Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

because she is likely to suffer from Munschausen's syndrome by proxy

elizabetth if I thought an apology was due to anyone, I would make it.

You have your view on this situation, I have mine.

My view is that Fran's situation is untenable, that doesn't mean I believe she is totally right or totally wrong, like you and others on here I do not know.

I have been honest and stated from my viewpoint as a professional what has occurred in some situations and what may occur. NOT in this situation.

I will not venture further information/knowledge regarding cause for concern and the subsquent procedures. I am sure it can be googled at leisure and the results used appropriately or inappropriately as the case may be.

I don't think it's a slanging match because the insults only seem to be coming from one direction.

I think it is a good example of what women in these positions face when they dare to question professionals or refuse to agree with the professional that the professional knows what's best for the child - insults and character assassinations and obviously much worse. Clearly it doesn't happen in every case but there does appear to be an abuse of power going on.

Fair point, Elisabetth. It has already been said on this thread but the closing of ranks and defence of current practice happens in every profession and is the reason that lawyers, accountants, doctors etc are regulated and made accountable for their actions. Social workers should be too.

Despite all this, I find it hard to believe that after all that has happened that MSbP is still used in this way and that so many people on here are defending its use.

Worse still Hexham children's services are using the possibility that Fran Lyon might suffer from it in the future as a justification for telling her that her baby will be taken from her at birth.

have just returned and have seen all these posts. Just to clarify bossybritches-the hearing is closed to the public-not the eprson against whom the proceedings are brought!! Some hearings are held ex-parte where there is no notice to the person against whom allegations are made-but only in exceptional circumstances and a full hearing has to be convened within days.

I do not profess to know all the facts in this situation elizabetth,and have never attempted to pretend I do.

My posts have been honest regarding my knowledge and experience. If you choose to regard my concerns regarding my interpretation of your posts and questions for 'specifics' about procedures as slanging, then so be it.

I hope you use the information gleaned from here in your attempts to better the procedures for taking an at risk child either into care or being subject to the rigours of ongoing assessment.

I do not feel guilty or embarrassed for anything I have done during the course of my work.

It doesn't mean I have necessarily agreed with everything and we should all try to improve the services we offer.

Aha thanks chipkid -pretty obvious really me just being thick!

Just something Fran said about not being allowed to attend and/or speak at a hearing, probably just a case conference not a court job.

Upwind & Elizabeth you have both raised very interesting points, as have many others, it's really been a good debate this, I hope we've raised Frans profile a bit, & others in this situation.

in answer to Elizabetth I have indeed knowledge of a number of cases in which the Judge refused to take children into care after careful scrutiny of the evidence.

Hope that helps

Can I just jump in No Nmae & say it was ME who used the term slaning match as I feel you & Elizabeth both have interesting & valid points but nit-picking doesn't forward the arguments!

After all that is the role of the Judge-to make the ultimate decision.

Social workers have a tough job to do-they have to make judgement calls knowing that if they get it wrong the circumstances can be tragic.

Chipkid it IS a tough judgement call, but that is their job & if they can't do the job properly & be open to public scrutiny then they shouldn't do it!! I have met quite a few brilliant/good social workers in my time but a lot of them I have to say (& not all in the childcare field) are control-junkies who enjoy the power they wield.

Thank you for that bossybritches.

"in answer to Elizabetth I have indeed knowledge of a number of cases in which the Judge refused to take children into care after careful scrutiny of the evidence.

Hope that helps"

Not really, you could be talking about three cases in three thousand. The reason I ask is that there appears to be an assumption that there are all these checks and balances in the system in place that protect parents and children. I'm wondering if that's true or whether the family courts are a rubber stamping exercise. At a rough guess what percentage of care orders do you think get turned down (in your experience, you don't have to speak for the whole of the family court system).

With regards to Fran's hearing to have her daughter taken, won't it be the case that she won't be there because she will be in hospital recovering from giving birth? As I understand it the social workers are immediately going to zoom to the court as soon as the baby appears.

Yes that's the worry Elizabeth-whether or not it's likely to happen I think that's what Fran has been lead to believe or has deduced (rightly or wrongly) from her meetings with the ss.

I am going to bow out of this discussion I think as there appears to be an assumption that if a Care Order is made it is the wrong decision.
which is plainly not the case. Or certainly is not my experience.
You ask ask me about my experince of the number of care order applications turned down and what percentage they are of the total number of applications.

I have repeatedly said it on here that in the VAST majority of cases-there is no realistic option but to make a Care Order. Despite popular belief that Social Workers are after babies to meet their adoption targets it is my experience (over 16 years if that matters) that social workers generally try everything they can to keep families together. By the time a case reaches Court it is usually because every other avenue has been tried and has failed. There is no other option for the child other than to continue to receive woefully inadequate parenting or to suffer the worse kinds of abuse.

Very few cases are what we call "borderline" and I would say that more often than not in my experience the parents are given a further chance by the Courts too.

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act allows a person to have a fair trial. Arrangements will undoubtedly be made for Fran to attend her own hearing. In cases involving newborn babies-the hospital will usually allow a mother and baby to stay on the premises until the Court has decided whether they will sanction the removal of a child to fostercare.

chipkid, thank you for your valid and honest contribution to the thread.

You know going off in a huff because I asked you a direct question that you could give a direct answer to doesn't really help. Nobody said that the vast majority of care orders are wrong however you were defending what is being done to Fran, saying she'll have her day in court and that ultimately the judge will decide. If it turns out however that the family court part of the process is in reality a rubber stamping exercise (and that appears to be what you are saying now) then complacent reassurances aren't helpful.

The point about the Family Courts is that they very likely did get it wrong in quite a few cases that Sir Roy Meadow was involved in, so this bland argument that "fair trials" go on there is simply untrue. The facts say otherwise.

As for the idea that social workers try hard to keep families together, well not in this case apparently.

yes, there are control junkies who enjoy the power they wield in many caring professions unfortunately. As well as many brilliant and compassionate people too. I really think it is often pot luck which kind of person you come across.

I am not in a huff Elizabetth I simply donot wish to continue to contribute to a thread that I feel is bordering on the hysterical and does not represent the reality of the situation in most care cases.

I was hopeful that I could shed some light on the actual procedure as there appears to be some confusion in places. However I feel I am being dragged into a discussion that I donot wish to really enter-but definitely not flouncing.

oh read your last post again at no point have I said that the family court is a rubber stamping exercise or that I agree with what is happening to fran (I have no view I have not read the full faacts)

But Elizabeth this & the cases you are referring to ARE in the minority, following chipkids statement which is heartening. There must be HUNDREDS every day that are justified & swiftly sorted. Unfortunately for the people involved it IS tragic if it's (in rare cases) a bad judgement call.

Not saying it's right- even ONE wrongly split up family is too much. However it isn't an exact science.

I do however think there needs to be more openess in the Family CoCurts to enable people to have confidence in the system.

Sorry COURTS

it is quite right that there should be two sides of the argument and that both sides have been rigorously debated here. But there has been no more hysteria on one side any more than the other TBH. If any at all.

Ruty that is SO true!

Chip please stay your comments are illuminating & I'm sure we all agree hysteria is not the way to go.(although it IS difficult to stay calm on such an emotive subject. )

it's good to try & understand the procedure both for Frans case AND anyone else we may be party to/involved with in the future.

Chipkid, if the family courts almost always grant care orders then yes, they are a rubber stamping exercise. They certainly didn't act as a check on Sir Roy Meadow. It took a a public trial for that.

As for the "hysterical" label, I'll file that with the "nuts" that got tossed out earlier in the thread. It appears that people who don't have much of an argument are reduced to insults.

mot a rubber stamping exercise if the granting of a care order is the right outcome