise above such petty things.

Paedophilia is as an good example as anything else. Because I have used the word in more than one post, I am obsessed? That also doesn't make reasoned sense. Given my experience over many years as an adoptive mother, having worked with children in care, met many many foster and adoptive parents and heard literally hundreds of stories....I am acutely aware of all the myriads of reasons care proceedings are undertaken.

Ah, if you do believe that adoption without parental consent should be an option available to the courts, then I was mistaken - I thought you believed that adoption should only ever take place with parental consent. Must have confused your views with some other people's. Apologies

Why am I advocating children swearing? Please point me to where I said anything of the sort

I think swearing is an entirely normal and valid way to express yourself as an adult

I have no idea what that has to do with children.

@lilka

I apologize for commenting on your expression of thought. It is just a pet peeve of mine when people try to get their point across with swearing. I do believe sometimes adoption is the only choice. However I believe that they should exhuast all reasonable options before resorting to adoption.

Are there children reading this thread that I'm not aware of? Any 6 year olds with their own accounts or reading over mum's shoulder?

@lika

I was not saying you were advocating children swearing, I was pointing out spero's comment about wanting her children to curse like troopers. I should have been more specific.

Especially following recent cases in the high courts, it has become more imperative than it has ever been (and it has always been necessary) for social services to show the court that adoption is the best option for the child, above fostering, relatives if any, and will safeguard their interests throughout their life. Now, Spero please correct me if I'm wrong, your the expert, I believe there has to be a weighing up of the benefits and disadvantages of adoption compared to the other options, say permanent fostering, to demonstrate that adoption is the best option available.

redding - try reading what I actually wrote, not putting your passive aggressive spin on it. I said I would rather my child said fuck, fuck, fuck all the live long day than adopted your approach of snide and wilful misrepresentation of what other people say.

It is annoying and utterly transparent. And makes me query the intelligence and good sense of people who do it.

Clear now?

Lilka - you are right, the courts have recently issued a very stern warning in the case of B-S about approaching adoption cases properly - ALL the evidence must be analysed holistically and adoption is only permissible if no other realistic option is available.

So it is not right to say that adoption must be shown to be the 'best' option as that could tip into impermissible social engineering. The assumption is that biological family is best so long as the parenting is 'good enough'.