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

system I mean

Here's a bit that frightens me in particular....

"General practitioners should be encouraged to share information about
the parents/carers,(agreed)

and avoid being an advocate for the parent/carer where there are serious concerns about possible harm to the child

It looks to me like some idiot has stuck the label on Fran Lyon and now they are flailing around to find "evidence" (which turns out to be just more opinion) to support it.

Well now Elizabetth, I'm not sure what to say in response to your last post.

I'm finding this debate interesting and have no wish to contaminate it with my point of view.

But it struck me that you might have misread Ladidah's post so I thought I'd help you out. Obviously you hadn't - it just didn't have the emphasis you thought desirable.

I think Elizabeth has one point of view Gizmo, & that differs from others that have posted on here it's an emotive subject as we've said before.

You won't be contaminating it with your POV at all! I think it's healthy debate we just all need to NOT take it personally!

It didn't have any emphasis, it was a cut and paste job without any commentary whatsoever. That isn't a way to further discussion, spamming a thread with undigested information.

I can't imagine why you would join a debate but refuse to actually give a point of view. Pardon me if I find that extremely strange.

Elizabeth you are a great debater & I agree with your point of view & your brilliant editing of articles on this subject (saves me trawling! )

But I have to say you are a terrier of an opponent (that's a compliment BTW!) don't chew them out for not being as concise as you are!

I probably expect a higher standard from medical, legal and social work professionals who are actually here defending the system BB. Their decisions and actions with regards to MSbP may have actual effects on people's lives. They've also used their specialised knowledge to try and pretend that the lay critics of MSbP don't know what we're talking about. But having specialised knowledge doesn't appear to stretch as far as answering direct questions about the system when it comes down to it.

I spent quite a bit of time reading that report and picking out the relevant parts. For my points just to be met by spam by LaDiDaDi is really quite irritating. There is plenty of substance on this thread for anybody who is defending the system to pick up on and respond to but they've chosen not to. I can't help but find that telling.

I didn't come to this thread with any particular view of the child protection system but what's been coming up here makes me wonder if there needs to be a whole new approach taken. The story of the social workers in Fran Lyon's case picking up the phone to spread gossip about her to the psychiatrist who was defending her is once again is hair-raising. Where do these people get the idea that that is in any way an acceptable way to behave?

Exactly!
Unfortunately having worked in the NHS for 20-odd years I'm afraid it doesn't surprise me.
Nothing does any more...I get saddened a lot but rarely surprised!!!

I quite like 'undigested' information - it reduces the layers of bias that come from wading through other's interpretation.

So for me it would be a shame if Nonametoday and Ladidah were to be deterred from posting original source material.

I hope they aren't deterred either, but I do hope that they also explain why they are posting it e.g. referring to a point that's been made to support or rebut it or providing a short commentary on why they think it is relevant to the thread.

Just out of curiosity Eliazabetth, do you fight any other cause so vociferously? or do you only have this one crusade.

You would be a great MP should you choose to chanel your undoubted talents in that direction.

Before you jumpt to conclusions, that is a genuine comment.

There are a few other things I feel strongly about, NNT. I've met a few MPs and I don't reckon I'll be going that way any time soon! Thank you for the compliment, though.

I really don't know why I feel quite so strongly about this MSbP diagnosis (it surprises me too because like I said I don't have any underlying reason to do so), perhaps it's something about babies being removed from their mothers on the say-so of doctors like Roy Meadow whose ex-wife described him as a misogynist. Or maybe it's just the lack of logic or rigour in the accusations that seems so glaring. This is actually the only time I've ever been in a debate about it though.

I find it incredibly worrying. I think you have done an excellent job in your posts Elizabeth.

it is worrying ruty but I think if we can keep debate in the public arena it MUST make it difficult for the secrecy to continue.I know we are but pawns in the systems game but I DO believe in the "voice of the people" aspect (forgive the red-top phrase!)& the more debate we have the better.

I think for me, it's the Kafka-esque nature of what happens to parents who are accused of abuse. When you look at the pointers to MSbP, they cover every type of behaviour an anxious parent might display. So however you behave, you're condemned.

Only when dealing with the Inland Revenue, is the presumption of innocence so reversed. It is so frightening, because it could happen to any of us. The thing is, the IR aren't going to investigate me, because they don't have any reason to. The scary thing is that the SS don't appear to need a reason to - all I need is for one of my kids to get ill for the monstrous machinery of the state to suddenly kick in against me and I'm utterly defenceless against it. Chances that it would are of course very tiny, but the very fact that parents even have to consider it, is obscene. If you knew that there was some kind of accountable, open system of logic and defence, you would know that you could defend yourself in the event of a false abuse allegation. But the fact that there is no defence, is quite terrifying. I can't understand why anyone should feel sanguine about it, tbh. I can fully understand why Elizabeth is so vociferous about it, I don't find it at all odd or questionable.

Well I find myself agreeing with elements from most posters, LaDiDah, NNT, ruty, BB and Elizabetth included. The MSbP debate is certainly controversial and is not going to go away - if it does exist as a syndrome or illness, then there is a long way to go to work out how the agencies charged with protecting children deal with its damaging potential, whilst at the same time avoiding too wide a net that risks becoming a witch hunt - and we may, eventually, be faced as a society with the difficult question of whether it is better to have some adults falsely accused or take the risk of children being seriously damaged or even killed. And that is no easy question to answer.

With regard to the FL case and social workers ringing up Dr Haigh as quoted in the Telegraph article. I'm not sure it's as unreasonable as it first sounds. If you a put a letter in to social services I would think you might expect that they would call to discuss it. And if they are aware of facts that Dr Haigh is not (he only knows FL as a work colleague, according to the article) is it that unreasonable that they inform him of these facts, especially if they feel he has been misled? I'm not sure this constitutes "gossip". Perhaps it's relevant that Dr Haigh does not appear to have made comment, or been quoted since that article, perhaps it's not.

I think they'd call it interfering with witnesses if it was a court case.

"criminal case"

I didn't post more fully earlier as I was very busy with dd. I certainly wasn't spamming, I knew that the RCPCH had published guidelines relatively recently and I felt that they should be posted on the thread.

I find it interesting that you are so upset about the idea that if a doctor suspects FII they should contact ss without having full proof. This actually applies to any form of child abuse, if you are worried about it as a possibility then you should refer to the appropriate agencies for investigation. If a week old baby presents to A+E with a head injury then it automatically gets referred to ss so that they can investigate. The doctor suspects the possibility of child abuse so refers, same thing.

Must go now has have huests arriving.....

Exactly, littlebella! Over-anxious (actually bothered about your child and keen to find out what's wrong): MSbP. Not over-anxious: MSbP. Once ss or paediatricians 'see' MSbP they can make any behaviour fit their definition. It is, as you say, Kafka-esque.

The bit I found chilling from the guidance highlighted below was this:

Paediatrician ... should ... find out whether the child?s illness and individual symptoms and signs have an unequivocal explanation as a natural illness. If this is not clear, the possibility of fabrication or illness induction has to be considered as part of the differential diagnosis together with the effect on the child.

So if diagnosis is not straightforward, we are all automatically suspects! That is madness. Consultant paediatricians train for at least 11 years precisely because their job is not straightforward. FFS, there are thousands of consultations every day with atypical presentation or symptoms that could indicate different things. Medicine is not a tick box exercise.

This guidance is far too quick to reach for an extreme explanation. It's bizarre.

And as for SW ringing up Dr Haigh, I think the key point is they were trying to convince him to change his mind and sway him against FL. That is unprofessional. But sadly not uncommon. One of the most eminent doctors in the country was first leant on and then actually threatened by sws when he protested that in investigating one of his patients they had leapt straight for the least likely explanation, without considering a. the evidence and b. the most common causes. Thankfully he stuck to his guns and insisted they look at the evidence, rather than getting swept up in some hysterical witch-hunt.

Well in the case of a head injury something external has acted on the child causing a verifiable injury. On the other hand symptoms that could be caused by an organic disease are being used as the basis for a suspicion of child abuse. Those are two completely different scenarios, particularly given that MSbP is such an unusual occurence. So why is it supposed to be in the front of paediatricans minds as soon as they discover the limits of their skills in making a diagnosis?

As we've seen, the doctors who have been so gung ho in making accusations of MSbP have in many cases been proved wrong. And as far as I can see they don't have to have any proof to start things up with social services. The paediatrician only has to have "concerns".

I think the problem with Msbp accusations Ladidadi is how one goes about proving one's innocence. Once the suspicion is there, how on earth does one prove you are innocent? Having one's child taken from you in those circumstances [especially when there have been so many miscarriages of justice precisely in this area of mis/diagnosis is nightmarish and beyond injustice.

Thing is, as soon as MSbP, or FII (nice trick like renaming Windscale Sellafield) is mentioned, SWs and child protection people seem to lose all sense of proportion. Parents are guilty until proven innocent. Any behaviour, whatever it is, is interpreted with as suspicious. Professionals egg each other on - like the SW ringing Dr Haigh. There seems to be no dispassionate, clear examination of the evidence. And, as I've mentioned, anyone who tries to calm things down and ask people to look at the facts is shouted down.