Thank goodness for a sensible judge

[Freckle]

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

not to mention the irony seems lost on the SS that the mother grew up in care...

Thanks Chipkid. I've just seen lots of references to "kidnapping" and am a bit confused.

I have experience of the Family Courts system (as a member of the public and professionally) and I agree with whomever said that all the courts tend to do is 'rubber-stamp' the social workers wishes. In our case is was a positive thing and worked in our favour, hence we have had GS since he was 5 months old (turned 5 at the end of last year).

Joash were you in the Magistrates or the County Court?

seasidemama - check out your DD's birth announcement thread. Someone wants you to email them. I think they are from a magazine.

Both - started in magistrates and moved to county for the personal experience.
profesionally I have never known a judge go against SS wishes.

It happens quite a bit where I practise-particularly in one Court centre where the Local Auhtority are really put through the mill.

Even in some local magistrates courts they do disagree with the LA where the case is more finely balanced. I suppose the outcome is more often dictated by the children's Guardian's views-we are lucky in my area that they are very independant from the views of the Local Auhtority

Without being flippant - it strikes me as somewhat perverse that these things might end up coming down to where you live, and how your local patch of the system operates.

Is there no way of transporting what sounds like good, sensible and reasonable practice from your area for instance, Chipkid, to those areas where seemingly there are systemic problems?

I agree that the quality of social workers and the attitude of their advising lawyers is different in different areas.

I have contributed to this thread only because I feel it is necessary to give some balance to the knowledge of the system gained from the media.

As I have said before-greater openess would help enormously-and I believe that it won't be too much longer before that happens-Munby J is clearly opening the way for greater reporting of the system-he was also the Judge who allowed reporting restrctions to be lifted in that case with the unexplained injury to a previous child resulting an a Local Auhtority wanting to remove their next child-cannot remember now where it was.

There are some exceptionally good High Court Judges in this Country.

I find your posts really helpful Chipkid - and am grateful for you taking the time.

I hope you're right about the greater transparency not being too far away.

Presumably if the social workers took the child without legal authority, it could be classed as abduction.

Freckle-they didn't take the child though-they instructed the staff not to let the mother have her unsupervised-she was still in the hospital I think.

Seasidemamma-I appreciate your comments-you have experienced it from the frightening end and I am glad that you and Molly are doing so well.

I haven't read everyone's replys.

I'm just glad this baby has finally gone back to it's mother!! I agree she should sue for mental anguish!!

Why should problems in her childhood have anything to do with whether she can raise her child!

Makes me believe what I read about SS's having quotas that they have to reach!

According to this report the baby has been removed again. Surely there has to be a better way to deal with all such cases? It seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Suedonim-unfortunately until anyone is aware of the exact nature of the concerns that the Local Authority have about this mother-it is difficult to say whether there is a better way of safeguarding the child than removing it into foster care.

babies are born sometimes into dire family situations where the risks to them from the people that should be caring for them and protecting them are just too great to take a chance.

Until you know the size of the nut-it is impossible to say whether the sledgehammer is too great a tool.

All the reports state that ss "took" the child or had him "removed". I don't see why that shouldn't be classed as abduction as they had no legal authority to do that - nor to instruct the medical staff to act on their behalf.

It seems very sad that the poor child has been removed again - this time by means of a court order. Surely the mother and child could be supervised??

depends what the problem is Freckle and the level of supervison that is necessary for the child to be safe-depends on what they are worried this mother will do.,
24 hour supervision is not possible unless by a family memeber with whom the child can live. SS cannot provide 24 hour supervision.

It's on the Today programme now.

I don't think the child is back with his mother though is he? He is stil in care and the lovely SW are still fighting to take himoff her.

The Local Authority have applied for, and been granted, an ICO apparently. The judge (a district judge, not Munby J) said that the baby needed to live in foster care whilst further inquiries/assessments were made.

I don't understand why the assessments couldn't have been done whilst she was pregnant though. 40 weeks is a reasonably long time - even allowing for the reluctance to do anything before 20 weeks because the pregnancy may not be viable. Particularly because in this case the mother had only just left their care herself - so must have been aware of the situation.

24 hour supervision isn't required. In hospitals there are nurseries and medical staff around all the time. Why couldn't she have the baby with her during the day when there are plenty of people around and then just have baby brought to her at night for feeding?

There has to be a better way than this.

The original judge, who is privy to all the facts of the case, said there was no evidence of any immediate risk.

It's all very well to say 'oh, the media don't report the full picture'. They aren't allowed to.

I know people who work with SS and in related fields and who have very serious concerns about the way child protection operates. In one case SS were determined to split up a girl and the baby's father - and based this on the fact that the father was 'overinvolved' because he visited his girlfriend and baby in hospital every day. They were quite simply prejudiced against my friend's patient who had a long-term medical condition (not mental illness, as it happens).

One very eminent doctor - about as eminent as you can get - told me he was appalled at the mass hysteria that afflicted SS and every other child protection profession investigating concerns about one of his patients. This was a patient he had known for decades. SS leapt straight for the most extreme theory - MSbP - without considering any of the more likely explanations for the problem. Once they'd mentioned that word, everything was twisted and interpreted to confirm their theory. He tried to point out they were making illogical leaps and should consider the evidence dispassionately. For his pains, he was threatened and told in no uncertain terms to stay out of it.

If they can attempt to bully and shut up one of the most eminent doctors in the country, then what hope is there for ordinary parents?

Thank goodness for a sensible judge

Fran, glad you're ok and not in Hexham.

Hi Freckle,

I don't know if it's the same everywhere but the letter the paediatrician wrote in my case said specifically that hospital staff could not offer supervision as it was neither their job, nor what they were trained for.

I don't know why Social Services can't provide 24 hour supervision though - particularly when risk hasn't been determined but is still being assessed. Surely that would protect both the child's right to safety and their right to their mother until the facts were clearer.

WWW - thank you. We're very glad not to be in Hexham too!