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

I agree with dittany. All sorts of impossible hoops can be set for emotional abuse, and this diverts resources away from the more serious physical abuse cases, although I do find johnhemming's argument that babies could be knowingly left in extreme danger due to LA targets having already been met quite hard to accept (not impossible).

BTW, johnhemming, do you have any experience of the concurrency adoption system which has seemed to me to be something possibly open to abuse by the authorities?

But what exactly does "attachment disorder" mean?

I agree with Dittany.

And surprisingly, Xenia

The only reason a child should be removed from their family, is if they being physically abused.

That's not to underplay the seriousness of emotional/ psychological abuse. But that is so much harder to define, and so subjective and culturally based, and anyway the emotional abuse of removing a child from a family who are trying to love them (even if they're not v. good at it) to one approved by the council, must be at least as great as staying with the first family, therefore making the option of removing them quite questionable. In some cases it will be out of the frying pan, into the fire as far as that child's emotional/ psychological development is concerned.

I also think that if women who are being abused by a partner think that they will ahve their children taken away from them if they report DV, then they will not report DV. They will simply put up with being beaten up for years and their children will learn that that is the way to conduct relationships and repeat the cycle, knowing that if they complain, they won't be supported but punished. To argue that that is in children's interests, is insane imo.

"i) The intended measures of change were insufficiently tightly described in the care plan and did not target S's emotional welfare or the neglected issues. The mother was given a number of targets to achieve and she has failed to do this on a consistent basis. S has a very high need for consistency."

I take from this that she has been shown and had targets set to have consistent boundaries with her child (which will include school on time, appropriate uniform,
bed on time, varied diet) and that she has not consistently applied this.

I have to do this for a child in my care (record consistentcy for the child) and it seems from the tone (and I am well used to the tone ) that she has refused to record this. It states in a veiled way that she has just continued to apportion blame rather than improve her own parenting.

LAs are assessed on how many children are on the at-risk register and how long they stay there. That was one factor cited in (IIRC) Shannon Matthews having been removed from the at-risk register - SWS were under pressure to get kids off in order to look good in the league tables. So I'm prepared to believe that some councils may well discourage SWs from taking children into care because it will make them look bad in terms of government targets.

Let's not forget this whole league table culture led to Haringey getting top marks from Ofsted for being absolutely fabulous even while the Baby P case was going through the courts...

Attachment disorder, a complex disorder manifesting in a broken and inconsistent relationship with the child and in difficult behaviours. In the case of the child in my care who has reactive attachment disorder it means that she will push me away one minute and then be all over me the next - this can be very inappropriate.

I am shocked that anyone could not understand that emotional abuse can be as serious as physical - surely anyone would just have to go over to the 'but we took you to stately homes thread' to see that it can be much worse.

Well until my own experience social services were an unknown frightening entity that would steal your kids like the child snatcher in chitty chitty bang bang lol

After my experience they were a KNOWN frightening entity that would steal your kids like the child snatcher in chitty chitty bang bang

Of course i will plead that they were heavy handed, there are also things i regret doing and saying during my dealing with the social services, some things i am proud that i did, some things i could say they put me through that were very harrowing..

I don't mind saying, christmas was a terrible time, seeing other people with their children, trying to go shopping without breaking down over something as silly as a 'family' pack of this or that, the times i was so stressed and felt so helpless that all i could do was sit and cry, the times i told my son i was 'too busy' because i was doing court statements, ect, to play with him, read to him..i was tired and emotionally battered.

Seems the best thing i did was give up because then 'they' began to chase me, at first in earnest, then more and more as they got more desperate and realised that i wasn't going to entertain them or take their crap any more, and my daughter was increasingly showing signs that they had made a HUGE cock up..
Long story short, they were actually worried that i had suddenly ceased and desisted from making their lives a misery. So they came looking for me lol. They made offers of contact that they had previously witheld.. they made light of things i pointed out they had said about me that made me unsuitable as a mother, that undermined me as a mother to my daughter, that had made me feel really crap.. and dismissed them with a wave of the hand 'oh that doesn't matter, its what we think now that counts'

On the subject of expert witnesses, the parents don't get to choose their own, they come from a selected list.. and the social services are the ones that get to pose all the questions to the witness, this is a complete pain in the arse especially when the expert clinical psychologist is the one, the SS get in there first with their reports, their questions, and the fact that most of these experts have worked in, or closely with, the SS at some point in their career, as can be seen on the final report when the psychologists past career can be seen in lights.
This all poses a problem, the parents are painted in an extremely bad light and can do nothing about it, the assessment is therefore biased from all sides against the parent/s from the beginning.
Faced with wave upon wave of shitslinging, most parents give up at this point, or end up going mental from the pressure as well as the loss of their much loved child.. even 'abusers' love their kids, if maybe in a bit of a misguided way.
For a parent who is innocent, and being witch hunted, the process can be too much. You are not innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the family court..but how can you prove your innocence against a bunch of battle scarred war veterans (SS) who could make mother teresa look a cunt (sorry but its the worst word i could think of)

scummymummy, I sincerely hope you stay on this thread. We need people who question and think critically-whatever their profession.

Dittany-you have made your views on social workers pretty clear on here and on other threads. I don't think anyone has been 'defending the system' just questioning the evidence base of peoples criticisms of the system. Surely not a bad thing?

Having been on both sides of the fence I can see that there is an almost automatic adversarial situation between parents and professionals in child protection proceedings. The one key difference is that as a parent I felt powerless

Sorry I haven't given you enough of a flavour how serious attachment disorder can be (or the behaviours manifested by it). You'll have to google it I'm afraid as I can't out myself by describing real behaviours as it is too identifiable.

Suffice it to say I think that having an attachment disorder is just as dangerous as being at physical risk from your parent. It literally means that they cannot grow up and function in a healthy relationship unless these issues are addressed. And it leads to highly socially unacceptable behaviour.

I think being in danger from your parent is more than just physical threat so I'm happy to disagree with you on that one.

laurie, your description of "attachment disorder" could easily describe me and my 19 month old (pushing me away one minute and all over me the next) and we love each other to bits. So far tonight, we've had a lovely game of him hitting me in the face to see my reaction and then him frantically gripping on to my hair and falling all over me at bedtime (we co-sleep part of the night) to stop me escaping. What would a psychologist make of all this?

I'm sorry but I do not agree that emotional abuse can ever be much worse than physical abuse.

Reactive attachment disorder (RAD) is described in clinical literature as a severe and relatively uncommon attachment disorder that can affect children. RAD is characterized by markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate ways of relating socially in most contexts. It can take the form of a persistent failure to initiate or respond to most social interactions in a developmentally appropriate way?known as the "inhibited" form?or can present itself as indiscriminate sociability, such as excessive familiarity with relative strangers?known as the "disinhibited form". The term is used in both the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10)[1] and in the DSM-IV-TR, the revised fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).[2] In ICD-10, the inhibited form is called RAD, and the disinhibited form is called "disinhibited attachment disorder", or "DAD". In the DSM, both forms are called RAD; for ease of reference, this article will follow that convention and refer to both forms as reactive attachment disorder.

RAD arises from a failure to form normal attachments to primary caregivers in early childhood. Such a failure could result from severe early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers between the ages of six months and three years, frequent change of caregivers, or a lack of caregiver responsiveness to a child's communicative efforts. Not all, or even a majority of such experiences, result in the disorder.[3] It is differentiated from pervasive developmental disorder or developmental delay and from possibly comorbid conditions such as mental retardation, all of which can affect attachment behavior. The criteria for a diagnosis of a reactive attachment disorder are very different from the criteria used in assessment or categorization of attachment styles such as insecure or disorganized attachment.

Children with RAD are presumed to have grossly disturbed internal working models of relationships which may lead to interpersonal and behavioral difficulties in later life. There are few studies of long-term effects, and there is a lack of clarity about the presentation of the disorder beyond the age of five years.[4][5] However, the opening of orphanages in Eastern Europe following the end of the Cold War in the early-1990s provided opportunities for research on infants and toddlers brought up in very deprived conditions. Such research broadened the understanding of the prevalence, causes, mechanism and assessment of disorders of attachment and led to efforts from the late-1990s onwards to develop treatment and prevention programs

Laurie, sorry if I came across as flippant. I have read about Bowlby and others before and understand the general theory of attachment including how it can prevent proper adult relationships from working, but my main concern is that in a world of limited resources the first concern of the state should be preventing children from physical harm.

Laurie

Bloody hell mate i could tell you how many times my son has been late for school
Then i could tell you how many times my daughters' FC has dropped her off late for school, the fact my daughter had the same pair of school shoes for a year until i complained and submitted a chiropodist's report to the court, only then did she get a new pair of shoes, how many different placements my daughter has had, how many times she has been moved schools, how she tells me what her diet consists of in these various placements, how she has wet herself and been sent to school in the same wet clothes the next day as a 'punishment' .. how she has had to wait until she has been in the bath and her toenails have softened enough so she could PEEL them off the times she had been beaten up by other children in care (FC's own children) and was refused contact with me on the grounds of illness, until i saw her at school and saw the shoe print on her back under her ribs and the black eye she had..

OH and i must not forget the time she disclosed sexual abuse by a foster carer and was ignored.. the police were not informed, no child protection conference held, the FC in question is still a FC, the disclosure was very graphic btw, and made during a supervised contact. The time when a SW following contact dragged her away from me (she was clinging and sobbing) and pulled with such force my daughters arm was broken

And these were not things that happened in one placement, they have been spread out over quite a few.

Oh and the new ones.. now we have unsupervised contact i am finding out quite a bit.. she cannot have friends to stay nor can she go and stop over at friends ? Like a normal teenager?
Late for school regularly.. only one set of uniform, not supplied with sanitary towels, not feeling able to speak with the FC about such things she should be able to .. like sex for example, if i was not having contact with her she would have no one she felt able to talk to about such matters..
Other children in the placement younger than her when it clearly stated in the all hallowed psychologists report that she was never to be placed with children younger than her, for reasons being that she should be the centre of whatever FC's attention she is placed with.

All goes out the window for them then doesn't it.
Am grateful all i can say is that my lad is sometimes late for school

I am not claiming that at all - what I am saying if that the mother is not prepared to work on her parenting and meet certain targets to provide consistency then yes, the child may be better off with someone who can provide this.

The child in my care does not have an attachment disorder because she is in care - she has it from being neglected by her birth mother (and from rocking back and forwards for days after being abused) and was diagnosed while she was in the care of her mother - and it was the reason she was taken into care (amongst many other neglectful causes).

and it's shocking how many children are abused while in care BlueSapphire - sounds like you have had a horrible time.

I agree with laurie that reactive attachemnt disorder is a severe psychiatric/psychological disorder. but it is not cured by removing the child from their parent/s

i also agree with John hemmings that the forced adoption of an 8 yo boy who allegedly has this disorder is 100% likely to fail

RAD arises from a failure to form normal attachments to primary caregivers in early childhood. Such a failure could result from severe early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers between the ages of six months and three years, frequent change of caregivers, or a lack of caregiver responsiveness to a child's communicative efforts. Not all, or even a majority of such experiences, result in the disorder.[3] It is differentiated from pervasive developmental disorder or developmental delay and from possibly comorbid conditions such as mental retardation, all of which can affect attachment behavior. The criteria for a diagnosis of a reactive attachment disorder are very different from the criteria used in assessment or categorization of attachment styles such as insecure or disorganized attachment.

Sorry..reading through this i find maybe there is something else i can blame the SS for lol.
Frequent change of caregivers.. so an attachment disorder could possibly eminate from having a few babysitters or maybe sending a baby to nursery when you go back to work

Or a lack of caregiver responsiveness to a child's communicative efforts.
such as ignoring a childs request for sanitary towels, toenail clippers, and of course, the request to be listened to regarding a disclosure of sexual abuse?

I am liking this bit of cut and paste.

Emotional abuse is defined as :

'Emotional abuse is the persistent emotional ill-treatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child's emotional development. It may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. It may involve causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children. Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of ill treatment of a child, though it may occur alone'. (Department of Health et al, 1999, p.5-6)

So don't tell your kids you will love them even more if they make you a cuppa or if they clean their room once a week.
You can also be accused of abuse if you shout at your kids. Who hasn't.. jeez.
Take a favourite toy off a kid as a punishment? Big no no.

Emotional abuse is such a big umbrella term it is frequently used by the SS if they can't pin anything else on a parent because it is so hard to disprove, and so many things that can be put under it its unbelievable.

all of this in my eyes contributes to a generation of parents too afraid to discipline their kids so they end up complete little shit yobbo's who then go on to breed and the resulting mess keeps the ss in a job. Its a win win for them really.

One of the targets she is being asked to meet is not to slag off foster carers and social workers during supervised contact. Again it seems from the tone of this that she is not able to contain her own feelings/anger in front of the child.

The targets she is being asked to meet have been deemed to be in the best interests of her child.

Another thing is that it isn't about the child being taken from her. It is about her not working with the social workers to make it possible for the child to be returned to her. This is a clear distinction because it is much harder to get a child back than it is to lose a child to care proceedings in the first place.

My daughter is 14 hun and no there is no chance .. because, cruelly, she has been in care for so long. Fortunately she is with FC's now who are quite good, albeit the usual late for school stuff which i view as a normal part of disorganised family life lol.

Plus i made SS life a misery for so long there is an order in place now to stop me going to court to apply to get the care order revoked.
Have to wait till she is 16, or hopefully sooner as she is consulting her own solicitor now

I am not blandly supportive about children being taken into care - as far as I know we are only talking about one case.

What has been posted is a summary of a report and as I'm used to reading between the lines I am assuming that the mother has not chosen to work on her parenting and that her child has been diagnosed properly (not a by a social worker) to have serious attachment problems. I do not think social workers should be making psych assessments obviously.

Children have an increased likelihood of being abused while in care for all sorts of reasons - I think children should not be emotionally or physically abused anywhere and that includes their own home.

As a very last resort children are removed from their own home (barring fuck-ups of which there are bound to be some). Just because children have an increased likelihood of being abused while in care does not mean children should never be taken into care - it just means it should be carefully considered with all the evidence weighed.

And that people who work inappropriately within the care system should be subject to the same sanctions as anyone else - ie. should be criminalised if they abuse or cause children to be abused.

And obviously social workers should be held to very rigorous standards. And held to account when they fuck up.

Children should be with their parents/family as long as their physical and emotional well-being is supported. But as a society we always need to be able to protect the vulnerable.