A mother on the run

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

Snappy, I didn't actually say that, now did I?

I said that the magistrates' courts don't "send" abusive men back to their abused partners. DV is viewed very seriously in the courts, more so these days than in the past - so maybe your own case pre-dates this.

I never said the system was infallible or always well-intentioned.

People seem to be getting a bit confused between the actions of social workers and decisions of the courts.

On another note, who would you like the courts to be open and accountable to? Bossybritches, there is not much point in a gagging order where hearings are open and anyone can find out exactly what went on with whom anyway.

Also, of course social services will consider taking a child away if there is violence in the home - how can you not think that is appropriate???

Poor woman - regardless of the rights and wrongs in the case, surely just the fact she obviously feels so unsupported that she feels the need to run is bad enough?

Hope I'm not out of line here but, seeing John Hemming on here, if anyone thinks these kind of things are very isolated cases I highly recommend signing up to his newsletter (by email), I've been getting them for a couple of months and they're fantastic, if quite scary as well! There's so many cases of people being mistreated in the family courts and however sceptical you are of the parents, there's no way social services/courts can be whiter than white in each one.

If there was more transparency, it would be easier for bad decisions to be challenged (and no court can get it right every time), while genuinely 'at risk' children could be seen to be protected.

hectic mum, I don't agree. How would transparency help the decisions to be challenged? Who would challenge them?

Soo what's the relationship between John Hemmings and this????

"Millionaire MP John Hemming revealed last night how social workers had threatened to place his newborn baby daughter Isabel on an at-risk register.

The father of four is furious at their behaviour during an investigation into why Isabel?s mother, 30 year old Emily Cox, had not registered the death of a stillborn baby when she was a teenager.

Mr Hemming 45, said the officials even tried to question his mistress Miss Cox as she went into labour in hospital last week. ?It was harassment. They are acting like the Gestapo?, he said. The social workers later recommended that the infant should be placed on the child protection register but it is understood that this has been withdrawn. "

From the Mail on Sunday 2005, I believe?

Just curious how this dovetails???

i missed this thread when it started,but had to comment on freckles post-
'doesn't help matters when victims of DV take back the men who have abused them, but it is very rarely the magistrates who are "sending" the men back. The CPS will pursue charges of DV even when the victim has retracted their statement and indicated that they are not prepared to support the prosecution case. '

have you been a victim of domestic violence?

alot of cases go to court and the perpetrator gets a fine and sent to 'anger management'.thats really helpful.

threatening women in abusive relationships with SS does nothing to help them or the children,as mamazon said they just stop screaming

what would help however,would be to lock these men up and give them the same sentences they would get if they assaulted a random stranger in the same way.

Pan that was 2005 - what relevance does that story have today?

John Hemming has done (& still does do) amazing work highlighting these injustices in the family courts & the treatment of those with past mental health issues.

Bessie - if details (not necessarily the child's name but at least basic facts of the case) were allowed to be discussed and publicised, the parents involved wouldn't feel like they could harm their case by speaking out (like many apparently fear now), they could get more advice and support - that's on a specific scale. On a more general scale, if the public could see the ins and outs of the family courts then if and when justice wasn't being done, it could be protested against, like many others things are, and be changed that way.

I don't see how it helps anyone that a mother (for example) who's had her child taken away and feels its a complete injustice then feels she can't talk to anyone about it and that she has no avenue to fight the decision, apart from running away.

Exactly hecticmum- all other professions have open scrutiny & constant training & discussion of their methods, using research based practice. If the SS are keen on being seen to be doing their job properly (paid for by us the tax-payers incidentally!!) then why not open the family courts?

Bessie if an "expert witness" could be challenged, (like Southall say or Mariettta Higgs back in the 80's)at the time they had been giving their evidence based on their own research, then it would save a lot of heartache. Other professionals might say hang on I have THIS bit of research that says XYZ opposite to that. It would sharpen up the practice of a lot of those dealing with the Family COurts if they were under scrutiny.

hecticmum-there is an appeal process even in the secret family Courts. Many many parents feel that the decision to remove their child is unjustified-almost every parnet I have represented who has lost their child feels this way. It is a natural reaction-and I am sorry to say-often it is their inability to see anything wrong with their past parenting that lends to the view that nothing will change for the children should they remain at home.

im shocked
i agree with the comments. there are many woman stay with abusive husbands jsut for this simple reason. why? its not fair?

Bessie, "Of course social services will consider taking a child away if there is violence in the home"?

Why not take away the violent person?

As for appeals, as far as I can see there is no appeal once your children have been adopted. That was certainly the result of the so-called investigation into family court cases after the Sally Clark/Angela Cannings and other miscarriages of justice. The then children's minister said 'oh dear, too late to do anything about it now, the children are adopted'.

Gives you so much faith in the system.

BossyB

Well, the story may or may not be relevant to Mr Hemming's "campaign".

But, the OP milliec is a councillor in Birmingham and lives there. John Hemmings is a Birmingham MP. He posted on here hours after the OP was made, which is pretty sharp for a poster who has posted 26 times (incl. these ones) since Aug 2006.

Just smelled like a bit of a trojan horse scenario, over an entirely uncorroborated story reported in a rag known for it's "shock horror" approach to journalism.

I know there's an appeals process but the whole secrecy element makes it hard for this to be effective for those who really have been short-changed by the system. The ones that haven't aren't going to gain anything by a more open system, the judgement should still hold up for them. However, if, as I and many others believe, while NOT being in the parents position (so not having the same emotional bias, there are quite a few wrongful decisions made, greater transparency would help to change those.

There are many imperfect judges, lawyers and social workers, but generally having their work scrutinised by anyone who wants to helps keep mistakes to a minimum and justice up. Take away that balance and mistakes/bad judgements can't be rectified.

Also, look at it from the other angle, what if mistakes are being made that leave children with unfit parents? Surely more scrutiny can help there too.

Plus it helps to get advice from more than one place, just look at MN for a case in point, people come on here every day for advice that technically they should get from a professional but there's solidarity in numbers, sharing a problem with 'outsiders' often helps to solve it or point out any errors.

For me it boils down to not being able to think of one single instance where having a secretive court leads to better outcomes than a more open one. As I write that I can't help thinking of Guantanamo Bay - courts may be out to do the right thing but it doesn't mean they're going about it the right way and in the end only the public can judge because we are the people it affects, so if the public can't check whether a system is working or not then that, to me, sounds dangerous whether mistakes are being made or not.

Well I don't count the postings Pan, but John H has been on here several times with Milliec, myself & many others discussing the Fran Lyon case amongst all the others.

I agree the source of the story if one is only depending on the mail could be dicey but as milliex in the op said if only half of it is true its horrifying & we KNOW scenarios like this ARE happening every day.

Not sure what you are implying really.

Hecticmum well said I've repeated this arguement on many a thread but it's nice to hear it put a lot more eloquently than my tired brain can produce!!

I shall catch up with you all tomorrow, interesting discusion- good night !

Wow, thanks, if I'm eloquent after the 2nd day of half-term I call that extremely good going And completely agree, even if the Mail story was utterly made up, it still echoes many cases that go on all the time.

what sort of cases go on all the time?

Pan, John Hemmings has posted on MN before, as Bossy says. And he has been the victim of personal attacks for daring to bring up these cases.

As for the Daily Mail, you may hold whatever opinion you like about the paper, but they are doing something positive by helping to bring these issues out into the open. Secret justice is no justice.

They do have a somewhat positive record in some cases of injustice, you know. Look at the Stephen Lawrence case.

Stephen Lawrence case. That will be the one were they produced photos and names of all 5 accussed, on the front page, detailed some of the prosecution case against them, thereby ensuring the defence barristers could use the argument that a non-prejudiced trial could be had??

Yeah, right, because the chances of any of the little buggers ever being tried for the killing are so high, aren't they?

sorry edam, bit unsure of that bit > - weren't they indeed tried and not convicted?? Or was there not a trial?? You are having me doubt my memory ( or comprehension skills!)

and this is a quote from the Guardian at the time...

Cynics can also point to a very belated conversion by the Mail. Until yesterday, the Mail's coverage of the shameful killing had been somewhat peripheral. The murder was only mentioned in three stories in the last year before the inquest, only six the previous year, and just 20 since the murder was committed. Moreover, compare yesterday's leader with the paper's editorial shortly after the murder which, while hoping the guilty would be caught, was quick to sneer at the supporters campaigning for the Lawrence family: 'What is not helpful is the gusto with which the more militant of the anti-racist organisations have hijacked this human tragedy. The black African leader Nelson Mandela was enlisted, while on a visit here, to give publicity to the case. Racism is abominable . . . but is there not also something contemptible about professional protesters who capitalise on grief to fuel confrontation?'

Sorry for hijacking.

But Pan, that was releasing details before the trial was even conducted. If however the details had been given after they'd been given in the trial it wouldn't have affected the actual case at all, and would have been perfectly ok. Also, nothing stopped the accused talking about the case if they'd wanted to, because the court wasn't conducted in severe secrecy. Some details were supposed to be kept more confidential than they were but the criminal court process itself was open and able to be looked into.

That's what I'm talking about here, I'm not advocating leaking details before a trial even occurs but acting in the same way most courts act, that an accused person has the right (if they want to) to talk to people about the case and AFTER the trial (or hearing) has taken place, that it be allowed to be public knowledge, if anyone's interested. Currently the parents in many family court trials are so scared of the secret process and what a judge and social services will do that they can't even talk about what went on AFTER a judgement's been made! That's the truly ludicrous bit, how could be judgement possibly be in danger after its already been made (as it obviously was in the Lawrence case), so why the secrecy?

The press leaking details that no-one has authorised or asked them to is another matter and is one of the disadvantages of some areas of our media at the moment.