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

Am not sure that 'interfering with witnesses' is in any way relevent. As far as we know, this isn't a court case (yet) and Dr H was not called as a witness and just voluntarily sent in a letter. If someone lies in court it's perjury, if outside court we have to accept it as part of the human experience. The only real relevance would be if SS have acted outside of their own guidelines or the law.

For all we know, SS could well have called everyone else who put in a report to discuss it with them too - surely that's part of their job to establish the facts?

That's a good point Hallowedam - but it also applies to the other side in that as soon as MBsP is mentioned, the media and general public lose all sense of proportion too.

I think that's part of my concern ost - that one might not get a proper trial.

If it were held in the criminal courts in an open and accountable manner, one wouldn't have such a problem with it.

The family courts are shrouded in secrecy and unaccountable to no-one. Hence the disappearance of those 500 cases that were supposed to be investigated and never were. As soon as it comes to children, justice ceases to be done and ceases to be seen to be done. Very very scary.

Little Bella... posted earlier about the family courts and their secrecy - basically it's there to protect the children in such cases primarily, but also the parents. And from what I understand there is an appeal process.

The media and general public are not empowered to take children away from their parents, though. The professionals have a very serious duty to behave professionally. That means weighing up the evidence dispassionately, not trying to sway witnesses i.e. people who have information about the case.

I don't think it's true that the public and the media lose all sense of proportion OSS. We're not rushing round demanding the removal of paediatricians' and social workers' children (and in the main getting it too) we're asking professionals to justify their actions and for courts to stop being so secretive about how they arrive at their decisions to remove children from their parents.

OST, that's what they say, but as it's all done in secret, how do we know?

There's no getting round the fact that if justice is done behind closed doors, no-one outside those closed doors knows if it's justice or not.

"For all we know, SS could well have called everyone else who put in a report to discuss it with them too - surely that's part of their job to establish the facts?"

Establishing facts would involve collecting evidence from witnesses, not feeding witnesses information in the hope of changing their opinion. What they did was unusual enough for this psychiatrist to report it to Fran Lyon and also agree to be interviewed by a newspaper about it.

Quite, Elizabeth.

That's what is so worrying - that it seems so many SWs can't see anything wrong in trying to sway witnesses.

Well I might have to disagree - I for one would rather see justice done behind close doors rather than put children through the emotional distress of reading about themselves and their family in the national newspapers or the internet. The children have to be the priority here.

There's no evidence that Dr H gave an interview to the Telegraph - in fact they state: "In the email to Miss Lyon's solicitor, seen by this newspaper" - which rather suggests that Ms Lyon's solicitor or Ms Lyon leaked the email to the press.

Regarding Dr H as a 'witness' is ridiculous and seems to over-emphasise his importance. He's clearly a character reference according to the article, and nothing more.

It is not beyond the wit of intelligent people to devise a system that maintains anonymity while allowing proper public scrutiny. Look at rape cases, or other types of court case involving children. Or the treatment given to vulnerable witnesses.

Witness = a way of referring someone who has some evidence pertinent to the case. What else would you call someone who gives evidence of good character?

It's that kind of casual dismissal of anyone who doesn't toe the party line which is worrying, tbh.

Well he was important enough for the social workers to call him up and tell him stories about Fran Lyon. So who is over-emphasising him exactly?

If they are trying to sway character witnesses of all people it makes it sound like they don't have much of an actual case or an understanding about what collecting evidence means (clue: it's not starting with a conclusion then trying to get the facts to fit it).

Children's names could easily be kept anonymous whilst details of the proceedings were made public. People have repeatedly made that argument.

Er, that's the point OST - you for one can't see justice being done behind closed doors, because you can't see justice being done.

I must be the only person left int he country who heartlessly and rationally thinks that the interests of justice should always take priority over the interests of individuals, children or adults.

And as Edam says, FGS it's not beyond the wit of our justice system to come up with a system that protects anonymity of children while ensuring that justice is seen to be done. It's done in rape trials, why are the family courts so different? Judges are also at liberty to haul reporters into court for contempt if they breach reporting orders.

Oh and I also happen to think that the interests of children and the interests of justice are synonymous here.

Problem with the statement 'the children have to come first' from anyone engaged in child protection/the family courts is they frame the child's needs in a way that suits their agenda. Particularly in opposition to the parent.

As for causing emotional distress, there is huge emotional distress caused by e.g. wrongly taking children from a loving family. Or by seizing children in hospital and refusing to let them see their parents or any other members of their family. Or by moving children in care from placement to placement - saw a stat the other day that children are moved five times, on average. Or by SWs turning up unnanounced to remove children, or to move children who are in care from one placement to another. Or by sending children in care 100s of miles away for foster care.

But emotional distress inflicted by SS and the courts seems to be fine. It's just emotional distress caused by any attempt to treat families reasonably and fairly that seems to be a no-no.

It's not a question of just children's names, its about identifying them. That would mean not naming the parents either, or anything in the case that could lead to them being identified - so what would we really be left with?

I'm interested why elisabtth is convinced SS were telling Dr H stories? How do you know that they might not have been telling him important, factual and truthful information?

So the interests of justice are irrelevant then?

I didn't say they were being untruthful, they may have been true stories they may not have, they may have had a grain of truth that was twisted to suit their agenda. The fact is they told him these stories for no good reason that we can see other than to sway his opinion on a case that can only be based on opinions as the child hasn't yet been born.

Of course getting a pyschiatrist who was a real-life acquaintance of Fran to agree that she was a risk would be a real coup for presenting their case to a court.

Do you have any knowledge of this case or social work in general OSS? I'm just getting the feeling that you do although I could be wrong.

"inside knowledge"

just read the update about the psychiatrist being unduly influenced. shocking, absolutely shocking, also not surprising. sadly the sw ethos seems in need of a shock or two itself and i hope we will soon be seeing open court/trial of these cases so ineptitude, coercion and unprofessionalism can be exposed for all to see and report on. as her mp says, it is by no means the first example of this kind of behaviour

The family courts' current interpretation of confidentiality is so extreme that not only can there be no reporting, but people who are accused of MSbP are ordered on pain of imprisonment not to talk to their own MPs. FFS, how unjust is that? How dare the courts deny people the chance to talk to their elected representatives? It's a horrifying abuse of the law and of democracy.

AND in at least one case and presumably others, once the children were adopted, the mother's medical records were sealed. That meant she was not allowed to discuss any of her medical history with her doctors. Bit of a bugger as she was actually ill with a rare condition that took years to diagnose.

That's the sort of appalling, nonsensical situation this secrecy creates. It's got sod all to do with protecting children, it's about protecting the system and those who work within it.

Elisabtth... whilst I appreciate your obvious voraciousness about this case, I'm not sure why you are so one sided. I'm sure if this case comes to court that SS will have far more evidence than having to rely on Dr H's character reference or not.

If they do have factual evidence that might have contradicted Dr H's opinion of Fran, would t have been right of them to leave Dr H in the dark? Or should they have shared this information with him, and put him in the picture, given that he'd opted to get involved? After all, he has put his professional reputation at state in this matter, as has the other Dr Newrith.

The fact is, there are so few real facts in this case for us to come to conclusions on. The vast majority of what we know is simply reported in the media or comes from one side without any supporting evidence. That's my concern.

And to answer your question. I do have some experience of SS through my work in the NHS, so have an idea of how they work - and whislt mistakes are always made in any human based large organisation, I just don't subscribe to the view that SS are out on a mass campaign to remove babies from mothers to meet targets as that is not my direct experience.

are the police allowed to do that if someone is calling a character witness in court? can the police phone up the character witness and tell them other stuff about the defendent to try and get them to change their opinion? i don't know - honest question. i guess if the police are allowed to do it then ss can as well but i don't think either of them should be allowed to. who knows if they are telling the truth either?
has everyone seen the cleveland documentary btw?

Well, they can't have much direct evidence, oldstraight, given that the poor woman hasn't actually given birth yet.

Hallowedam agreed, they can't have any evidence of 'by proxy' behaviour as there isn't a proxy yet, unless there's been evidence of using the unborn child to get attention/healthcare for herself. Which is why my earlier post mentioned MS and not MSbP. They could have evidence of MS, which is a serious MH condition with implications for her ability to cope with/care for the child, and seems to be what the paeditrician was referring to in his letter.