Rather terrifying article about social workers attempting to take baby from its mother as soon as its born.

[Callisto]

It was in the Sunday Telegraph which I got round to reading last night. The story plus a couple of related articles is here: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/26/nbaby126.xml

Actually I think I won't address you again nonametoday. You don't appear to be able to conduct a discussion without smears or half truths. You said you had made no comment on the MSbP diagnosis yet these were your posts in the other thread.

"It was this particular part of that qoute which I thought relevent.

Meadow has collected and presented a number of cases, noting from the outset that is was often the doctors who harmed the child most through their unnecessary tests and treatments.

The man may have made mistakes in his career, but he was not averse to pointing out the failing of his contemapries."

"By NoNameToday on Sat 20-Oct-07 14:36:23
Evolution of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy as a Diagnosis

Munchausen syndrome by proxy derives from adult Munchausen syndrome, which was first described in the literature in 1951 by Asher. In adult Munchausen syndrome, the patient fabricates and/or induces his own symptoms and presents himself for treatment. The description of Munchausen syndrome by proxy was first made in 1977, after British pediatrician Roy Meadow recognized that mothers of two children in his practice were engaging in dissimulations that put their children in the patient role, using the children as proxies. Subsequently, Meadow has collected and presented a number of cases, noting from the outset that is was often the doctors who harmed the child most through their unnecessary tests and treatments."

The quote relating to Roy Meadow was exactly that, a quote not my thoughts on the validity of the diagnosis.

It's one way vision isn't it elizabetth, your way or no way.

Thank you for an illumunating experience.

why on earth should Elizabeth have a hidden agenda just because she feels passionately about the subject and has read up about it? And on the other thread women who have expressed concerns about the case have been called 'hysterical' by a SW. All very disconcerting.

I'm not for one moment saying that there aren't two valid and opposing viewpoints on the case. I'm just saying it is very odd how some people have been treated.

Quite ruty. NNT, I agree with all of Elizabetth's posts. Does that mean I've a hidden agenda? No, it doesn't. Why would holding a particular pov (from all available evidence and one's own reading) mean one had a hidden agenda?

I think Elizabetth's posts here have been calm and measured and as I've said, I agree with them. I don't like it when people attack other posters rather than their argument - debate and discussion is fair enough, calling people names and accusing them of hidden agendas just because they disagree with you just isn't on imo.

But if we get back to facts:

• Angela Cannings, Sally Clark, Trupti Patel WERE all WRONGLY convicted: courts found they did not kill their babies. It does and has happened
• Roy Meadow DELIBERATELY gave overdoses of salt as part of his experimentation on children
• Fran Lyon has been told her baby will be removed at birth. The baby hasn't been born yet so she has not (afaik and if she had surely she'd have been arrested for it) committed a crime.
• She has offered to be monitored in a mother and baby unit but this request has been denied (if I've understood correctly)

And no, of course we don't all have ALL the details but some of us are concerned that making the decision to remove a baby from its mother before it's even been born could be inappropriate and we think this on the evidence available. Fair enough I think.

Seems to be different rules for different folks...having money and fame helps. Angelina Jolie used to be depressed and self harm and that hasn't stopped her from not only having her own child and keeping it, but also adopting 3 other people's children.

Agree with WWW et al. Thing is, nothing has changed despite the exposure of terrible miscarriages of justice. There has been no open and independent review of the practice of SS and the family courts. No attempt to ensure the same mistakes won't happen again.

If anything went so badly wrong so many times in any other walk of life, there would be a full, proper inquiry and lessons would be learnt. But mothers and children don't seem to deserve justice.

Good post www

How extraordinary, to impute a hidden agenda to Elizabeth, just because her posts have been coherent and frequent on this subject. It just means she's had time to post and she feels strongly about it. Bravo Elizabeth. I also feel very strongly about this and I know lots of other people do as well, doubtless we're all part of the conspiracy to undermine child protection in this country.

That's the kind of paranoia we're dealing with.

Elizabeth's agenda seems remarkably open and unhidden to me. She's interested in justice. But perhaps that's just my reading of it. Call me a conspirator.

HI Ruty-think you may be referring to me as the "SW" who called someone "hysterical"-thought I should clear up the confusion. I am not a Social Worker, I am a family law barrister (often representing parents fighting to keep their children) and was hopeful that my knowledge of the law and the system may help allay the apparent concerns that were being expressed that this unborn baby was definitely going to be removed because a Judge had said so.

Neither did I intend to refer to any particular poster as "hysterical" I said the thread was bordering on the hysterical. No offence intended. I suppose my day to day involvement in the Care arena lends me a level of knowledge about the reality of the care system that is not obvious from the media. The reality of the system, in my experience rarely involves MSBP or FI or babies being removed by mysogenous doctors on spurious grounds. I therefore felt I had nothing more to contribute to the debate.

Chipkid, on the other thread several MNers gave examples of cases where they or close friends or family members had been threatened with removal of their children completely inappropriately. It may not happen every day, but it does happen. And that's terrifying.

I accept that people have had bad experiences with social workers. Usually any experience with social services is a nerve racking one for parents because of the overwhelming fear that their child may be removed.

I was asked about my experience of the Court system-in terms of the number of applications granted by the Court. I explained why few cases were considered borderline and that was interpreted as me saying that the Courts rubber stamp the applications. Which isn't my experience at all.

Chipkid, "rarely" is too often in my opinion. Especially when it is so difficult to get kids removed who should be removed or at least more carefully watched.
You might also remember that there are many who are not as educated and experienced with the legal aspect of the system as you are and might find the fact that a judge said something a fairly unchangeable fact. I am highly educated and experienced in the ways of the world and yet found the task of helping my dh get custody (or at a minimum, court ordered visitation) for his kids too daunting (and costly) a task to undertake. I can imagine that someone with less life resources than mine, might be even more discouraged.
And frankly I think your attitude of calm down you hysterical girls, the all-knowing and wise justice system will do the right thing so just blindly trust it....is really condescending and uninformed about the realities of the system from something other than a legal point of view.

SofiaAmes

I think you have misunderstood what I have contributed to the earlier thread.

A Judge cannot have said that this child will be removed on birth as Care Proceedings cannot start until the baby is born.

I was simply trying to explain the early stage of the procedure that the case in issue had reached as some of the earlier posts on the thread had understood the newspaper article to indicate that the case had already been to the Family Court and a Court decision made for removal.

At no time did I use the words you have attributed to me, or suggest that everything would be alright if you trust in the system. I attempted to explain the procedure and MY experience of it when I was asked to do so.

I bowed out of the thread as I did not wish to discuss the rights and wrongs of the case in issue (Until armed with all of the facts I cannot form a view) nor did I feel I had anything to contribute to the discussion of MSBP or FI as I have little professional experience of it as it is not the sort of case that regularly comes before the Family Court.

You bowed out of the thread when I asked you directly what percentage of care orders are turned down by the family courts in your experience. A question you still haven't answered. If you are going to come here to use your expert knowledge to defend the system then the least you could do I feel is to answer some direct questions about it.

As we know that the social workers are planning to go ahead and request a care order as soon as Fran's baby is born it is relevant to the discussion, particularly as Sofia says, all the defenders of the system appear to be telling us not to worry and it will all work out in the end. From what we know it doesn't sound as if it's going to work out for Fran, unless the massive publicity that this case has had given the authorities pause for thought.

If you are a barrister in the family court you will obviously be aware of many of the criticisms of it. What is your opinion on the cases where Sir Roy Meadow was used as an expert witness in hostile adoptions? Do you think they should be reviewed since he has now been discredited? How can a legal system that claims to be just ignore mistakes and carry on as if nothing has happened?

Thanks to the people who supported me BTW, it's not nice to be told you have a secret agenda just for having a strong opinion and some background knowledge.

Chipkid, how long does it take ss to go to court and get an order once a baby is born?

One of my friends is a neonatal nurse and it's not unusual for special care to be looking after a baby who is the subject of care proceedings, from what she tells me. (Although different reasons - usually drug addiction.)

Edam-if it is an application for an interim care order for a newborn baby it will be placed in the list as a matter of urgency. With newborns this will be in a matter of days up to a week or so depending on how long the case will take to hear. usually if the plan is that the child should not leave hospital with her mother it is my experience that the child will remain in hospital until the Court can hear the case.

So would a mother be able to stay in hospital with her child? Would be heart-rending, if you are unjustly accused and sent away with no baby.

So her child is taken from her even before the court has finally ruled. That's outrageous. Do these people have no understanding of the importance of attachment and bonding to its mum in the baby's earliest days?

Chipkid, what percentage of care orders are turned down by the family courts in your experience?

Fair enough chipkid - it is good to get your experience of the courts on these threads - I just didn't feel that the previous thread was bordering on the hysterical. Passionate and very direct but not hysterical. But glad you've stuck around!

I really hope the medical system and the SS system do realise what a serious matter it is to deprive a child of bonding, colostrum, breastfeeding, etc with its mother. I suspect this again varies between different personalities within the system. Of course if there is direct evidence that the baby will be harmed by staying with the mother [for example heroin addiction or serious alcoholism or history of violence] then taking the baby away is probably justified. But it is hard to imagine on what basis someone who has not harmed a child and has offered to be monitored carefully for as long as it takes should have their baby removed immediately. though as has been said there may be factors we don't know about.

In my experience heroin additiction serious alcoholism or violence rarely result in a child being taken into care

so on what basis then do babies usually get taken from mothers at birth renaldo?

I'm more of a lurker than a poster but this subject is one I feel very strongly about.

Let me say, first of all, that I do have an agenda and its not hidden. Way back in the dim and distant days of the 70s as a new mother of just 20 I had the terrifying experience of trying to get help for my newborn's projectile vomiting only to have the professionals to whom I turned fail to believe me and suggest I was imagining the problem due to my "obvious" PND. After six nightmare weeks and numerous visits to the GP, talks with the HV and a near nervous breakdown he threw up all over the GP and was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis, a well known condition which the HV should have recognised from my description. He was operated on the following day. I was told by the surgeon that if diagnosis had been made a few days later he would have been at risk of dying during the operation as he was undernourished and very dehydrated. If DS had been born thirty years later I have no doubt I would have been diagnosed with MSbP as the symptoms somehow never showed themselves when the HV was present. I would have found myself involved with social services before you could say "Roy Meadow" and God knows what would have happened from then on.

I do not say this to attack HVs, GPs, or social workers for that matter. I tell this story to illustrate that institutions can, and do, make mistakes and parents should never abdicate their responsibility for their child's welfare to a professional as professionals, too, are only human.

The other point I wish to make leads on from this and it is that it is our duty as citizens to keep questioning our institutions. It is only by doing this that errors can be uncovered and injustices remedied.

So carry on asking questions, Elizabeth. Your are obviously passionate about this issue and to me that's a good thing.

MM

applauds MM

Yes until we have the same transparency in Family Courts as we do in ciminal courts these mistakes (albeit made in the genuine belief it was the right thing for the child AT THAT TIME) will continue.

We all know one can't put a price on human suffering especially that of a child. However as tax-payers we are all paying for the court sysytm & the social services of every type. We have a right to ensure that money is spent as wisely & humanely as possible, and I feel a duty to question those who provide these services if we feel these are lacking.

I would back any SW to the hilt if they felt that an unborn child was so much at risk that leaving it with the mother would be life-threatening or a serious risk of harm. However in a case where it appears there is no such risk(although we don't know all the facts alledgedly) and the mother has not has psychiatric care for some years then something doesn't add up.

If fran is NOT at risk of having Molly taken from her then why has she been lead to believe this if not by the SW system? She seems an articulate lady who is doing her best to be fair to the professionals working with her - she is being very calm & non-hysterical in my view (I'd be beside myself!)

I am reassured by the SW's on MN who have said that it is not that easy to get an emergency care order with such speed but we all know it must be possible otherwise how would high risk cases get dealt with as swiftly as they have in the past?

i am (hestitantly), going to state that as a socialworker, (currently on a career break and unlikely to return to social work), that in my experience here in northern ireland, an emergency protection order is more likely to be sought in this case and WOULD be able to be actioned on the day of the child's birth.

an EPO would generally only be sought if social services were unable to come to a voluntary agreement with the mother, to have the child admitted to care or if there were concerns about abduction.

unfortunately, issues such as bonding or breastfeeding are rarely considered as more important then the safety of the child in such circumstances.