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

that story about the GP is shocking & interesting WWW!

I wonder if he was just some daft old guy speaking out of turn, or if there really had been cases he'd seen where that happened.

I would definitely, definitely, if I had mental health problems in the future, try to deal with it within the family. And if social workers came round for any reason I would be hiding the alcohol and anything at all that might be construed as dodgy in any way.

Shortly after dd was born there were a couple of tv programmes about rather dubious alleged cases of shaken baby syndrome. DH sat there watching these programmes in absolute horror because it was clear that the police were trying to secure a conviction, not to find out what happened to the baby. This led to a paranoid stream of thought in which we reckoned that if anything happened to our baby there were plenty of ways we could be made to look like abnormal or bad parents. Anything can be twisted if someone had an interest in doing so.

'DH and I' sat there watching the programmes in horror, I mean

expat- if you got religion involved here they would say you were brainwashing your child and causing emotional abuse.

Bunglie is not brilliant. She has been away working for a long while as tings have not been good here.

Yes, here they would, professor.

But I would not stay here if I had any bother with the 'system' here because I feel it is sham, inherently unfair and a violation of the human rights of both the children and the parents.

Is there a blog on the telegraph sight - can someone write on it suggesting that the parents come here for support?

That's awful jenk and Profplum.

Kathy, I had completely forgotten about it until I started typing that post in answer to your question. I think he was coming up to retirement but still, I wish I hadn't gone to the gp for help really. And actually it's when one is vulnerable that these things just happen. Like I said, different social worker might have come to a different conclusion (I was completley capable of looking after my ds). He did ask all sorts of questions though - are you eating/sleeping/drinking too mch etc.

So there but for the grace of god etc.

Yet we still have cases like that 4-year-old girl called Laetitia a fortnight ago who was beaten to death by her mother and her mother's boyfriend - who had a known history of criminal violence and drug problems.

OK so who is it that's so determined for the family courts to stay secret, and what are the vested interests/arguments for it?

Obviously social workers would like to stay unaccountable, but I can't believe the government would take much notice of social workers, so there must be more to it than that.

Anyone have a clue what's going on here?

Earlier this year the govt pledged to make family courts more open but have since done a u-turn on it. Have no idea why.

I think there is a Lib-Dem MP who runs a campaign for more open family court proceedings.

It is John Hemming who is chairman of Justice for Families campaign group here: john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/justiceforfamilies.html

I don't know if any of the legal eagles on here could shed some light on this but according to a barrister who wrote in to the Telegraph about this, parents threatened with the removal of unborn children can ask their solicitors to issue wardship proceedings in the High Court the moment the child is born. Supposedly this prevents social services going to court themselves and means the proceedings arn't private (I think).

Don't forget the govt has now imposed adoption targets on SS depts.

Hardly an incentive for putting the welfare of children and families first.

Then perhaps we should all write to our MPs asking for a more open family court system.

I remember my niece was almost put on the at risk register because her temporary cm had had a miscarriage and her relationship fell apart. She contacted ss (for attention it was finally deemed) to say that my DN was highly sexual. The reason.... DN and the cm's son were playing games and kept rolling on the floor. Imagine 3 year olds doing something like that and because she asked the boy how he liked his boiled eggs, soft or hard!

Anyhoo........ there were several ss meetings and I went with my DSis and I took my notebook and wrote everything down incl all their names. Then I asked what would happen next. They said they would decide if she should go on the at risk register. I asked if anyone had looked into the cm (who was there) after all they had questioned my DSis about her sexual activity and what videos she had at home. Their answer... oh no it won't be the cm... she's a registered cm. I told them that if priests, vicars, teachers, businessmen and even policemen could abuse children so could a cm.

They were worried about my copious note taking. My DSis was cacking herself. Fortunately they dropped it all but my DSis took months and months before she relaxed in anyway. She took time off of work and removed her daughter from the temp cm until her regular cm (who was shocked by the whole thing) came back.

I think that the only way things are changed is when a lot of voices rise up.

True Marslady.

But the problem is, the only people who care about this are parents.

And parents are too terrified to stick their heads above the parapet in case they confiscate our children too.

I guess we could all join that campaign that Lib Dem bloke is involved in. Not sure how much lobbying and help it gives parents falsely accused.

I look after a child under the community child minding scheme, nothing untoward with the child but mum has had a few personality disorder problems, was in care herself etc, mum recently fell pregnant and was told she either had a termination or they would take the baby away at birth.

She had a termination last week at 17 weeks as she couldn't bear the thought of giving up her baby

These adoption figures are pretty shocking: john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/2007adoptionfigures.html

Isn't the right to family life a basic human right?

How comes the human rights act don't apply in these cases?

Thanks for the link Callisto.
I see Hemming is making a submission to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Look at this, from Hemming's proposal for change:

"Contact
Telephone contact must never be forbidden. Childrens Social Services must not be able to use contact as a negotiating ploy to stop parents complaining about the services.

Neglect
A cluttered house should not be good reason for a care order. It may be good reason for an order to tidy up the house. Similarly other neglect issues.

Domestic Violence
Whereas an order to keep the violent partner out of the house may have merit, victims of domestic violence should not find that they lose their children because they have reported the domestic violence. "

Heart-breaking, isn't it?

I would leave the country if someone threatened me with that Ali. How totally awful for your friend and what a sickening thing to tell a pregnant woman. I thought social workers were meant to be caring?

At the risk of being tomatoed, I work in this area and am also shocked by the contents of this article.
I find some of it hard to believe actually and wonder how mucn of the article is actually true and how muich is media hype.
There has to be an awful lot of evidence to be able to remove an unborn child especially where the mother has had no previous children because there is no way of knowing that she is a capable parent or not.
There is seemingly much more evidence to suggest that this woman would/could be a good parent than not and Social workers cannot just make the decision at a 10 minute case conference to remove a child (SO I KNOW THAT BIT IS RUBBISH)
After a case conference if every professional present agrees tht level of risk is high enough to go for removal then the key worker has to seek legal advice and it goes to court with all the facts and it is the court that will make the final decision.
Yes there have been a lot of terrible errors in social work over the years that there is no excuse for but social workers like teachers, bakers, bankers whatever are just human beings and people capable of such awful child abuse whether due to mental illness or maliciousness can be extremely good actors and very convincing, IF it was so easy to go around removing children then I suspect most of these tragedys would not have occurred

That's what I've been thinking, Bella.

I mean, a woman used her right to family at court in Strasbourg to try to attempt IVF with embryos made from her eggs and her ex-partner's sperm, so why can't a parent be heard there in order to keep their family together?

I mean, WTF, prisoners' cases are heard at EU human rights court level for having to throw out their own slops.

'I find some of it hard to believe actually and wonder how mucn of the article is actually true and how muich is media hype.'

Sally Clark, anyone? The couple in Northern England who lost three children to permanent adoption and nearly a 4th but were found to have a rare bone disorder?

Sorry, but I don't think it's 'hype' at all and all these children were removed WITHOUT tons of evidence.

Hemming's thing isn't a membership organisation, Bella, so we can't join.

I don't honestly think we would be risking anything by writing to our MPs or whatever. Can we use the power of Mumsnet here, too?
Do you think a group letter from a group of us as members of Mumsnet would have more impact than individual letters? After all, MN seems to be all over the press atm - even the camping threads

I think Mumsnet is becomming increasingly influential and would be a good place to launch a campaign about these cases.
Nobody would get into any trouble for contacting MP's or Governmental offices about this as like I said
" If the article is based on fact then it is shocking"