Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

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

501 replies

Callisto · 29/08/2007 08:29

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

OP posts:
Hallowedam · 26/10/2007 23:41

The paediatrician said 'IF'. He was clearly responding to a question raised by SS, not saying he knew she was X or Y. That's the problem, SS appear to have asked a question and then use an answer based on a supposition to bolster the original supposition. It's faulty logic. Not even circular, more spiral.

And her colleagues, friends and acquaintances seem to be absolutely thrown by this, so it seems unlikely she's an extremely ill or damaged person who is unable to function.

oldstraighttrack · 26/10/2007 23:53

Hallowedam... certainly take your point. He does say IF, but he also says "If the evidence..." which implies that there is evidence that we're not privy to. FL did appeal according the press and that was not upheld and any evidence, from what I know of the system, would have been made available to her and her legal team. Also, from what I understand of the system, this is a multi-agency process and is not just about what SS decide - SS, midwives, medics, consultants, Fran's GP, MH workers, psychiatrists and police - in fact, everyone involved in FL's case will have been involved in reaching these decisions jointly. Are we going to say that they're all wrong and in a consipracy to take her baby?

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up to me.

Elizabetth · 27/10/2007 00:19

"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. "

The funny thing is that what's being reported in the media makes little or no difference to the outcomes in this case. The action will take place in the secret family courtroom where the future of Fran and her baby will be decided, despite what might be said on Mumsnet or in the Telegraph. Wouldn't it be better for your concern to be pointed in that direction?

"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."

Have you been involved in care proceedings? Honestly I think people who are coming to this thread who have direct experience of working in social services or with social services should declare their interest. I mean it's pretty obvious anyway, but it means that you aren't unbiased observers.

I haven't said there's a campaign but it seems pretty clear that a culture has been created where MSbP is far to near the top of certain people's minds in health and social services; that coupled with a drive to increase adoptions can make professionals act in all sorts of irrational ways even if they aren't consciously aware of it.

I'd also like to reiterate what edam says is that "the best interests of the child" is being used to hide another agenda - one which protects paediatricians and social workers from scrutiny. Also I'm actually finding it quite hard to believe OSS, that you don't see anything wrong with the way the social workers behaved regarding Dr Haigh, when your work brings you into contact with social workers in your and their professional capacity.

Elizabetth · 27/10/2007 00:25

"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. "

Just to answer more specifically, since when was it social service's jobs to enlighten people who they think are misguided? I thought child protection was about protecting children, not persuading adults to change their minds about another adult. I mean we keep hearing they're stretched, but if this is how they spend their time I can see why.

I hope you don't mind me asking again but are you involved in this actual case somehow or know the social workers and doctors invovled? You seem pretty set on defending them and making sure we don't miss any of the facts about Fran Lyon. That was a good spot about her possibly having MP when nobody else noticed it.

bossybritches · 27/10/2007 01:39

As an aside I have noticed that while Fran was quite vocal & free to talk in her early threads/posts none of her websites/email addys/etc have any updates from after late Sept/early Oct......has she too been muzzled & forbidden to talk to us or any other media?

Upwind · 27/10/2007 09:12

OldStraightTrack - even if your theory is correct, that FL is suspected of suffering from Munchausens and might have her baby taken from her for this reason, we know she has not been seen a psych for some time so if that is the social workers' concern, it is probably based on guesswork. I don't believe that in real life it could ever be easy to distinguish between hypochondria/munchausens/undiagnosed disease.

My mother is generally considered to be a hypochondriac. Short of reading my mother's mind, I guess it is possible that she really believes herself to be well and seeks medical attention for the attention. Somebody with Munchausens is highly unlikely to admit it! It is also possible that she has some underlying physical conditions that we don't know about. As far as my mother is concerned, I know her better than any medical professional and suspect that it is a combination of the three. But there is no way of knowing and that is why the FL case is so alarming.

Women in FL's position who have had their child or children (and it will almost always be women) can't seek help, advice or support without breaking the law. Even their own medical records are sealed with potentially tragic consequences if it turns out that they themselves have a longterm illness. This is so shocking and terrifying that I am surprised that more people are not campaigning on FL's behalf.

Upwind · 27/10/2007 09:24

Edam, thank you for putting this more clearly than I could - "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."

Using a poorly-defined potential for emotional abuse as a reason to take children from their parents is risks over zealous or power mad individuals intervening where they should not. the telegraph says that "Fran Lyon is the latest parent to be told her baby will be taken away at birth because social services believe she is capable of "emotionally abusing" a child that has not yet been born.
The term is hugely controversial because it is vague, undefined in law, and leaves room for many injustices."

Since anyone can be capable of emotional abuse you would hope that the courts would treat any such claims with scepticism. But as the secrecy surrounding family courts in this country is so extreme, we have no idea whether or not they do.

Hallowedam · 27/10/2007 09:49

Good point about potential emotional abuse, Upwind - what on earth does it mean? Whatever the person who applies the term wants it to mean, I suspect. Like Alice in Wonderland. (And thank you for the nice comment!)

How on earth can you possibly defend yourself against a claim that you may be responsible for emotional abuse in the future against a baby who hasn't actually been born yet? Unless you already have a child that you haven't cared for very well, it's nonsense.

If SS were concerned about actual emotional abuse, they'd have had a word with Ch4 about Bringing Up Baby. But Claire Verity was on TV, so that's OK, apparently.

Hallowedam · 27/10/2007 09:51

And what about the emotional abuse of separating a tiny, vulnerable newborn baby from its mother? The mother whose smell it knows, whose voice it recognises and on whom it depends?

Hallowedam · 27/10/2007 09:59

Frankly, the collective hysteria that seizes SS, paediatricians and other child protection people re. MSbP/FII has made me determined never to have anything to do with SS.

That and what I hear from my sister, a nurse who comes across SS in her work.

Mind you, in my area they are so crap they have been dammed by official report after official report, so I doubt they'd be bothered to send anyone out unless I did something really terrible.

LaDiDaDi · 27/10/2007 13:14

Edam and Upwind, I think that you've made some very good points about emotional abuse and the lack of clear definition of the term. I also agree that social services need to improve the care that they offer to children and young people who are in care. I have complained to my local ss about children not attending important appointments because of care worker cock ups and the general shuffling around of children that seems to happen is awful. SS need to get their own house in order re the care they offer if their child protection work is to be respected by the public.

bossybritches · 27/10/2007 13:48

Too right LaDiDa- form my experience in the NHS the good SW's get disillusioned & eventually leave from the stress of trying to do an impossible job within the culture of general bureaucracy. The ones who play the system & are bad ground workers with no people skills or real humanity, get promoted.THEY are the ones who dictate policy & create this climate of distrust & secrecy. I have a SIL who works with the Youth Offending Service as a nurse & the key to their team working succesfully is the co-operation of all the different teams working together in to support young offenders. She says the jealous guarding of facts & unwillignness to share information about children/young offenders is breath-takingly blinkered.

bossybritches · 27/10/2007 13:49

all the different DISCIPLINES I meant to say sorry

Elizabetth · 27/10/2007 14:21

"I have complained to my local ss about children not attending important appointments because of care worker cock ups"

In the report that nonametoday linked to parents not taking their children to medical appointments is regarded as a black mark and one of the signs that a parent is neglecting a child (thus social services need to be involved).

bossybritches · 27/10/2007 14:39

Gawd my SIl says the SW's are the WORST for keeping appts with "their" children. T'other day she picked up a lass from her home (A round trip of 35 miles) & personally drove her to the GU clinic, & brought her back again to ensure she had the check-up she desperately needed to make sure she was neither a) pregnant or b)infected with anything nasty. This girl is 13 & while still at home has her own SW liasing with all the care services.

Elizabetth · 27/10/2007 14:58

Another leading MSbP doctor is being investigated -

"IS THIS MAN BEHIND BRITAIN'S WORST EVER MEDICAL SCANDAL?
BY SUE REID

27 October 2007

Daily Mail

26-29

PARENTS FALSELY BRANDED CHILD ABUSERS. SICK BABIES USED AS GUINEA PIGS AND SUBJECTED TO GAS POISONING. NEXT WEEK, THE GMC WILL HEAR EVIDENCE AGAINST A DOCTOR ACCUSED BY COUNTLESS FAMILIES OF RUINING THEIR LIVES

LAWRENCE ALEXANDER suffered a difficult childhood. Neighbours pointed at him in the street. He was inexplicably bullied at school. When he invited his few friends home for tea, they nearly always refused. His family moved from Cornwall to Sussex and then to Shropshire. In every fresh place, there were whispers.

His parents lost their jobs and the only member of his extended family who sent birthday presents was his father's sister, Aunt Nina.

At 13, Lawrence began to ask why his upbringing seemed different to everyone else's. It is only today, nearly eight years on, that he knows the full truth: his parents had been wrongly accused of one of the worst crimes imaginable -- deliberately harming him as a baby.

As a result of the allegation made by children's doctor David Southall, the family became social pariahs. A bundle of papers in Lawrence's NHS records followed him to every new GP and new school, repeating the claim that his parents had hurt him. The accusation has scarred his life and theirs.

Lawrence has never before told his deeply shocking story. The 21-year-old is central to a Government inquiry into Dr Southall, which could establish once and for all his links to one of the worst scandals in British medicine for years.

The doctor has been praised as a pioneer by colleagues, while vilified as arrogant and dangerous by patients. He has also been in trouble over remarks he made concerning the case of Sally Clark, the mother who was given two life sentences for the murder of her two children before being released after medical evidence emerged to prove she was innocent.

Dr Southall, who had never met Sally, accused her husband of the murders, a totally unfounded allegation which led to the paediatrician being declared guilty of professional misconduct and barred from child protection work for three years.

The present inquiry, overseen by Attorney General Baroness Scotland, wants to find the answer to a crucial question: were Lawrence's parents and many others falsely smeared as child abusers so that Dr Southall could put their children into care and use them as guinea pigs in deeply contentious medical experiments, which many would argue were also deeply immoral?

In the 1980s and 1990s, under the aegis of Dr Southall, thousands of sick children were given breathing tests -- called 'sleep studies'. The experiments, authorised by hospital ethics committees, were carried out despite the doubts of worried parents.

Incredibly, it is now alleged that some of the tiny babies were forced to breathe poisonous gases and deprived of oxygen. The results of these tests were stored by the paediatrician in 4,500 secret files.

BUT the true nature of the experiments to discover the cause of cot-death is only coming to light now the children involved are grown-up. The Attorney General's officials have asked to see the Southall files. They want to know what they contain and if they were produced at court hearings at which parents were falsely accused of child abuse.

The suspicion is that justice may have been perverted by the paediatrician because vital evidence in the files which established that the children he diagnosed as victims of parental abuse had never been harmed but were, in fact, genuinely sick was deliberately hidden from criminal court judges.

Meanwhile, the Mail can reveal that police forces in the Midlands, Wales and London are also investigating evidence to discover if Dr Southall's experiments, dating back three decades, harmed children. Officers in Doncaster plan, if necessary, to examine the death certificates of babies who died while in his care.

The General Medical Council (GMC) is also due to resume a hearing in a week's time into Dr Southall's fitness to practice, following a series of complaints by parents of children treated by him.

Dr Southall, who denies any wrongdoing, has worked at the Royal Brompton in London, University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke and hospitals in Wales, the Home Counties, Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley.

One Welsh mother, who says her son was brain damaged by Southall's research, told the hearing earlier this year: 'He treated my son like a laboratory rat.'

As for Lawrence Alexander's parents, one of the cases being examined at the GMC hearing, they always objected to their son being involved in Dr Southall's sleep study tests.

But when they refused to co-operate, Janet and Robin Alexander were accused by Dr Southall of pretending their son was ill. Although they say there was not a shred of evidence, the little boy was made a ward of court. It meant the tests could be done without his parents' agreement, and Lawrence himself narrowly escaped being put into care or adopted.

This week, Lawrence said: 'I believe that my loving mother and father were labelled as child abusers by Dr Southall because they tried to stop his experiments on me. The appalling slur blackened their names. Yet the idea of my caring parents being child abusers is laughable. They never even smacked me.'

Today, Lawrence lives in Ludlow, Shropshire, with his 61-year old father, a former television reporter, and mother, a 49-year-old former nurse.

Tragically, he is 80 per cent physically disabled. At the age of 14, he was struck by a muscle weakness which led to his body sustaining severe cell damage only ever seen before in cancer patients completing chemotherapy.

He says: 'I want to know how my health has been ruined. Is it because of the tests I underwent as a small child? We now know that the so-called 'sleep studies' carried out by Dr Southall involved giving babies noxious gases, including carbon monoxide. Babies were deprived of oxygen. I want to know what implications this has had for my health.'

Dr Southall, who has always refused to comment on his work or research to the Daily Mail, has repeatedly been at the centre of controversies.

His involvement with Sally Clark, who died earlier this year, is all the more bizarre because he had nothing to do with the inquiry into her children's deaths. After watching a television document on the couple, he simply phoned the police with his theory that her husband, Steve, was the killer.

Meanwhile, concern has grown about his experiments on children. Bill Bache, the solicitor for Angela Cannings another mother accused of infanticide, jailed and then freed on appeal has written to the Attorney General and the Department of Health estimating that '10,000 people have been affected by the actions of Dr Southall'. He fears that behind this number lurks a potential scandal of gigantic proportions.

Mr Bache is so concerned that he says the Government should look into Dr Southall's work over a 25-year period. In a letter to the Department of Health he says Dr Southall 'may have caused death or very serious bodily harm, including irreparable brain damage' to children.

Mr Bache believes parents were told by the doctor that he would report them to the police and social services if they didn't co-operate with his experiments.

'There is evidenceÖ that he carried out these threats and, as a result, there have been convictions [of parents] for murder and grievous bodily harm, while children have been placed in care or adopted,' he says.

His concerns are supported by Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who told the Commons: 'Many of the parents of the (Southall) babies who were choked, given carbon monoxide and had their breathing damaged in other ways did not give consent to the experiments.'

The Alexanders were no exception. Lawrence first became ill seven weeks after being born. He would often stop breathing or turn blue: signs of sudden infant death syndrome or cot death.

At first, doctors thought he was epileptic and he underwent numerous brain scans. At five months, he was referred to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in London.

His mother says: 'We were told Dr Southall, who was a cot-death expert who worked not far away at the Royal Brompton hospital in Chelsea, could help Lawrence.

'However, we were suspicious when we met him there in January of 1987. He looked like a research student. Now we know that he was not qualified as a child doctor at the time, but was a senior lecturer in paediatrics.'

Lawrence was transferred for one month to the Brompton hospital, where his parents always slept beside him overnight. Dr Southall insisted on exhaustive tests.

Janet says: 'We quickly became suspicious that Dr Southall was using our son as a guinea-pig and we told him that we were going to take our child home.'

It was then that the paediatrician invited Janet and Robin to a meeting to discuss Lawrence's progress. Instead, to their horror, they realised that they had stepped into an ambush.

'We found social workers from Kensington and Chelsea Council and their solicitors, sent by Dr Southall,' recalls Janet. 'One social worker told me: "You need help as parents. There is nothing wrong with your child." It suddenly clicked that we were in a dangerous situation. They were saying we made up Lawrence's illness.

'There was no logic. They asked me to sign papers giving them the legal right to care for Lawrence. I had no choice but to do what they said. I was afraid I would lose him for ever.'

Janet was told the hospital and, of course, Dr Southall was now in charge of Lawrence's care. Crucially, they would no longer be allowed to see him at night. It meant that he was left unattended by his parents from evening to the following morning and Janet was forced to stop breastfeeding.

Although they did not know it at the time, Dr Southall had accused them of suffering from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP) a disorder where parents are said to fabricate an illness about their children to draw attention to themselves.

THE theory was devised by another paediatrician, Professor Sir Roy Meadow. He was found guilty of professional misconduct two years ago for giving 'misleading and incorrect' testimony as an expert witness in the case of Sally Clark, who was also wrongly accused of suffering from MSBP. He has since retired.

But what of Lawrence Alexander? During the past year, he has been searching for his own childhood medical records, which prove he was enrolled in Dr Southall's sleep studies at the Brompton Hospital.

So what exactly happened during those nights 20 years ago when his parents were barred from seeing him? Was Dr Southall carrying out experiments on him which amounted to child abuse -- the precise crime the paediatrician accused his parents of having committed on their only son?

Significantly, Lawrence's records of the time show clearly that he had a life-threatening illness. He was suffering from various ailments, most significantly gastro oesophageal reflux (a condition that causes breathing problems and which is linked, inextricably, to cot death.)

Yet nothing was done to cure him. Indeed, Dr Southall told social workers: 'His parents have pursued the belief that he is seriously illÖ they must now accept that their child is healthy.'

The Alexanders fought back against Dr Southall. They sought legal advice and took their case to the High Court.

In late February 1987, a judge in London told them they could return home to Cornwall with Lawrence, but that he should remain the subject of an interim care order. It was only eight months later that they regained the right to look after their son without the interference of the authorities.

They never again saw Dr Southall, who is still working as a paediatrician in Staffordshire, although he is barred from child protection work.

Yet the stigma of being child abusers remained even after they changed their surname by deed poll to try to escape the past. Both sides of the couple's families apart from the loyal Aunt Nina refused to speak to them after they were branded abusers. 'Wherever we moved, people seemed to know,' recalls Janet. 'Robin was pointed at and called a paedophile. We could not even find jobs in a supermarket. Our car was broken into, the house burgled, we received offensive literature and abusive phone calls. The classic paedophile treatment.' 'At one school, when Lawrence was 12, the bursar said we could not enter the premises. The GP had told the teachers we were child abusers. Lawrence began to be bullied when word got out, and had to leave despite his brilliant academic progress. It broke his heart.' From then on, his parents educated him at home. Then, six years ago, he became desperately ill losing two stone in as many months. He lay in a darkened room listening to Radio 4.

Today, he cannot eat normal food and rests most of the day. No-one really knows what is wrong with him.

This week, Lawrence said: 'It is impossible to imagine how my life would have been without Dr Southall's intervention. All he has done for my family is bring us grief, poverty, danger, isolation and now, I fear, ill-health. 'I am not a bitter person, but I hope and pray that there is a proper inquiry into this doctor, his accusations against innocent parents and his invasive experiments. I say that for my own sake and thousands of other children just like me. The opening of his secret files will be just the start.'"

Elizabetth · 27/10/2007 15:01

link

morocco · 27/10/2007 17:14

read that too elizabetth

all this secrecy - who does it really protect? not even the child according to this

jezzemx · 27/10/2007 17:26

I've seen this woman on the local news (she is from the North East) and in the press. How can they do this??? It's outrageous. It is happening all over again. Can anyone remember the family from Norfolk whos 2 children were taken away and they have had to fight to keep their 3rd (brittle bones in the family) well they have fought long and hard and the family courts were wrong to take them away in the first place.
Looks like this is going to be another miscarriage of justice.

ruty · 27/10/2007 20:04

oh god Elizabeth that is the stuff of nightmares.

bossybritches · 27/10/2007 21:33

I read that first thing Elizabeth & was going to post it but thought I'd get flamed for being a DM reader....

It is as ruty says a NGHTMARE....those poor children

Elizabetth · 27/10/2007 22:20

It was posted on the MAMA board.

Even if you take out the rather dramatic headline and some of the more lurid accusations and try to approach it more objectively remembering there may be two sides, the fact that he was experimenting on children who he was also involved in removing from their parents' care is extremely worrying.

Also if these allegations are found to be true we have to wonder if the authorities finally going to stop climbing on the MSBP/FII bandwagon, because most of the information and guidelines about it are based on work done by Roy Meadow and David Southall. My fear is that the answer is no given that they are already using the FII tag in an attempt to distance themselves from the MSbP scandals.

bossybritches · 27/10/2007 23:34

Hmmmn exactly ...I think it was a thought -provoking article TBH, particularly given our on-going discussions here.

ruty · 28/10/2007 08:57

i wish the producers of Dispatches were reading all of this. The whole thing really needs an urgent indepth and serious journalistic investigation.

bossybritches · 28/10/2007 12:19

ruty we must have some BBC ladies on here or wives/partners of??

Swipe left for the next trending thread