Domestic Abuse and Care Proceedings - the AWR case (another mum on the run)

[johnhemming]

Hopefully this won't happen to any of the readers, but another mum on the run story has been publicised in the Sunday Telegraph

Here
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3868100/Mother-flees-abroad-with-her-son-to -escape-social-workers.html

I have put additional information on my weblog here
johnhemming.blogspot.com/2008/12/arw-mum-on-run-with-her-children.html

This is a case which will interest anyone who is looking at how to contest Hague Convention proceedings in public family law.

I know of two cases like this. The other one has been publicised in The Times, but I cannot find it at the moment.

Camilla Cavendish has also written about DV/DA and Care proceedings
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5050750.ece

It is not all social workers. There are some very good social workers. There also some awful social workers that the system permits to maraude through people's lives.

The first social worker i had involved with my family could only be described as the epitome of evil.

Long story short, they became involved with us due to a disclosure of sexual abuse my sister and daughter made against someone in our family who had babysitted for them both on occasion.
As it had been such a long time between abuse and diclosure, when we went to have the children medically examined (and i must say this particular SW showed a very unnatural interest in both of the examinations, if she had got any closer she would have been in the doctors way) the results came back as almost negative, with some degree of abnormality that could have been due to abuse or not..in both girls.
So obviously this was a point of dispute within the court proceedings, with the defendant stating no actual medical evidence, therefore it was his word against the girls.

The SW in question then tried to get me to put my daughter through the examination again. I point blank refused. It was not a very nice thing for my DD to have to go through the first time around, and i was damned if i was going to put her through it again.

I was then told that i would be failing my daughter by not allowing the second examination..well, like i pointed out, unless she has been abused again between then and now, nothing more will show up..the SW was not impressed, obviously thought she could bully me into the second examination and was pissed that she fell flat on her face.

Yes, they sure do abuse their powers and position. Without a doubt. This same SW did a lot lot more than this as well which i will not go into yet but it will probably pop up over the course.

Certainly more openness will help in the courts. I know some judges feel children are often rightly deprived of contact with a parent and are very frustrated they aren't allowed to publish the reasons.

We are never going to be able to afford doubling their pay so you won't get high calbre people in the job but you could change rules so those who follow procedures get things more right than wrong. No targets of any kind or incentives (other than to turn up at work) and all my suggestions above of solutions which keep a child with a parent but with supervision, half way houses, a presumption a relative will always have a child if one is willing rather than a stranger and things like never ever letting a child be adopted unless both parents agree even if the father is absent (fostering being the only option if they cannot find the other parent) etc etc. We could easily do up a list of 100 things on this thread which might make the chance of children being taken away on arbitrary grounds less likely.

Also getting rid of rubbish like emotional abuse as grounds too. No one likes to hear parents telling their children they are stupid or shouting at them but many many parents act like that some of the time and it's not sufficient grounds to remove a child in my view.

Most of all I think all parents should have the right to publicise anything. I think the way that avoids miscarriages of justices is so important that any privacy rights of the child or other parent in a divorce situation are not so important. I know that's controversial.

Xenia-emotional abuse can be as damaging to kids as physical/sexual abuse or neglect in my view. Being systematically undermined, unloved and not being shown physical affection for example can have devastating long term effects.
I think the problem is that theres far less clarity about what consitutes emotional abuse. That doesn't mean we should ignore how harmful it can be.

I think the resources given to preventative work are poor and are concentrated on the statutory aspects of work. Having made numerous referrals to childrens services over the years I know they are often only able to prioritise what they consider child protection issues. I hope this is changing.

Increasingly social workers are judged on key performance indictators such as recording certain information/undertaking assessments within a certain time framework etc. That and having to adhere to policies that do not take into account individual circumstances and the families strengths (as well as weaknesses).
What is often ignored is the quality of the work undertaken-whether it be good or bad. Social work is becoming increasingly an administrative task-blame the government for that despite all the politicians uproar about recent child protection scandals.

Of course there are some awful social workers who intervene and manage to do far more damage than good. There are also quite a lot who are committed and competent.

It's very hard to define, however isn't it so that gives too much scope to abuse the system and take children away. Many families don't hug. it's their culture not to but I wouldn't remove them just as I wouldn't remove children from families who never stop touching each other and sleep naked together until the children are 18. I am not happy with how someone I know deals with their children but I wouldn't say the emotional abuse is enough to have them removed from that person although I am sure 90% of other parents parent better.

My parents didn't get on and it affected us a children but I'm not sure we'd have benefited if we'd been removed from the home nor do I think the state should have any right to intervene in that sort of situation. The father I saw skiing this week who was telling his son he was stupid which is not something most of us would call our children may well be a regular emotional abuser but I'm not sure again one should intervene.

I recognise emotional abuse as an issue, but I am really unsure that there are any circumstances where it is better for the child to be placed in foster care/residential accommodation.

We need to target unacceptable care rather than sub-optimal care.

What happens in England is we have one of the worst records for serious child abuse (that results in death) whilst traumatising children by removing them for being "talked to in a manner which undermines their self-esteem.)

The system is dreadful in its outcomes and the lawyers and experts need to accept responsibility for their behaviour and not just blame the social workers.

Why double their pay or even consider it..lol they get paid bloody well enough fro all the adverts i have seen for jobs.. in social care.. and they do a shit job sometimes, i think better rewards for standing up for kids and whistleblowing would be better, as well as better protection and JOB protection for the ones willing to stand up and say something isnt right.

I remember as well, standing outside the SS offices having a natter with the 'enemy' and they were surprised to find out from me that they could make complaints about cafcass workers..they didn't know/hadn't been told, and here was i, joe public, and i knew more than they did.

They asked me what else i knew lol.

Also, when my DD was absconding, the police turned up at my house and i saw their notes and one had the word FASSIT at the top in mahooosive letters and a question mark after it, which i found hilariously funny at the time, in between bursts of sniggering i asked what the paperwork was, it was apparently transcripts of things i had posted.
The police told me i was lucky with what i had disclosed, that i had not gone to prison for contempt of court.. i laughed in their faces and told them i would have 28 days in prison any day.. it was worth it to get my DD's story out there.. and i would do it again in a heartbeat. Plus the added bonus of a contempt of court hearing being in criminal court, ..... PUBLIC court, and for my defence i would have been able to say anything i liked and it would have been reported on. "So, go ahead" i said. Well of course faced with reasoning like mine how could they not? They bottled it lol

Emotional abuse can be devastating. Every child deserves to know they are loved and worth the universe to their parents.

However, the umbrella term emotional abuse can be twisted too easily, parenting programmes that advocate time out, for example, how could this be construed as emotional abuse? Try, seperating the child from their family, excluding them, ignoring them when they cry, all this and more = emotional abuse, in its own way, yet it is allowed, and seen as a 'good' way to discipline a child??!!

Incidentally, i do agree with time out methods as long as used in conjuntion with explaining to the child what they have done wrong, and why they are being punished, but what my point is is that the SS can turn ANYTHING into a case of emotional abuse..and no one questions them or tells them they are being ridiculous, its like, the professionals in the case close ranks, no matter what their opinions of each other, they never voice them, at least not in front of the parents or judge.

I lost count of the SHEEP who followed the SW's recommendations in core group meetings, but then came outside for a chat or a fag and said 'I don't agree DD should be seperated from you, but if i voice it, i feel like i will be the only one.' WTF?? It isn't like, the SW can turn them into frogs for daring to disagree, so what are these people so afraid of? Being the only one to stand up for what they believe in?

It used to make me very angry. Now i just don't know what to think. Except maybe SPINELESS PRICKS and i hope they rot in hell.

I know what you are sayng xenia,john and sapphire. What constitutes emotional abuse-unless its pretty extreme-is debatable and is no doubt coloured by all sorts of personal and organisational factors. I suppose its about weighing up what is least damaging to a child knowing any decision may not be ideal and potentially damaging.

I work with people who are homeless and mentally ill-a disproportionate number of this group of people grew up in the care system.

I don't pretend to know what the answer is but think that people are increasingly distrustful of those who are employed to help them. Of course statutory powers are needed and children will always need protection.

However I think Johns point about the distinction between 'unacceptable care' and 'sub optimal' care is spot on. Whatever happened to the concept of 'good enough parenting' that recognises that none of us are perfect parents but most of us are doing our best.

i have tried to catch up with this...

xenia and others... children do not get permanently removed from their families because a parent calls them stupid now and then or doesnt hug them. really they don't. as stated by me before the criteria that has to be met before a full care or supervision order can be made is that of significant harm. that is not a trivial test. you are scaremongering and misunderstanding if you keep posting otherwise.

there is already statutory provision that sws must look to place children in the extended family before seeking other options.

to believe children would be better in long term foster care rather than adopted if they are of an age that would make such permanency appropriate does children a disservice. why should any child grow up wothout security and permanency and have a "corporate" parent (the local authority) if there is an alternantive that affords a family life??

and can i say again, of course it is not sws who make these decisions it is judges.

This scares the ever-living hell out of me because my DD has a bleeding disorder which means she has moderate to severe bruising at all times even on soft parts of her body. I'm a teacher and I remember from CP courses that it is a classic sign

She was two years old before she had a diagnosis of her condition after repeated hospital visits due to spontaneous mouth and nose bleeds. The DX was pure luck. Bright Young Things from the ENT suggested it when DD's tongue bleed was stitched and still developed a huge blood blister. Her condition affects 1% of the population. (Von Willebrands Disease) and many many parents have had VWD children stolen by SS.

I feel more secure as the years go by I must say. She is nine in June and she will be soon be out of reach for forced adoption. Sadly I feel it necessary to teach her strategies for keeping in touch with people via gmail just in case the worst happens. My 19 month old DS is another worry however even though he shows no sign of inheriting the condition. Beautiful, blonde and blue-eyed with no unsightly bruises but from a terrible family he'd be snapped up.

The way these kangaroo courts are set up I have no confidence that the medical evidence from DD's Doctors would be admissable even though they are terribly well regarded, important and respected professionals.

of course their evidence would be admissible, why wouldnt it?? i think nyour time would have been better spent finding out about the realities of these things than blighting your dcs childhoods for yourself with these unfounded fears. did you raise your concerns with anyone? the medics? dont you think they may have been able to reassure you that bruising sustained as a result of a diagnosed and recorded medical condition is not going to ever form a basis for the removal of your children from your care??

NinkyNork-you are worrying needlessly. Whenever there is an unexplained injury to a child that in itself raises suspicion, a whole gamut of tests are undertaken to rule out organic causes. Blood clotting and other disorders are routinely tested for in cases of significant bruising. As with fractures-organic factors are investigated first.

Of course the Court would have access to any medical opinion of an organic blood disorder. In a case involving an unexplained injury-there is necessarily a paediatric overview and access to the child's medical records. Quite often there are experts comissioned from a number of disciplines-including in some cases geneticists, haemotologists etc.

Medical evidence about the child's health was never presented in the babysitter case -the poor woman who has now been cleared after a baby died in her care. The 'expert' medical witness decided it was irrelevant. And that was in the criminal courts, where the standard of proof is supposed to be higher. (I have no idea why the defence didn't argue this one, btw, but similar things have happened in other cases so it can't be a one-off crap defence team.)

Bluesapphire is dead right about the collective behaviour of people in child protection, each individual being too scared or reluctant to voice their concerns about the process. The eminent doctor I mentioned earlier was shouted down because he dared to say, hang on, are we SURE we haven't gone on a wild goose chase here. He was threatened with the loss of his career if he didn't change his tune. This is one of the most eminent doctors in the country! How likely is it that any ordinary SW or HV or nurse or SALT or anyone else will ask straightforward, sensible questions?

"Blighting my DCs childhoods with unfouded fears?" Unfounded? Really? Were the adoption targets "unfounded" or fact? I rather think they were fact.

I resent your implication that my time would have been better spent finding out the realities when I have googled and researched and questioned all the members of DD's medical team extensively. The Wiki entry for VWD is very comprehensive but I am not a medic. The response to my interest from the team has been, "oh you've been tapping away on the internet have you? That won't help your understanding".

I am also worried that while I am able to write a post using correct spelling and punctuation you seem to not have that ability and also that you appear to be attacking me from a spurious position of assumed authority.

Correct me if I am wrong I beg you.

Thing is, chipkid, I'm sure that works fine and dandy 98 per cent of the time, but there have been cases on record where organic causes have not been investigated - subsequently recognised as miscarriages of justice. In one case I remember seeing reported, the parents were accused of causing 'injuries' that were the result of procedures carried out in hospital to treat the poor kid. How on earth can a doctor miss that?

Thanks chipkid for the reassurance. I know Baby P was tested for a blood-clotting disorder but I also know that the testing was insufficient to rule out my DD's problem which is 1% of population. What use is it then?

i have no more authority than you, assumed or otherwise ninky, and your spelling is indeed much better than mine. my point was simply to ask why you would think anyone would plot and scheme to remove your children from your care for no reason?? my ? re asking doctors was not about the diagnosed condition but re your worries about the bruising being seen as grounds for child protection proceedings.... think it's likely you would have been able to be reassured.

Why anyone would plot and scheme to take my children? Have you not read the information on the thread about adoption targets?

I was adopted in 1971 at 3 months old. I think it was BlueSapphire who spoke about the darker side of CP these days.

oh nn i'm sorry if you've had difficult personal experiences. no i haven't read every post on this thread.

No worries controlfreakyho etc... Read it in your own time and thanks for trying to reassure me. It was the implication that I shouldn't be emotionally abusing DD by giving her strategies to cope if she were ripped from her family that got me riled is all. Knowing how to deal with separation is as important for a child's mental health as knowing how to cope with accident or death, no?

ninkynork - when my mother tried to trace her birth mother (having been adopted as a baby) the family of the most likely possibility were convinced it 'couldn't possibly have been Auntie Marjorie, she would never have given up a baby'. They clearly had no ruddy idea. Sadly the lady had died so we shall never know.

look, i dont want to upset you any more thatn you are already by these issues.... but the idea of my 9yo ds thinking that he might be "ripped from [his] family" and discussing that with him as a possiblity because he had a genetic disorder causing bruising is unthinkable to me.

DH stopped prosecuting childcare cases because he felt that social workers were not adequately trained, supported or regulated and that childcare cases were being brought that simply had no business to be brought.

He wrestled with his conscience long and hard about this, but as a moral man who believes in working for the community, he truly felt that cases were being brought that were doing more harm than good.

He was particularly concerned about families who were educationally and socially deprived and simply not able to cope with the (various) systems and agencies at work.

You'll appreciate that I don't want to say much more on this subject.

Oh FGS I don't use those terms with DD, what is wrong with you? I just point out to DD that Gmail can be used to keep in touch with anyone anywhere. Is that "emotional abuse"?

Good for you that you are so secure in that SS won't steal your DS. I hope for your sake you never have to report DV of any kind and have them involved. From this thread we've had people being told to move then being condemned for moving away from their support network. Damned if you do and damned if you don't even when evidence has been provided. THAT is why I distrust SS procedures.

edam I am feeling very fragile r.e adoption having found the brother my mother kept, (18 months older) on FB yet he won't reply to me. I sympathise with your mum.