Woman to have baby taken away at birth...

[SharpMolarBear]

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

could i ask a question?

is there anyone on this thread in full possession of the facts that have lead to this ruling?

No of course not Sophie but we have Fran's side & it seems quite reasonable. HAve you read her web-site?

only asking for a chance

ni agree. most social workers would quite like to have a body come in and remove the dead wood from the service.
there are a great number of old school Sw's that really havent got a clue. they are set in their wasy and have no idea about teh real world anymore.

but they are in teh minority and yet get the most attention.

right.

you have a website by the woman in question and her posts on here.

are you all completely nuts?

Sophable, thing is there have been so many clearly established miscarriages of justice. All on the same theme. Repeating the same mistakes. So I'm not happy to take it on trust that all is for the best in the best possible world.

Sally Clark. Angela Cannings. Trupti Patel. Bunglie, FGS - spot a theme here?

No and neither is she just asking for her case to be heard openly and fairly as is her right as a british citizen.

OK if you think she IS nuts what about the rights of the child? Does she not deserve at least to have her first few days with her mum in a M&B unit where they can assess her?

I'm not so naive as to ignore the risk that she is manipulating her audience but I have dealt with enough mental health issues to know she still has rights as a mother.

edam, you know how difficult it is to take a child away from it's parents now? you do understand that don't you?

and it's all a misogynist conspiracy. maybe.

but the fact is, you know fuck all! you know what a desperate woman has posted on here and on her website!!!!

i agree that there have been some awful disasters within this field BUT this ladies account account just doesn't make any sense given what i KNOW must have taken place to have reached a failed appeal stage.

i didn't say SHE was nuts. i have no fucking clue whether or not she is a risk to her child.

i am saying that YOU are nuts to be so indignant on this thread based on nothing but a desperate mothers' evidence and accusing social services of misogyny and conspiracy.

sophable we have been having a reasoned debate. I know it's a contencious subject but there's no need to turn it into a slanging match.

What's your take on this then?

Apart from disagreeing with us?

Apologies ok ....We are the nut-cases glad we cleared that up.

i'm not turning this into something other than disagreeing with the consensus on this thread.

it is VERY difficult to get this kind of ruling. obviously there is more to this. i have no idea if this is miscarriage of justice...it is unlikely but not impossible.

but the level of mumsienet oooo lets all band together for this poor woman against those wicked wicked social services and their grand vizier psychiatrist buddies is nuts.

Well gee thanks Sophable. Guess that puts me right in my place. I'll just trust that there is nothing wrong with a system that protects the people who let Victoria Climbie be murdered, that tried to silence one of the most prominent doctors in the country when he dared to object to a witch-hunt, that lets the Rochdale sws keep working, that hushed up the cases in the family courts resting on Roy Meadows' evidence...

If it doesn't bother you, fine, go off and do something that does interest you. But don't tell me not to care about miscarriages of justice.

lol soph - its great to know your on our side

and edam, no i'm not spotting a theme. i'm spotting four news stories. terrible tragic news stories but their rarity is why they make the news.

have no idea whether the diagnosis credited or not but is a very wounded individual capable of hurting their child and pretending it is sick....absolutely 100%

Ok mamazon talk us thoruhg the procedure that leads to an appeal being turned down. Obviously you can't comment on this case but what's the sequence of events?

(genuinely interested here BTW-trying to understand.)

sophable it's not a witch hunt against SS
it's the right for a woman to have her child & be assessed fairly, There are far worse situations than this that allow mothers &babes to stay together under supervision.

Oh for heaven's sake, you don't have to be a victim of Roy Meadows to know that there are very, very serious systemic failures that have not been addressed. Hence, any current cases that have features in common with established miscarriages of justice are open to question.

you are basing your evidence for a miscarriage of justice on the accused posts and website.

if it was a murderer not a mum would you be as indignantly self righteously sure of your correct miscarriage of justice diagnosis.

this is on here because the thought of having a baby taken away at birth is unbearable.

that is it.

there are miscarriages of justice. however, based on the evidence you have, i don't get why you are so convinced this is one?

i think that what Soph was getting at is that whilst we are aware of previous poorly handled cases there is nothing but the mothers statement to say that there has been anytghing handled badly here.

both myself and wannabe have said that there is a great deal of procedurla stuff that MUST have occured prior to her getting to this stage which she has not mentioned.

whilst we should always support a lone fighter against a givernment machine, we must also appreciate that if the lone fighter has an agenda it may be that we could join a fight that should not be fought.

Great talking to you ladies but I must hit the sack.

I would still like to have that procedure explained Mamazon if you have the time, it's obviously complicated. Thanks.

The point is those tragic stories are not unconnected. The legal system has recognised that they are real problems with, for instance, the use of expert witnesses - there's been recent guidance on this. And guess what, expert witness evidence is relevant in this case.

The review of MSbP cases brought before the family courts after the Clark case was exposed as a miscarriage of justice was woefully inadequate. There are very good reasons for questioning current custom and practice.

But clearly we should all just listen to Sophable and not worry our pretty little heads about it.

when she was first bought to teh attention of SS she would have had an assemsent visit.
if teh SW was concerned they would have had a meeting with their line manager.
they would both go visit again and the baby would be placed on an at risk regsiter.

they would have frequant case meetings involving the lady's GP and midwives. and any other agencies involved with her care.

if after frequant vistis and meeting ( and i really do mean frequant not just one or 2) then a decision would be made at a senior level to proceed with legal proceedings to admit the child into care.
the mother woudl be informed of this and would be given teh oppertunity to seek legal representation.

the hearing would hear from all involved including anyone the mother wanted to call on her behalf.
a judge would rule given teh facts in front of him/her.

none of this happens over night.

just to add, i am not a child protection officer i work within the youth justice system ( or at least i did lol) so my knowledge is not first hand.

but obvioulsy i have experiance from teh side of teh child.
if that makes sense.

basicly if a CPT officer is on here they can explain it in great er detail.