Thank goodness for a sensible judge

[Freckle]

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

Assuming that the mother and baby are ready for discharge-the only way that a 24 hour supervison could be afforded by Social Services would be a mother and baby foster placement-ie they both move into foster care together pending assessments. (not even sure that this resource would be deemed appropriate if 24 hours supervison was required)

Again this resource is limited and I have found that quite a few young mothers refuse such an option as they wish to be able to live independantly.

It depends on the nature of the risk that SS are looking to guard against as to whether this would be a suitable option in this case.

I know they are few and far between but I thought some M&B units did offer 24 hour supervision if necessary. Certainly the Cassel do - though their fate hangs somewhat in the balance these days. I thought St John's in Bristol (I think) did too.

I have to say that if a mother refuses a joint foster placement then I'd be inclined to rapidly lose empathy. I'd have lived on Mars with half the world's satellites trained upon us if necessary.

Yes, I realise there are life-or-death cases, Chipkid, but from appearances it seems a matter of of one size fits all when it comes to solutions, whether that's the actual case or not.

I, too, wondered why the mother and baby couldn't be placed together in foster care, especially as the girl has only just come out of care herself.

I understand that no one knows all the facts, I just have a visceral reaction to the very idea of separating a mother and her newborn.

With all due respect 'greater transparency' = BULLSHIT!!
I walked away after working with SS for over 20 years. Every new aspect of training, every yearly influx, every new shake-up, every new management overhall, etc, etc - all speak about 'greater transparency'. It will not, and never will happen.
Many, many Social Workers have appalling attitudes to those they purport to help (regardless of whether this is in child protection or any other area).
Those relatively new to the 'profession' go in with the belief that they can change the system within. However, in a seemingly short period of time, they realise they can't do a thing and either leave or conform - some without even realising it.
With targets to meet, they work to ensure that they meet targets in order to keep funding rather than helping those who are really in need.

Suedonom-your recation I share-the thought of not being able to take the baby home from hospital is unbearable.
It is all to do with propotionality.
Clearly MunbyJ did not consider on the face of the papers that this mother posed a sufficient risk to this child within the confines of her hospital ward to merit separation at that point
However when the child is to be taken out into the community it is a whole different ball game-which is why an interim care order was ultimately felt appropriate by the District Judge.

Obviously he/she felt (whether rightly or wrongly) that the risks to the child in the community were such that a foster placement was a proportionate response to the risk.

We don't know what that risk is.

oldstraighttrack - are you deliberately leaking confidential information? If so I hope someone who works in social services notifies the appropriate authorities and steps are taken to track you down (no pun intended).

Does anyone know if this is illegal under data protection laws?

The girl was in the care of social services so therefore, why do they need time to carry out more assessments?

I don't have all the facts but my reaction is that social services have failed her. She needs support and she needs to be given a chance to be a mother to her child. She was in their care and it seems to me that they have done very little to help her but I know I speak from a position of not being privy to all the facts.

OST how come you've seen the SS reports? Guessing you haven't, so how do you know what they say? Genuinely interested, not being aggressive btw.

spokette-this is not the end of the journey for this mother and baby-it is just the beginning-there is a long process to go through before anybody decides whether this mother and baby can be together.

It really depends on what the risk is as to whether that could be actively assessed during pregnancy or whilst this mum was in the care system herself.

seasidemamma

sad]

A bit here too. As with so many things - it shouldn't be like this. Life goes on, however.

The Court of Appeal case involved someone being totally excluded from the legal process as an individual.

It will not surprise people to know that I am the anonymous MP referred to in the judgment.

It may surprise me to know that this happened for 340 adoptions from 1/1/6 to 22/10/7. (When I asked the Official Solicitor)

Sorry "It may surprise people". It did surprise me.

I am allowed to say where - yes. Can I be rude and ask why you want to know though?

The G case in Nottingham demonstrates another aspect of the system.

A foster placement for a baby costs about £500 per week. For mother and baby say £800 and a supervised assessment centre can cost £6000 per week (no idea how they come up with these figures).

That means that the courts accept dividing mother and baby because of the cost. My personal view is that it is part of preventing a proper bond between mother and child. That makes it easier to get the baby adopted.

I think they over price keeping mum and baby together intentionally. This sort of game is often played in local government. I have been a City Councillor for 18 years and was in 2004-5 Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council so I am used to these ploys.

yes it must be terribly divisive to the bonding process to have early separation for a period of time for anyone, let alone someone young and vulnerable. It is appalling.

i think it is right to be fixated on protecting the child though. I think the problem is that some of these decisions and actions are being steered by something other than just a desire to protect the child [ie funding, meeting targets for adoption, etc] And also the need for children and babies to stay with their mother is being undervalued, and there is obviously not enough support for this to happen.

you mean me or seasidemama? I know very little about it, don't think I would offer much that I haven't said here. Edam may know more...