Thank goodness for a sensible judge

[Freckle]

How dare social services think they are above the law? Well done that judge.

Waves across the sea to Fran and babe - is it Molly? So glad you're both well

seasidemomma - really, really nice to hear from you. So glad that things are going well for you both

Hopefully this girl will have a similar outcome as well.

seasidemama even

Hey seaside, glad to hear from you and thrilled it is all going so well!

The Guardian report makes it clear it was ten hours before the mother in the case reported today was reunited with her baby. Ten of the baby's first 12 hours on earth. Shameful. God alone knows what the poor woman was going through.

Also in a horrible echo of Fran's case, the SWs presented hospital staff with a 'birth plan' saying the baby had to be removed. They had no right to do this. But they convinced midwives and doctors to fall into line.

Thankfully the switched on judge pointed out that actually SS owed a duty of care to the mother, as a care leaver. So they were abandoning their legal responsibilities. Two lots of law breaking in one case.

But there is hope in another case reported in the Guardian and referred to on previous threads:

"Yesterday, the court of appeal granted an unmarried mother, whose child was put up for adoption against her will, the right to challenge her treatment in the courts.

"The 22-year-old woman argued that her human rights had been breached when she was represented in court by the official solicitor, who consented to a care order, after a psychiatrist decided she lacked the mental capacity to instruct solicitors.

"She was unable to speak at the final hearing, rebut claims or give evidence. Her appeal against care and placement orders will now be heard by the court of appeal."

Hopefully the court of appeal can sort this mess out - their rulings are binding on lower courts.

I hope the woman's solicitor takes action against the hospital as well. So that the NHS realises that its staff are not compelled to just follow SW's orders. The NHS should check whether SWs have legal authority before falling into line.

this is really horrifying. I am actually now beginning to regard ss as a dangerous and stealth-run secret organisation with a nasty agenda. God hope I never need to contact them.

donnie - that's another point to this whole affair - that people (not you, just generally ) won't ask for help if they feel that they need it because they are terrified that SS will march in and steal their children!

ss does a lot of very very good work in tricky circumstances

but when things go wrong they can go very wrong

will be interesting to see how that guardian case is reported in the legal press (i'm afraid you often don't really get the full picture in the normal press) - it can't be "a psychiatrist" who decides that someone doesn't have mental capacity - they can't appoint the official solicitor - it must have gone in front of the court of protection - there is obv a bit more going on there than that article would suggest

Brilliant to hear that you and Molly are doing well, Seasidemama!!!

I have to say, taking a newborn baby from the mother against her will when the child is minutes/hours old is utterly barbaric and the sort of event that I would associate with a Hitler style regime. How shameful that it could take place in Britain in 2008 .

If SS had concerns for this woman and this baby, then the pair of them need to be put into some kind of mother and baby unit TOGETHER and supervised. Not separated. I feel so sad and sorry for this woman. Whatever the situation, they should have been cared for and supported together. I cannot imagine the pain of having a newborn snatched like that and I cannot imagine how it would possibly help the woman with any existing problems that she may or may not have.

I agree with you Crokky.

People are always insisting that social services don't take the removal of a child lightly. Well, if you ask me the whole system, even when it is operating properly, takes the removal of children lightly - for it to be done in closed courts, in situations where it is hard for the mother to oppose it effectively (eg because she has just given birth, or because she is scared SS may limit her access if she contests it), and even for mothers to be separated because there aren't enough places in mother-and-baby units, is all inexcusable given the vast suffering caused to both mother and baby by separating them.

agree.

I agree that the Closed nature of family Courts and press coverage of these extreme cases leads to a level of distrust in a system that by and large operates fairly and reasonably in protecting children.
I would welcome greater openess-and I practise in the system-so long as reporting is full and accurate and annonymity is maintained for the sake of the child or children.

Sometimes it is necessary to remove children immediately after birth(and I am talking generally and not about this recent case) if there is a need for 24 hour supervision of the child with the mother. These cases are thankfully rare. When children are removed as babies it is usally at the point when both are deemed well enough to leave hospital, but there are child protection concerns surrounding the care that the child would receive in the community.

Mother and baby units are an excellent facility-but they will not take children who require round the clock supervision-that is not their function. They are there to allow assess a parent's ability to provide care for a child in a supported environment to ensure that the child would be properly cared for in the community by that parent.

A mother and baby unit is not the answer in every case-there are plently of cases where a mother has undergonegone a range assessments leading to the Court concluding that she cannot safely parent her children, who then goes on quickly to have another baby-the assessments recently undertaken are still relevant in looking at whether the mother could safely parent the baby. A mother and baby unit will tell the Court nothing new in those circumstances.

I don't doubt that there are rare cases in which a baby has to be removed, but the secrecy of the courts means that if something goes wrong a mother has little means of getting justice [for the child too - a life in care and foster care is pretty rubbish for children lets face it] And the fact that the system has not had an overhaul since recent cases of injustice have been revealed is very, very worrying.

BBC are reporting that SS are going to apply for an interim care order at Nott. family court. Can they not spend the same time and energy and money arranging proper supervised care for the mother and baby together?

She was brilliant to call a lawyer - let's hope the SW won't get a court order

Why are they trying to take the baby anyway?

Peta bog it would depend upon the area of concern-ie.what they know about this mother that makes them believe that the child is at risk. Before they can get an Interim Care Order they have to establish that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm if the Order is not made and then it has to go on to consider whether there is any other form of order short of an ICO that would safeguard the child.

A residential assessment would be of no use for example if the concern was that a mother is living with a man who had previously seriously injured a child-and the mother was intending to leave hospital to live with that man. Clearly the child has to be protected from the risk of physical harm in those circumstances.

By the way that is an example and not about this specific case. Nobody knows what the concerns of the Local Authority are given the confidential nature of these things

I hate SWs with a passion. (sorry)

The fucked up my life and they think they are a law unto themselves.

The Times report says the mother has just left local authority care. She was taken into care after running away from her parents' home and starting to take drugs.

The judge said: 'There is no suggestion in the documents shown to me so far that the risk the mother is posing is a risk of exposing the the child to immediate physical attack and physical harm.'

So why did SWs take it upon themselves to snatch this baby within minutes of its birth? Why did they flout the law so brazenly?

There is a pattern of poor decision making and irrationality that runs throughout the various miscarriages of justice in the public domain - and no doubt plenty of others that we never get to hear about.

Until we have a full, frank, open public inquiry into the way child protection services operate these extreme cases will continue to happen.

Because she is an easy target?

thanks chipkid. Obviously that example makes sense. She has 'mental health problems' apparently. I guess we have to hope she has as generous and enlightened psychiatric assessment as possible.

so do one in four of the population at some point. The judge said: 'There is no suggestion in the documents shown to me so far that the risk the mother is posing is a risk of exposing the the child to immediate physical attack and physical harm.'

It's the thinking processes of SS we should really be concerned about.

In this case Edam I think everybody is in agreement with you!