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

I am a lawyer working in the family Court system.

I represent Local Auhtorities, parents and the children themselves (who are represented independantly by a children's Guardian)

One of the reasons for anonymity in the family courts results from the very personal information that is put before the Court. Psychological and psychiatric assessments of parents, details of their care of previous children, information regarding their past etc. If there is to be a fair and accurate recording of the proceedings and the evidence leading to a permanent removal of a child from a family-that will include all information-much of which will cause the utmost distress to the family involved. To do otherwise would render any report inaccurate.

The Court donot even list cases by name-to avoid the risk of a family being identified.

One of the matters that I have always been concerned about is the use of lay magistrates to determine whether a child should remain with their parents. The stakes are too high in my view and cases of this nature should only be tried by experienced Family Judges.

Wow, chip. I had no idea. The final paragraph of your post is truly chilling - to know that a family's fate may be determined in such a way.

However, there is no secrecy in some places, yet anonymity is still protected.

I should add that many of the cases that come before the Courts and particularly the Magistates Courts are very straightforward cases, where unfortunately there is little option but the removal of a child. There are many cases like this-that of course are of no media interest.

These cases often involve previous removals on good grounds with no acceptance on the part of parents that they need to change anything about their parenting styles. Often the parents have been given multiple chances to change and significant input to make the necessary changes-all to no avail.

There has been discussion about children being removed over issues of domestic violence. I have dealt with a number of cases involving this and the issue usually is the inability of the mother to separate from the abusive partner even though they are aware of the consequences for the children should they remain in an abusive relationship.

Can someone explain to me why we have adoption targets?

That story is so chilling. And so heartbreaking.

I do wonder if there is some way that this poor woman could be pointed to mumsnet for support. The idea of isolating her so she can not even discuss this horribly traumatic experience seems cruel and unusual punishment.

And yet you wouldn't believe the famillies I ahve referreed to SS with a removal recommendation that were rejected due to alck of manpower (kids wandering alone aged 5 at 3am etec etc)- I guess those kids were ahrder to get adoptive aprents for?

You'd be amazed how many SN aprents ahve had the MBPS crap thrown at them, its something I am aware of and terrified of whenever I take ds's to the Paed. IOt's something the school hinted at but fortunately our aped had already dx'd without their input 9as they contradicted themselves too many times)

Poor family

I think the adoption tragets came about due to the amount of children lingering in the care system that had been freed for adoption by the Courts but had not been adopted. (they did not come about because of the amount of potential adoptors and the lack of available children for them to adopt!)

There was great media interest in this a while back. Unfortunately children over the age of four are more difficlut to place. Furthermore the rigourous assessment of potential adoptors meant that many did not make the grade!

I think my DH might have mild depression. He has refused to go to the drs because he's scared they might get social services involved. I thought he was being stupid... until now. That story is absolutely chilling. What kind of country are we living in fgs?!

There has been plenty of evidence that suggests that MSBP does not exist. Yet it still seems to perpetuate in the family courts.

Just how long will it be before they force sterilisation on women who the authorities deem to be unfit to be a mother (without having even trialled her capabilities first).

What a backward step for womens rights.

I find it terrifying. Ds had an unexplained frequent blood in his stools as a little baby, and I have a history of eating disorders and depression, though long recovered, still in my notes. Thankfully we were referred to the right paed and ds's problem cleared up but I dread to think what might have happened in different circumstances or with a different doctor. There needs to be a serious overhaul of the SS in this country.

My mental health placement mentor told me a horrific tale of when she was a CPN- she had to go with the social worker and take a baby from its mother just hours after birth, mother was screaming and begging to hold the baby one last time, then looked at the CPN and said " why are you doing this to me"- she was devastated for the mother and had argued the case for the mother, but SS would not listen.

I think SS is abusing their power and they should be held accountable, not as individuals, but as an organisation.

Fucking Hell if they ever come to my door I'll be out the back with the blue passports thanks to Expats tip. Pity DH doesn't have a blue passport. He'll have to stay.

I am not saying that SS has never got it wrong but I am an example of someone who had severe mental health problems that I never hid and SS never took my child away. THey didn't do much to help either - I phoned them when I moved as I was told by London social services to call as they would need to know I was arriving in their town. I spoke to a duty social worker and informed him I was being "released into the community" he said can you cope - I said yes - although I was seriously unhinged at the time - he said OK we will take you off our books then!!

But that wasn't in the last couple of years was it Twinset? The argument is that they are taking loads more babies away now because of the pressure to meet adoption targets.

it was four to five years ago.

This is so horrible I can't believe what I've read here today. How can a baby suddenly not be related to it's mother any more?

Are the parents then not allowed ever to contact this child, or can they show up waving at the school gates in a few years? And what about the adoptive parents? Do they know they are adopting a child who was stripped away from his/her mother while she was pleading for one more hug?

Now I'm not really the softy sentimental type, but this has well and truly shocked me.

Eleusis, just have him move to Ireland and apply for his greencard from there. He could also come across on another type of visa - I'd have to check but there's one, and then stay in until he gets an SSN, but he wouldn't be able to work till then. Still, you'd be together at least.

This is worth a petition.... unfortunately, I don't know how to start one.

Is Yorkiegirl around? she did start one last year, I think.

I am confused by the original story

It doesn't say how all this has come about. How was she known to SS? hy did the process start? Why was a Dr asked his opinion?

She must have had ties to someone in SS for all this to come about. Her past problems must have still been in the forefront to have involved them or were still involved

It reads that out of blue SS have swooped in. Not sure I can see how that has happend

that is the difficulty in media reporting of these sorts of cases. Undoubtedly the full story is not given-I read papers for these sorts of cases and believe me they are volumionous. It is impossible to report everything-but by leaving matters out-inevitably the account that is given is not the whole story.

I think the main problem is, that medically qualified opinions of people who know her and has treated them have not been considered relevant when compared to a note by a paediatrician who doesn't know her, who is not specialised in the subject, but believes there may be a problem.

The article says the mental health issues were when she was 16.

"Miss Lyon came under scrutiny because she had a mental health problem when she was 16 after being physically and emotionally abused by her father and raped by a stranger.

She suffered eating disorders and self-harm but, after therapy, graduated from Edinburgh University and now works for two mental health charities, Borderline and Personality Plus. "

Quite

A doctor won't diagnose a common cold without seeing you; yet paediatricians are able to diagnose controversial complex mental conditions. When they're paediatricians, not psychologists.

A rum do, that.

Horrifying.

Takes me back to when babies were taken from deaf and disabled parents "just because".

awful, i never know what to make of stories like this, you think that most health professionals and social workers are trying their best in crap circumstances etc but we recently had a case in norfolk where a couple had their children adopoted due to the fact that they had repeated broken bones, they went on to have another baby and fled to ireland so that social services couldnt take the baby.

in the end they came back and were monitered in a mother and baby unit type place where they were deemed suitable parents, it turned out that their older children were unnecessarily adopted as the reason they had numerous broken bones was due to an undiagnosed brittle bone disorder that ran in the couples family.

absolutely shocking, the lost their elder children forever

feel so sorry for this woman xxx

It does seem a bit sus that babies are being taken at birth because of 'potential' abuse whereas non adoptable tearaway kids who are totally neglected and non white kids who are having cigarettes put out on them are left to rot. (or in the case of Victoria Climbe and Leticia Wright, murdered)