family courts - times campaign

[tatt]

I've no personal experience of these courts but the stories I have read make me pretty concerned about the secrecy around them. Read the story here and if you are also concerned sign up to their campaign

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4271773.ece

"Gaming" = removing children in order to hit targets. Which is despicable.

If the targets did not affect SS decisions on removal, you'd expect adoptions to increase among all age groups. In fact, more babies and very young children were being adopted - the category most likely to appeal to would-be adopters. Which looks suspicious.

Spero has sufficient confidence to post under a pseudonym. Her comments about the RP case are inaccurate, but I am having a continuing row with LJ Wall.

An IQ of 75 is around the 4th Percentile meaning it is the stupidmost 4% of people. Hence there are about 2.4 Million people in the UK who have an IQ of this level or lower.

Spero says:
"Below 75 and it is difficult to function."
Rubbish.

Mr Hemming - I read Mr Justice Wall's judgment in full. if anyone is interested, I can link it here. I have rarely before read a judge criticise someone as strongly as he criticised you. I applaud you for your courage and industry, but you would get a lot more respect from me and others in our field if you could admit that you well overstepped the mark on that one.

BTW its not just me who says below 75 and it is difficult to function. I haven't had a single client for eg with an IQ at or below that level who has a job. most of them could not read or had the reading level of a small child. I suggest that this will make it difficult to function in today's service economy.

nooka is absolutely spot on about adoption targets. They came in because Tony Blair was absolutely horrified to reaslise how long children were staying in care and he insisted that something be done to speed up the process. given what we all know about the outcomes for children in the care system, i can't see that this is a bad thing.

Having read all of this and all the comments on the Times piece, I have surprised myself by coming to the conclusion that it is essential that family courts are opened so that the really dangerous level of inaccuracy and hysteria can be addressed.

If you are interested, www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/mrj_ryder_25th_ann_butterworth.pdf shows that Mr Justice Ryder thinks the time has come to open the courts. Its a bit wordy but worth a read and I hope might go some way to dispell some of the views that those of us who work in this field are either mad or bad.

I hope that link worked.

btw edam, the focus is on adopting children as young as possible because after the age of 7 it is very difficult for them to form attachments to a new family. If a child spends the first few years moving from foster family to foster family this can be very damaging to their emotional development.

I don't expect you to believe me, but I absolutely do not accept that there has ever been or ever will be any devious plan to snatch babies from deserving parents.

If you read any of the judgments you will see time and time again judges stress the child's right to be bought up by his biological parents where ever possible; 'good enough' parenting is all that is required.

but what about babies who have been removed from families becaue they are "at risk" of emotional abuse, or babies that have been removed because the mother had suffered post natal depression beforehand?

if thats the case then a lot of children should have been removed from their mothers because a lot of mothers suffer from PND and the general feeling now is amongst women who do is not to tell or ask for help because they are all frightened that their babies will be taken from them.

i realise you are defending your profession spero but you must admit that it doesnt look very good, and people have a lot more sympathy for john hemming than they do for social services.

It is necessary to get the transcript of the hearing. My main legal point was that the financial bias on the local authority (which arose from differential funding streams) created an apparent bias on the LA and its agents one of which was the expert.

I also made the point that the documents referring to copying a letter to RP were created well after the point at which the letter was created and also with the wrong dates on them and that the letter had no "received" stamp on it - unlike other letters. However, I did not rely on this as it was not the key point.

Yes, I do know that, Spero, but what happened in practice was that older children were still left to languish - there was a sudden jump in the number of babies and small children being adopted. So the targets didn't work and had the negative effect of encouraging what someone described as 'gaming'.

I agree there probably hasn't been a deliberate campaign to snatch children from their parents - although I think your use of the word 'deserving' is interesting. What there has been is a succession of failures. Of poor staffing, poor resourcing, poor decision making, prejudice, assumptions, defensiveness, lack of accountability, mass hysteria about MSbP, over-reliance on arrogant 'experts' who are taken at face value and not questioned sufficiently... and the result of all those linked and repeated failures IS that children have been torn apart from their parents unnecessarily. A tragedy for every single family involved.

Perhaps you could go and tell the grown-up Rochdale children how wonderful the courts system is? And let them know when they can expect an apology?

Message withdrawn

It's tragic, isn't it, dilemma? My sister is an LD nurse and can tell umpteen tales about SS's prejudice towards people with learning difficulties. It's assumed as a matter of course that babies will be removed. Any evidence that the woman might be able to manage is denied, while everything else is twisted to make it look black - one woman my sister looked after was harried into a mother and baby unit because SS decided her boyfriend was 'over-involved' - he'd had the temerity to visit his partner and new baby in hospital every day. The SWs were determined to split the couple and to remove the baby - poor girl was ordered into an M&B unit ("or we'll take your baby") not so she could have a chance, but just to get rid of the father. They were still determined to take her baby anyway. Appalling.

Yes, of course, there will be parents with LDs who can't manage to look after a baby or child, but there shouldn't be a blanket ban.

The problem is that there is a wide spectrum of "Learning Disabilities" including Dyslexia etc.

The difficulty with the adoption targets was that it resulted in people who didn't actually have learning difficulties being categorised as such and then finding that they were legally trapped by the appointment of the Official Solicitor.

I have a case of someone who had the capacity to plead in a criminal trial, but was Official Solicitored in a family court and prevented from instructing her own solicitor.

This is a major abuse of the rule of law.

Talking about evidence BTW (referring to Spero). We know

a) That Children from England have been placed in Jersey and then we don't know where they went (I have identified at least one child).
b) That some children in a Jersey childrens home were abused, murdered and then incinerated.

There is an inference that can be drawn from this.

What it says to me is that we cannot permit the care system to remain unaccountable any longer. It must be open to truly independent scrutiny.

Even taking the police investigation in Jersey out of this, we know that Margaret Hodge, who was the relevant minister when poor Sally Clark (RIP) was cleared, demonised one young man who dared to tell the media about the way she'd hushed up a child abuse scandal in children's homes in Islington when she ran the borough.

Hodge tried to tell the papers he was untrustworthy, disturbed and an unreliable witness. Because anyone who questions the people responsible for hushing up wrong-doing MUST be mad, mustn't they? more about it here

And what do you know? She found a judge prepared to suppress the truth and stop the newspapers revealing her spiteful attack on this man. Well, now, there's a surprise.

Her unforgivable attack on this man wasn't in the 70s, it was five minutes ago. And those attitudes - that abuse by people working inside the system can be conveniently hushed up and those in charge must never be questioned - are still rife today.

Hodge hasn't been held to account. Neither have the Rochdale social workers. Neither have the senior people responsible for Victoria Climbie's murder - only the most junior SW, who was completely overloaded. Even Roy Meadows was bailed out by his mates in the judiciary who decided the General Medical Council isn't allowed to deal with him, FFS. God forbid the GMC should do its job and rule on the fitness to practice of a doctor who happens to be a judicial favourite.

The only people who face judgement are parents and children. Innocence is no defence if you are a parent. While guilt is no problem if work within the system. And if anyone dares to question this, they are howled down as ill-informed, hysterical, stupid, any insult you like.

"Lessons must be learned to prevent this happening again" hmm- a quote from EVERY chld abuse case that's hit the headlines since poor Maria Caldwell back in the 70's.

Except they NEVER do bleeding learn because accountability is not in the remit!

That's not (unfortunately) unique to child abuse investigations though is it. You will find very similar patterns in mental health homicide investigations, and indeed into many many investigations into all sorts of accidents, disasters and failings. Sometimes more money and effort go into such investigations than into addressing the causes of the problems in the first place.

For what it's worth the staff (junior and senior) in the social care office which I used to work alongside were all absolutely horrified at Margaret Hodge's appointment, and I got the impression that this was a widespread concern in the SC community.

Here, here nooka. the money needs to go where it is needed - the frontline, to help families before they go under.

I don't think we are disagreeing that the system is not working well. Where we do disagree is the reasons why.

The language used by some of the posters who want to focus on accountability and responsibility does smack of witch hunting, rather than serious and calm consideration of what needs to be done. And all you will achieve by this is scaring off those who might have wanted to go into/continue in the field of child protection and you will divert attention and money from where it is really needed.

John hemming - your 'inference' would appear to be that children in care homes are going to be murdered and this is the fault of the system.

I don't see how making this kind of comment will help deal with all the real problems facing families in trouble and children in care. you seem intent on whipping up a storm of public fear.

'but what about babies who have been removed from families becaue they are "at risk" of emotional abuse, or babies that have been removed because the mother had suffered post natal depression beforehand?'

When I deal with families when issues of post natal depression and emotional abuse come up, these cover such issues as threatening to kill self and child, actually throwing baby down stairs at social worker, taking 9 year old daughter repeatedly around social services offices and screaming racist abuse while drunk, telling children that their father has sexually abused them he has not in order to stop the children wanting to see him, etc, etc, etc. The point I am making is these are NOT trivial issues.

Spero you may ensure the parents see the evidence but it is not the case in every case.

john herring did not suggest that children in care homes are going to be murdered and this is the fault of the system. He referred to one example where the police are investigating such accusations.

To exaggerate like that undermines any argument you make. I've read the judgement you refered to - but that has no bearing on who is exaggerating here.

There are problems in the system and while there is such secrecy no-one can be sure how widespread the problems are. There needs to be a more open system both to identify abuses and to protect those in the system from unfounded accusations.

I appreciate that there ARE mothers/fathers who DO harm their children as you seem to keep pointing out/needing to give explicit examples of, noone is living in cloud cuckoo land here, but there ARE parents who have had their children removed because they may pose a future risk of emtional abuse to the unborn child, such as Fran Lyon.

It Goes on, there are more and more miscarriages of justice being reported to do with social services, it needs addressing, pretending it doesnt exist is not the right way.

Jenk1 maybe this will reassure you? I can't put it any better than Baronness Hale

Baroness Hale of Richmond
My Lords,

20. Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, "The child is not the mere creature of the State".

21. That is why the Review of Child Care Law (Department of Health and Social Security, 1985)) and the white paper, The Law on Child Care and Family Services (Cm 62, 1987), which led up to the Children Act 1989, rejected the suggestion that a child could be taken from her family whenever it would be better for her than not doing so. As the Review put it, "Only where their children are put at unacceptable risk should it be possible compulsorily to intervene. Once such a risk of harm has been shown, however, [the child's] interests must clearly predominate" (para 2.13).

22. The principle of "unacceptable risk of harm" is easy enough to state but difficult to put into statutory language. The draft Children Bill annexed to the Law Commission's Report on its Review of Child Law, Guardianship and Custody (1998, Law Com No 172) required that "the child concerned has suffered significant harm, or that there is a real risk of his suffering such harm" (clause 12(2)(a)). This was refined in the Bill presented to Parliament and eventually emerged in the so-called "threshold criteria" in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989:

"A court may only make a care order or a supervision order if it is satisfied -

(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to -
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii) the child's being beyond parental control."

There ARE cases where the risk of future emotional harm is so serious that the child needs to be protected and removed from his/her birth family.

Tatt - sorry, you really are talking crap. Evidence is not withheld from parents. Their lawyers and the Guardian ensure that does not happen. Please give examples of what kind of evidence and in what kind of circumstances you say this happens.

Spero your faith in the system is breathtaking!

So how does that explain the Fran Lyon debacle then?

spero - There are people fleeing the UK so you people don't snatch their babies as soon as they are born, and you think it's all ok because you quoted a Baroness saying... what, exactly? How was that supposed to reassure us?

Fran Lyon is only one example. How about this couple? How aboutVanessa Brookes, who was told by SS that even though there was "no immediate risk to your child from yourselves", the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care?

What about Nicky Hardingham whose three children were taken and the fourth threatened to be removed at birth because of unexplained fractures, although brittle bone disease runs in four generations of her family?

What does the Baroness say about them, then?

Well done cote-I had not time to find those links as I'm at work but I was hoping someone would be able to.

Spero whatever the situation these people were in (and before you say it yes we don't know all the facts) the fact is they were handled so badly by the SS that communications broke down and they felt their only recourse was to leave the country
I find it VERY sad that the people skills of some of your colleagues (not all I am first to admit)are SO dire that they make the very people they are trying to help react like this. It is not an isolated few either.

We are one of the few countries (portugal being another I believe) who take away children deemed to be at risk from their families. Other countries provide safe houses where the family work closely with a residential family,under close supervision to work through the problems and learn coping strategies and parenting skills to try and help overcome the problems. I don't know what the success rate is but surely it's better to try than making a potentially/already dysfunctional family fragmented and unsupported?

The answer is it is costly to have such units and authorities are not given funding to enable it to happen. We have our priorities skewed here it seems.

My faith in the system is based on working in it for over ten years and on the whole, being impressed with the professionalism and dedication of the people involved.

All I am saying is that if you base your knowledge and your opinions on what you read in the newspapers, you don't know the whole story. You know that part of the story, possible skewed, that the journalist wished to present.

the case where the child had broken bones and it did turn out to be a genuine medical condition was very tragic for all concerned. but what do you expect social services to do? A child had broken bones. It wasn't an accident. The parents denied doing it. so what do you do? leave the child with the parents and keep your fingers crossed?

Mistakes will be made. But to blame these mistakes on a culture of demented social workers who don't give a shit is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Yes, I have met social workers who got my backs up, who got the clients backs up. But i seriously question why anyone feels they have to flee the country when they will have a lawyer paid for by the state and their children will have a lawyer and a Guardian paid for by the state.

I quoted Baroness hale so show that this is what judges think; you don't remove children on a whim or because their parents are a bit thick, whatever the Daily mail says.

and btw, referring back to Sally Clarke who was convicted in open court - did the newspapers set up a howl about this miscarriage of justice? No, they all printed pictures of her looking overweight and called her an alcholic who got what she deserves. your faith in the press as the instrument to root out injustice is touching but bonkers.

Anyone read Mark Potter's response to Camilla Cavendish? Or will you just dismiss him too as a patsy of the system?

The reason why we don't put families into residential units and teach them how to be better families is that this costs shocking, flabbergasting amounts of money. A LA has a certain, limited budget. I don't see any of you agitating to pay a higher council tax so that problem families can be taught to be better parents. Sorry, but money is a huge issue. You can't deny that reality. We have to concentrate on spending the money where it will be best used and I say that is early intervention.

Just going thru the links.

What exactly is your problem with this?

'The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: "What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that's my understanding from reading documents."

social services have concerns, they take it to court. Courts have said time and time again it is draconian step of last resort to remove baby at birth. If social services have admitted having no concerns at moment, judge will tell them to monitor situation and leave child at home. If judge doesn't say that, parents lawyer or Guardian trots off to appeal and wins.

Not sure why this link has provoked your outrage, maybe the others will give me a clearer understanding of where you are coming from.

"All I am saying is that if you base your knowledge and your opinions on what you read in the newspapers, you don't know the whole story"

Quite as I said earier but don't presume that becasue we question things and want to discuss them Spero that we are ignorant of facts, or base our arguments purely on newspaper reports. I have worked for over 20 years in the NHS and 8 years in childcare at the sharp end, but i don't call myself an expert nor do I think that any profession is without flaws.

You still haven't answered my question how did the SW in the Lyon case come to have so much power?

spero -

"A child had broken bones. It wasn't an accident. The parents denied doing it. so what do you do?"

You consider the possibility that not all parents are abusive lying bastards, and send children to a specialist to diagnose whether or not they indeed suffer from brittle bone disease, which rather curiously appears in four generations of the said family.

Which is exactly what SS would have done if taking children from their families was a method of last resort. It obviously isn't.

"Mistakes will be made. But to blame these mistakes on a culture of demented social workers who don't give a shit is just wrong"

Nobody said social workers are 'demented' or that none of them 'give a shit'. I dare say, though, at least one of them resorts to the logical fallacy of Straw Man when she realizes she doesn't have an argument.

What people have been saying on this thread is that these are avoidable mistakes, and that if not for the secrecy and absence of accountability, they would not be happening.