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 was my first thought, plum.

The expert SS are relying on in this case apparently, according to the report, didn't say 'take the baby away'. He said "...if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available that Miss Holton probably does fabricate or induce illness, there would be no option...'. The professionals don't say this, so what the hell are SS doing?

I'm afraid I do find it believable that some sws get carried away - it's happened again and again in MSBP cases.

John Waite is fairly terrier-like and he's on the case. It's a start.

Some shocking stories in that programme

I actually blame our education system. Lots of people can't tell the difference between a sentence which starts with If and one which doesn't.

I'm not being facetious, I really do think a lot of people are a bit thick and don't have the time or the mental training to read stuff carefully and analytically.

LittleBella, I agree. I just read your post to my dh and he agreed and said 'Because people write sloppily they read sloppily too.'

You may be onto something there, Littlebella. My sister has dyslexia. She works with SWs sometimes (she's a nurse) and their writing sometimes makes her look like a professor of English. You'd think a court would be able to spot 'if' though, wouldn't you?

My lack of faith in child protection was confirmed by the former head of the GMC - one of the most eminent doctors in the country. He came under intense pressure to fall into line and condemn a patient of his wrongly accused of MSbP on no evidence at all. He was threatened, basically, for daring to point out 'um, there isn't any evidence, you've ignored the most likely explanation and jumped straight to worst case without any reason'. It's the Salem witch trials all over again. If you don't join in the hysteria, you are evil yourself and will be accused in turn.

And people then wonder why people are afraid to go to their doctors for help when they are not feeling mentally right

I have a friend who had a daughter and then fell pregant with a son. When he was born he was very sick, he had two holes in his heart and he had severe digestive problems. They believed him to be almost totally deaf, and there were other medical problems. he had a long stay in hospital and then came home with his mum, with health visitors keeping a close eye on him. He lost 1oz in one week on his first week home, but the HV's labelled it as 1lbs in the documents (later admitted in court it was 1oz). Anyway, SS removed the boy, and placed him in care. At the same time, the daughter was diagnosed with ADHD and the doctors were worried there were other things as well. It went to court and it was decided that the child should be totally removed from the car of my friend because they felt that she could not cope with his medical problems as well as a daughter with ADHD and other medical issues. The boy is now seven. My friend sees him ocassionally because luckily the family that fostered him actually adopted him, and they maintained a good relationship with my friend, so every so often she is allowed to see him. My friend has now got another child, who is showing signs of having ADHD but my friend worries about asking for help. Since the boy was adopted, it has been discovered by doctors that all the medical issues are related to chromosones (sp) that my friend carries, one thing the children have Di George Syndrome. My friend never had a chance to prove herself as a mother to her son, and I know it affects her deeply.

I did not have any children when this was happening, I now have a nearly two year old daughter, and if anybody tried to take her from me, I think I would spontaneouly combust because I would not cope, I honestly do not know how people move on from terrible things like this.

Little Bella. My cousins social worker is asian and she doesn't write her notes in meetings in English. Not sure what language it is but other people won't be able to look through her notes to see what is going on.

that's tragic, Elf. That poor woman and her poor children.

I hate all this 'adoption is final' bollocks. Just an excuse to get professionals who make mistakes off the hook 'oh, there's nothing we can do anyway...' Maybe you can't take the child away if she or he is settled (although oddly enough there's no problem taking a child away from its own parents where it is settled but you can certainly correct the records, make sure the parent's name is officially cleared and make proper arrangements for contact, just as you would with an absent parent who was back in touch after a number of months or years.

That has to be better for the child than having no contact at all - although would have to be adjusted for each individual. Look at adults who have been adopted and how many are driven to search for their birth parents. The courts seem to think biological parents are unimportant and likely to be worse than the tender care of ss. Which is plain wrong - look at any outcome you choose for children who grow up in state care, we fail them terribly.

. how on earth can the opinion of a paed who has never met this lady overrule the opinion of her treating psychiatrist. OMFG.

Sadly that kind of idiocy is not unknown in our courts system. Common in the family courts where so-called experts such as Roy Meadows 'diagnosed' mothers they had never even met with MSbP. Courts appear to be unable to tell the difference between a paediatrician and a pyschiatrist or understand where the expertise of either might be appropriate. Similar things happening with benefits cases atm, with councils getting away with reports from a company that uses GPs who just look at the paperwork - so have never met the person who needs, eg. rehousing. Luckly think court of appeal has now pointed out lower courts shouldn't just assume one expert = another expert but should actually THINK about whether expert as' evidence might actually be worth more than expert b.

I feel so much for my friend. She had several miscarriages as well, and has always been monitored closely by social services after the son being adopted.
It was the HV's incorrect 1lbs / 1oz thing that led SS to take the child to care, even though the HV's said it was an error later on in court, by that point it did not matter.

It terrifies me what SS's can do. How do they get it so horribly wrong? I know there must be 100's of cases where they are right, but recently we called regarding a family member (long story) where the child is being emotionally abused and tormented, and the mother always drunk, and they told us they couldn't really do anything other than a phone call to see how they were getting on

I've seen this from both sides, I'm an adoptive parent, but years ago a relative of mine had a run in with social services over an innocent domestic accident and it was very distressing although thankfully resolved.

all I can say is the view of the care system proposed by the article is certainly not our experience, I think some very dangerous conclusions are drawn from the numbers.

I am too tired to make any reasoned argument but I'm with chocolatemummy the vast majority of cases are horribly clear cut. I think it is a good thing the system has been speeded up for the sake of the little kids who need a safe, permanent home.

If a woman is told that her baby will be taken at birth, why stay in the UK? If she was to move to Ireland or France to have the baby could social services do anything about that?

That's why I suggested France. They're not as quick to cooperate .

Granny, I'm sure the majority of cases are clear cut. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be protesting about injustice.

But chocolate mummy- even the ways the care assessments are carried out is weighted to the conventional. We have very good reasons for not vaccinating ds2 and ds3. It's not some ill thought out can;t be bothered, it's our choice after lots of careful consideration, and made with ds2 and ds3's best interests at heart. We thought far far harder, and read a lot more before deciding not to vaccinate them, put a lot more effort into that decision than our decision to vaccinate ds1. I hate the way that question forms part of a care assessment. Luckily only ds1 has ever undergone a care assessment and he at least had the first round, if not the boosters. I can imagine the fuss if they clocked that one though. And vaccinations are NOT compulsary in the UK.

As peachy says in some areas (Sunderland springs to mind) a number of children with conditions such as autism (high functioning I think- I doubt SS could cope with non high funcitoning and harder to blame the parents) have been removed from families. Partly because parents have explored valid options such as different diets etc.

It doesn't pay to be non conventional.

This lady was on GMTV this morning with her solicitor, and she was saying the only reason ss have become involved now was because of an incident involving Ex and the police.

It was the police who involved the SS, because of her history.

The fact that this is going on means that Dh and I have actually taken the decision not to ask SS with help for our disabled kids when the baby comes, we feel quite strongly that minimum intervention is now the way to go. DH will take boys to aped when I start to show- how sad is that? Shouldn't be that way at all

This is why i struggled with PND for 2 yeas after DS2 was born. I have a history of self harm and even a suicide attempt wheni was 16 (similar circs to the woman in the link in the OP). everytime i wanted to go to GP for help i woried that they would dig up my past and use that to take my children off me