Thank goodness for a sensible judge

[Freckle]

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

That should be in this "legal" case....

I think it has horrible echoes of lots of other cases, though. There have been a couple of others in Nottinghamshire - vague memories one involved grandparents being taken to court for contacting their grandchild who was due to leave care imminently...

If you're thinking of the same case as I am Edam, the grandfather was not only taken to court but imprisoned.

Donnie: "I am actually now beginning to regard ss as a dangerous and stealth-run secret organisation with a nasty agenda. "

Just one word: Orkney.

The other possibility, Dittany, is that there are also cases where no-one else ever gets involved because the women involved are too intimidated/vulnerable even to contest the removal.
I think you're right - it would be very dangerous to assume this case is a one-off occurrence.

Dittany-the case was unique because Social services acted unlawfully-they had no legal authority to do what they did-what I was saying is that I (and others who posted later) have spent many years practising in the Family Courts and never have I encountered either myself or amongst my collegues a local authority removing a child without a legal right to do so.

You may argue the rights and wrongs of children being removed at birth and placed in interim care pending assessments-but their removals are not illegal!

That is what makes this case unique-and that is why it has made media headlines today.

From what I can remember, Kathy and Edam, the Grandfather in that case is still in prison.

John Hemming would know more.

(Thanks for all the good wishes)

Belgo - it is not incredible at all - I am saying no more but trust me, they are terrible.

I thought this might be interesting: it's the judgement (regardiing permission to appeal) from the case mentioned earlier where the woman was represented by the "official solicitor" rather than being free to instruct her own representation.

The Daily Mail is full of stuff about the issue today.

thank goodness the judge in the case of the woman (mis) represented by the official solicitor has noticed this is not 'business as usual' where the courts can just proceed on their way without even noticing the existence of the mother, let alone consulting or involving her.

Good to see that the Association for Improvements to Maternity Services -hardly a bunch of hysterics - are concerned about the removal of newborn babies from their mothers on flimsy grounds about theoretical harm.

And interesting that the multi-million pound bonuses paid to SS depts for increasing adoption rates have led to a halving of adoption rates for the over-7s. At face value this strongly suggests social workers are targeting babies and small children.

It is also very sad for the older children in care who now have less chance of being adopted. That is very, very worrying edam. God knows what can be done about it.

(Slightly off topic interjection - apologies...

just wanted to say that I had nothing to do with the Daily Mail article that appeared about us today. We are not "all alone" or "in hiding". Everyone who needs to know where we are does - including Northumberland social services. Nor, oddly enough, am I harbouring any secret desire to return to Hexham - in fact wild horses wouldn't drag me there!

Everything I have done has been done entirely legally, and through the proper channels. It's an extreme option to take - but women who might find themselves in similar situations need to know it's an option for them. It wouldn't be the right choice for everyone - but for Molly and I it most definitely was. I just don't want it being portrayed as if we've run from one nightmare to another. Our life is calm, settled, healthy and happy now. Other women faced with this hell should know this could be a positive choice - not just a lonely last resort.

End of rant. Sorry.

(Before I get lynched - I'm not suggesting everyone involved with SS should emigrate, but that it might be an option for some women)

It must so infuriating to have fictitious stuff appear about you in the press, particularly when the truth is so very different. So glad that you are having a peaceful and enjoyable life.

It was so obviously a story based on No New Information Whatsoever - just recycling an old one with a bit of speculation thrown in.
The article I linked to was meatier, though.

It's not so much that I'm bothered about what it says about me (besides - I voluntarily went to the media so I can't whinge too much ) - it's more that I want other women to know that they do have this choice, if absolutely necessary, rather than have it painted as some god awful last resort.

Absolutely. The sad and lonely picture they paint will not be too helpful to other women in that position.

The article you linked to Kathy was one of the better ones I've seen about the issue as a whole.

There's an awful lot can be said about the "targets" side of it, and not being a statistician, I'm not even going to try and fully get my head around them. It does seem pretty undeniable though, that there intended purpose - the cessation of older children languishing in foster care - has not come to pass.

I pray to God that no-one is so truly egregious as to target babies solely for financial bonuses. I do think though, and even more so now I've experienced another country's approach, that eliminating any financial involvement in these decisions could only be a positive step toward achieving the fundamental overhaul of the system that we so urgently need.

Hopefully, eventually, this issue will reach it's tipping point and things will start to change.

Out of interest (and not because I necessarily think it would be the right thing to do) - does one of the more legally knowledgeable folk on here know why the SW's who took the baby without the appropriate order haven't been charged with any criminal offence?

Dittany I will try and answer your points in your two messages-but I think we are at cross purposes here.

I have never been in a case where reporting restrictions have been lifted-nobody has ever sought it-least of all the parents. I have been involved in cases where the judgment has been publicly available-albeit in an anonymised form to protect identities.

I have never come across a case where a Social Worker has used a PPO to remove a child from the mother in hospital before a Court hearing could be convened-that doesn't mean it doesn't happen-but certainly where I practise-it must be extremely rare.

I have been in many cases where the Local Auhtority has applied for an emergency protection order or an interim care order to prevent the child leaving hospital in the mother's care. In those cases, the hospital usually allows the child to remain-with mother present until the Court has ruled. You didn't ask-but I will anticiptae the question-in some of these cases the application to separate mother and baby has been successfully opposed when other measures for protecting the child have been appropriate (ie the mother and child living with a responsible family member after leaving hospital)

"legal" is not the same as "hunky dory" I don't have the information that Nottingham ss has so cannot possibly comment on the merits of the case. It was the illegality of their acts that I was referring to.

The reason why I think that we are at cross purposes is because I am not saying that it is unique to take a baby from it's mother soon after birth. Clearly it isn't. But it is highly unusual to do so WITHOUT A COURT ORDER which is why reporting restrictions were lifted!

I am not arguing about whether it is right or wrong to take a baby from its mother soon after birth-It is a horrendous thought that this happens but I am sorry to say that in some cases-it is the only safe option. Neither have I said that a "Social Worker's actions must be correct because the courts say they are". Quite often Judges don't agree with the actions of a Social Worker and in my experience are not slow to say so. (Like the Judge in this reported case)

Dittany-do you have some experience of the Family Court System? What makes you think that the decisions of Social Workers are just "rubber-stamped" by the Court? I only ask out of interest.

I agree that these adoption targets should be scrapped -they are not achieving what they were intended to achieve.

Seasidemamma-I am not a criminal lawyer but I am not sure what criminal offence the social worker committed by instructing the medical staff to keep the baby from the mother.-They were clearly acting outside of their statutory powers-but not sure whether that could result in a criminal charge.

Why does the baby have to remain in council care?

This has pissed me off no end. They took the baby illegally. They were made to give him back and now she will have SS hasseling them.