Elsie Scully-Hicks

[Elephantgrey]

How can you understand how someone can harm such a tiny baby. My husband knew Matthew Scully-Hicks and said you would never imagine he would be the sort of person to do something like this. When we first heard about it we imagined that he had just snapped but seeing the news report he inflicted so many injuries on her since the day she arrived. It's just heartbreaking.

My understand is that brief details, with an emphasis very much on a child's needs, are shared at linking and fuller information is given once the match is proceeding. But maybe someone more qualified to give precise details will fell able to answer.

I think you're spot on about protective v deflecting, though.

We are told why they were taken into care as part of the matching process.

Still not responsible for them being taken into care.

Fatberg, thanks for that reductive contribution.

Brandnewhouse, Inflammatory language or not, I like to get to the point I am making, and debate the issues, not dance around them in politically correct language. As evidenced in what I have said, when I see I have made a mistake, I apologise for it. I can't do much else can I.

As for Elsie, her Grandmother was assessed to look after her, and was refused because the SW said she would be unable to cope. They then handed her to a man who would go on to kill her. I think that is a heartbreakingly sad, but poignant example of how you cannot accurately predict how a child will be treated in the future.

I had NO IDEA that adopters were not told beforehand why the child has become available. THAT changes EVERYTHING for me.

What prospective adoptive parents get told varies from case to case, but broadly

• the initial information about a child will only hint at the background if it is relevant, for example it would be mentioned if a child had FAS and it doesn't take much to work out some of the factors that lead to the child being placed for adoption

• if parents are interested in the child and SWs agree that it seems to be a good match, they can ask for fuller information about the child. This might contain further direct or indirect details about their family background, such as if they have siblings that are being placed for adoption separately or who will be in long term foster care.

• when the match is approved, much more information is shared, including (in our case, anyway) the report that was sent to court when the application for an adoption order was made. This has a lot of information about the circumstances under which a court agreed with SS that adoption was the right path for a particular child, including details of the interventions and alternatives that have been pursued or considered. It does not necessarily contain all the information about the birth parents where that is their private information, not directly related to the child.

I'm glad that you want to understand more about the process and the information made available to prospective adoptive parents, Its. But I hope you think carefully about what it is realistic for adoptive parents to actually do.

Are we not supposed to have any faith at all in the system - which already has inbuilt checks and balances in the form of judicial permission, appeals and challenges? Are we supposed to nobly refuse a child who hasn't actually been beaten black and blue (but has a number of older siblings who have been abused) and only accept one who has already been seriously hurt? Why is that? Who benefits? Certainly not the vulnerable child at the centre of the process.

Olennas. 'This has a lot of information about the circumstances under which a court agreed with SS that adoption was the right path for a particular child, including details of the interventions and alternatives that have been pursued or considered'. I have a particular case in mind whilst answering, whereby Mum was made to see THREE psychs, the first two were Dr.s (one of whom I work with) and they were good reports, she had a good ISW report, but those three expert witness were undercut by a lesser qualified psych whose only job is writing (financially lucrative) reports for the family court. I am going to go out on a limb and say, that never made it into the documents handed to the adopters. The fact that her sibling was approved by an ISW probably also never made it into that document either.

As for adopters being noble and rejecting a child that wasn't beaten black and blue, how could they possibly be noble in the face of such exaggerated and at time omitting of important information? I guess they can only go by what they are being told. No SW is going to say, like 'Amelia' and Elsie's GM, 'well this child has been freed because we subjected the parents to a dutch auction of expert witness', and we also found absurd reasons to make sure that the child was not raised by family members' now are they?! I certainly feel a hell of a lot different about the subject now than I dd when I woke up this morning.

Olennas 'Are we not supposed to have any faith at all in the system'.

I suppose when you apply to adopt, you can only reasonably hope that the state is acting above board. Sadly doesn't necessarily translate into what is happening.

As for the courts checks and balances. If they worked as they were supposed to, do you think I would be so utterly disappointed in the system as I am?

"Unborn - unfortunately BPD can be used to remove a child"

That link actually shows that BPD, when combined with behaviours which harm, and when interventions have failed, might lead to care proceedings. It also points out that when there are MH or PDs, the Court must explicitly address how interventions have been made, and ensure that all aspects (including how and how long these interventions are attempted) are suitable in light of the condition (eg -interventions may need to be over longer times, because if the difficulties arising from BPD)

It is a good thing there are these safeguards in these cases. Unless all SWs, all legal teams (including the parents) and the judge are all incompetent, BPD as a sole issue is not sufficient to remove children.

Farahilda, The quote speaks for itself.

It's taken, I didn't mean to suggest that you believe that targets or payments are involved in adoption but are both issues I have seen raised in the past I want to highlight that the only incentive to take a child into care is that it is the belief that it is in the best interest of the child. It is only a belief and not an infallible statement in the same way that the decision to keep a child in the family isn't the guaranteed right decision either.

brandnew house is important to note that social workers have no legal power to remove children. They therefore do not need any kind of insurance relating to this. The decision to place children into the care of the local authority is taken solely by the courts, it is quite possible for the local authority to request an order and have this order refused or the type of order changed. The local authority social worker will have a view and write a report but this often has the least sway of all the views and reports written and submitted to court.

Mumisnotmyname. My issue with the family courts, one and only issue, is the repeat assessments. It is not uncommon for a parent in proceedings for 'future risk' to have a couple of positive reports, and then have been asked to take another, and another, with the last one being the negative one. I have witnessed this. Now, if you need to make a Mother in proceedings take three psych assessments until the least qualified, highest paid psych gives a bad report, than it would take some convincing for me to believe she couldn't parent. Especially when we are talking about 'future risks', which if they were that cut and dry, surely Matthew Scully Hicks would have been rejected due to the 'future risk' that he posed.

Given how few care orders are rejected, maybe the one judge system we have is an issue. Same as no SW wants to be the one who is 'responsible' for allowing the next Baby P, who wants to be the judge who refused a care order? In which case a system of whereby three judges sit in would be better, though I can guarantee the funding for that won't ever be made available.

Mumisnot 'I didn't mean to suggest that you believe that targets or payments are involved in adoption but are both issues I have seen raised in the past'. Yes, as have I, but I don't think that's the case, I think it's more a combination of budget cuts, and not wanting to be the SW that didn't remove when another child murder hits the news. But as for SW's being paid bonus etc. I guess if you were the Mother in one of the cases that I am thinking about, then it may be quite easy to believe that is in fact the case, because it would seem like the only reasonable explanation for what you have suffered. Doesn't make it true though, but people need to put their experiences into context.

I do think that all the while this, blonde babies being shipped off out to p-philes nonsense is doing the rounds, it really does cloud debate about the real issues.

My issue with the family courts, one and only issue, is the repeat assessments. It is not uncommon for a parent in proceedings for 'future risk' to have a couple of positive reports, and then have been asked to take another, and another, with the last one being the negative one. I have witnessed this

How have you witnessed this? Because in several hundred care proceedings I have been involved with I have never, ever known of this. There is sometimes an issue with experts reports where eg a previous child has been removed based on a report and the court will not agree to a new assessment and relies on an older report, which might not be fair on the parents. Obviously there are other discussions to be had about the use of expert evidence in care proceedings.

But repeatedly obtaining reports until one is negative, I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that happened. if it did, it would be a very rare example. To suggest that is a common issue in care proceedings is false.

McTufty, did I not mention that a Dr. I worked with wrote a report, and was then undercut by a lesser qualified psych. I did as it happens.
Quote:
'I have a particular case in mind whilst answering, whereby Mum was made to see THREE psychs, the first two were Dr.s (one of whom I work with) and they were good reports, she had a good ISW report, but those three expert witness were undercut by a lesser qualified psych whose only job is writing (financially lucrative) reports for the family court'.

McTufty ' I’m sorry, I just don’t believe that happened' next sentence 'if it did'.

Put it this way McTufty. If you were to be a solicitor/barrister etc. and you would send me (pm) your legal chambers address, I would contact the Mum for you, and have her send her details and paperwork to you. I am sure she would be more than obliging if it meant an acknowledgement of her injustice.

I am not stupid enough to think there cannot be an isolaed example of total flouting of practice or injustice like that. I find it hard to believe but no one can definitively say something terrible has never happened on even a single occasion.

Are you basing this story on what the doctor you know told you? And are you aware of any other examples of this happening?

You are suggesting this is something that happens fairly routinely in the family courts to remove for “future risk”. It isn’t. You are spreading dangerous misinformation.

I am a barrister, but I’m not giving out my identity. For what it’s worth I usually represented parents rather than local authorities, and spent my time criticising local authorities and fighting against care or placement orders. There was often much to criticise. But expert shopping like that - never.

McTufty 'You are suggesting this is something that happens fairly routinely' shouldn't happen at all though should it. The fact that it has shows that the balances and checks in place really aren't enough.

That is not dangerous misinformation. I challenge you to ask any birth parent who has been through proceedings whose child has been taken for future risk 'how many psych assessments did you have during proceedings?' chances are the answer won't be 'one'.

In actual fact, I am now going to go into the Lions den (Facebook) and ask that exact question. Will keep you posted.

And if the answer was only one assessment everyone would be up in arms that SS hadn’t done enough!
Asking parents who’ve had their children removed is always going to give a slanted view. Yes of course there are going to be times that it’s the wrong decision, I’m not saying there won’t be, but children aren’t just whipped away on a whim!

Listen, go for it but it’s not going to change my view based on what I’ve directly observed. I’ve said all I want to on the matter. I represented hundreds of parents and if they got a positive report, I’ve never, ever known the local authority be permitted to get a second one with a view to overriding the first one. Whatever your Facebook investigation reveals is not going to change my experience, which is objective.

No it shouldn’t happen at all. I wonder if it happened the way your doctor friend told you it did or if she has embellished or misunderstood, frankly, but if it did then I agree it is totally unacceptable. Please stop implying it is widespread.

Notreally Why is one expert witness psych not enough? what is the point in the expert status if only a dutch auction of experts is going to satisfy? Why have the parents assessed one after the other, with months in between (pre 26 week limit) when if you want multiple expert psychs you could just have a group/panel interview.

As for parents giving a skewed review of proceedings. You could always ask them to name the psychs involved. ie. My name is, and I was seen by X.Y and Z. But I don't think anybody wants that to happen. I wonder why?

As for Prof.Jane Ireland's report. The woman was subsequently hauled before the HCPC and many attempts to tarnish both her and her report were made.

Both her and her report were completely exonerated.

The parents will not be able to give a balanced picture! If they could see what was wrong they would have fixed it or not done it! Many of the parents have a serious lack of insight. I know of many through school pastoral work.
And one acquaintance - well ss were just out to get her, they lied, the doctors must have been paid to write such bad reports. After all, don't most mums like a drink now and then when the kids are in bed. And the house was clean enough.... Well the mum went out every weekend getting trollied, (leaving the smalls under the "care" of the 7 year old), often had parties with unknown people back at the house after the pubs closed, often forgot to feed her kids, and house regularly had actual shit on the floor. But oh she loved those kids and would never have harmed a hair on their heads

McTufty, 'I wonder if it happened the way your doctor friend told you it did or if she has embellished or misunderstood'. My Dr. colleague is a man by the way. I have no idea why you would believe that a highly qualified expert witness would embellish his experiences when recounting them to a colleague. What on earth would he gain from that? You do realise that in a ClinPsych unit, it's not unusual for us to go over each other's work right? We don't need to recount embellishes stories to colleagues for something to pass the time of day.

There are issues within the family court that need to be debated, and neither blonde babies being shipped off to p-philes, OR any expert who questions the system must be embellishing or have misunderstood, is helpful. All it does is delay debating the issues at hand.

I guess that my colleague can now join the ranks of Prof. Jane Ireland, and Maggie Mellon, who get criticised at every turn for wanting nothing more than changes in the system that make it fairer to everybody.

I did not ask you to identify yourself personally. Just your chambers, in which case Mum could have sent you her files. She could have marked that 'for the attention of Minnie Mouse' for all the difference it makes.