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

Bluesapphire ,your story sounds horrendous and i sympathise.Did your daughter ever have the opportunity to see an independant visiter whilst in care ?

If your chances in care are dire then I think it should be a very very rare case that chidlren are taken away. Personally I would rather we had some children dying at the hands of their parents every year or even suffering emotional abuse if that was the price we pay for not removing many who could just as well stay with their parents. In other words it should be a rare thing to remove the child and other options such as say an unemployed benefits claimant (one of those who will have to work for benefits under the new Labour gov system) lives in the home with the children and their parents who are having difficulties to provide 24/7 supervision or 3 or 4 of those people on a rota rather than remove children or parents offered the right to live in state provided hostels under supervision with their children rather than have the children taken away.,If mine might be taken I'd do anything to keep them including live under those conditions.

The evidence is (and I can find it if needs be) that every change in placement causes mental health problems for a child. I do not think we should ignore chidlrens' mental health. This includes the first change of placement when a child is put into care.

On one hand, therefore, you have an action that has a track record of causing problems for children (putting them in care) on the other hand there is something vaguer.

The authorities only get away with this in England and Wales because of the single expert system where the LA gets a tame expert who will say this needs to be done. We know that the outcomes are abymsal for the children, but the system keeps on doing it. (and in ARW's case wants to take a 6 year old boy from Ireland back to England when he is settled in school although I am trying to stop this).

In the mean time more babies die of "Nutritional deficiencies" in England and Wales between 2001-2006 (8) than Spain (1), France (3), Germany (1) and Poland (1) put together.

pmsl at xenia. What about the children of the unemployed benefit claimant? Should they be moved into the house too? (How big is the house?) Or should we move another benefit claimant into their house to look after them, in a big round circle? And do you propose that any of these unemployed people get training before they move into somebody else's house for the purpose of supervising them?

Or are you only proposing that childless benefit claimants move in? (Because childless people are so good at understanding the emotional demands of parenting, aren't they?)

LOLOLOL. You are mad.

Although, you aer quite right in that proper support within homes should be the way forward. I can't see that that would be more expensive to administer than court proceedings etc and it is a much more long term way of solving parenting problems. It seems to me that most care solutions merely continue the cycle of emotional deprivation and surely the point of family intervention should be to break the cycle.

Attachment theory seems to be a very elastic concept that means what anyone who calls themselves an expert wants it to mean. It's a huge jump to say that the experience of children in Romanian orphanages has much practical bearing on the character, personality or development of children in the UK.

I remember a thread here where the OP was mystified by the way a child diagnosed with attachment disorder was being treated by a family member who had taken on their care. The experts were apparently telling the family to regard the poor child as a cuckoo in the nest, taking everyone else on holiday and leaving him alone as punishment, for instance, and turning down opportunities for him to be treated kindly by other close relatives.

Someone posted who seemed to know all the jargon and have some professional experience, defending the apparently cruel treatment of the child.

It is so difficult to make sense of the jargon, like RAD. Which is why independent expert opinion in child protection cases is vital. And if expert opinion is divided, for heavens sake, it needs to come out in the court proceedings. I find it exceedingly disturbing that families have to choose from a list of tame (or shall I say 'in-house') psychiatrists and experts who are beholden to the LA.

It seems to me that once SS has decided their league table position can handle the hit of taking another child into care , then the dice is completely loaded against the parents in the proceedings. The experts are pre-empted and handcuffed in favour of the SS, their barristers are also beholden to the LA (to keep the flow of future cases going), the report is badly written goobledigook with the intention of obfsucating and justifying a forgone conclusive, rather then informing. It sounds like a conspiracy against the parents that a judge can only play along with.

Am I the only one who went when I read that the test for a child to be returned to its parents is higher than the test for a child to be removed into care (lauriefairy). Shouldn't we move mountains to support and keep families together, rather than have a system which removes children for amorphous knee-jerk concepts like RAD - which sounds like a lazy catch-all for SS not being able to find more concrete proof of a child being abused or neglected within a family. It would seem like it will be very difficult to challenge the SS/council once they get a bee in their bonnet about removing a child from their family.

I feel for tuttufrutti when she felt powerless as a parent. This in completely in line with what I am reading. It does read like sensationalist writing, but this is what I am picking up from just reading this thread. I do hope I am wrong and there is good practice out there. Sadly, with a system that is rigged against parents, this depends on the goodwill and benevolence of the SS/council. That is totally unacceptable in our free society.

In all this, there is a bad 'munchhausen by proxy' smell in the use of RAD by SS. It could very well be a valid theory but without vigorous independent challenge, we will never know.

I reiterate that we need an open and transparent family court system with independent representation and opportunity to present evidence, including expert witnesses, on all sides, not just the LA.

bluesapphire, it was very difficult to read about your dd and your experience with the care system. You are a strong woman to have been able to keep your spirits up for so long. I hope your dd has got that from you.

Laurie - i think that in trying to defend teh system you are actaully pointing out teh weaknesses of it

"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."

dont you think a court should require more hard evidence than :

"reading between the lines"
"assuming that the mother has chosen not to work on her parenting"
"[assuming] that the child has been diagnosed properly"

the report is also assuming that the mother "caused" the RAD and it can be fixed by removing the child to a series of foster placemenst, then on to a residential unit. This is the almost certain outcome for thsi child, if he is forceably removed from his mother.

Woudl you consider this evidence robust enough to convict soemone of a crime? Does is meet the criterion of beyond reasonable doubt? What about "on the balance of probabilities"?

Does anyone posting here really believe that this boy will probably do better in a series of foster homes & residential care, or with his mother, however less than perfect you deem her parenting to be????

RAD requires very intensive long term treatment and therapy, which is only provided in a few places here in the UK. Its family therapy and cant be doen with short term carers. How will he get this if he is moving placement all the time?

Thsi is about the welfare of the child, not about punishing a woman who has not " met targets" or "co-operated with Ss" and who "criticises professionals".

Firstly i regard physical and sexual abuse more important matters to be dealt with than that of emotional or neglect ,two subjects which can be a very small problem but blown into massive issues by social workers.
What happens when you get into child protection or the court arena is that they use one or two things to start with 'at risk of' then branch out on a whole new set of things which to be quite frank are irrelvant and not reasons to be taking or keeping a child into care.Social services for some reason seem to want to shoot you down in any which way then can by branching out on issues which are 'off track'.
I completely agree with the 'at risk of emotional harm' some one else commented before that this can be taking a child out of a frying pan and throwing them into the fire.
If child protection and the government insist on keeping emoitonal harm as a good enough reason to take children into care and be adopted then they should at least weigh up the Emotional harm a child would suffer if left in the home to that of being seperated from their family and taken into care with strangers.
Below is a link to law that was made in the state of NewYork and the effects of emotional harm by top medical experts to keep children at home with their mothers if domestic violence was a problem.Why they do not make it law in the UK i dont know and if anyone thinks this law is wrong then they need their own heads testing.

www.nccpr.org/index_files/Page339.html
If however the mother breaks the exclusion order then i agree maybe it MIGHT be justified depending on the serverity and frequency of the DV. At present we have a 'reccommendation' in the childrens act for interim care orders with an exclusion order barring the DV abuser from the home but social services and courts are not lettings us have this important opportunity!

www.nccpr.org/index_files/Page339.html

Excellent post, Kristingle. So right about the balance of proof, in particular.

AWR's link - please read. It is illuminating

One of the many good extracts: "Dr. Pelcovitz stated that ?taking a child whose greatest fear is separation from his or her mother and in the name of ?protecting? that child [by] forcing on them, what is in effect, their worst nightmare, ... is tantamount to pouring salt on an open wound.?"

thankyou blue shoes, my wireless keyboard is playing me up (i can spell) but i have my hands full to be correcting!

for some reason the link misses out the end of the paragraph,i have the full paragraph here.

Another serious implication of removal is that it introduces children to the foster care system, which can be much more dangerous and debilitating than the home situation. Dr. Stark testified that foster homes are rarely screened for the presence of domestic violence, and that the incidence of abuse and child fatality in foster homes in New York City is double that in the general population. Tr. 1596; Ex. 122 at 3-4. Children in foster care often fail to receive adequate medical care. Ex. 122 at 6. Foster care placements can disrupt the child's contact with community, school, and siblings. Ex. 122 at 8.

Incidentially i put this to the court and social services and they didnt take a blind bit of notice!
One track mind

AWR, that is very worrying. Closed minds at work.

bluesapphire77, a S91(14) is not nessesarly an order stopping you from going back to court.

The order requires to to ask for permission to make an application for the child and a Judge has to give permission.

If you have valid and good reasons for wanting to make an application, then use that to ask for permission.

If the Judge refuses to give you permission, then appeal.

Sorry to hijack the AWR post, I am watching her case from the side lines. Good luck and I am confident that the Court abroad will see more sence than the secret family court Judges.

AWR. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the risks of emotional harm need to be weighed up between that incurred when children stay with potentially abusive parents or are placed in care with all the negative consequences that can have.

There is such a diversity of opinion, conflicting research and professional/personal bias. Child protection theory and what is classified as abusive behaviour are not exact sciences and subject to the whims of culture, politics, prevailing attitudes etc.

I think in the area of emotional abuse it is even harder as the abuse may not be 'tangible' as in other kinds of abuse such as physical or sexual. I don't believe this means it is any less harmful-depending on the individual childs circumstances. However I think what can be classified as emotionally abusive is much less prescribed and so is more open to interpretation by individual professionals/agencies.

In my circumstances if my child had been 3 weeks older I was told that a CP investigation would not have been pursued as she would have been over the age of one. Therefore not automatically subject to local child protection policies regarding emotional abuse in relation to domestic violence.
Now that is ridiculous and arbitary.

I have to say that IMO chronic neglect and emotional abuse can be as damaging as physical or sexual abuse. I also think that in some cases where physical or sexual abuse are suspected but not proven social services can 'use' the emotional abuse label as a way of investigating further. ( I am not defending this btw). However I think that creating any kind of hierarchy of abuse is extremely dangerous can lead to serious oversights. I also do not agree that any of us could be assessed and found guilty of emotional abuse.

I also think that alongside overhauls in the Child Protection System we also seriously need to consider the Foster Care system, which clearly fails children. I also know that there are some fantastic Foster Carers, and that when it works it can work superbly for children who are unable to live at home.

It has just turned 12 here, so happy new year to all, I hope 2009 brings peace and justice to all.

Blueshoes, thank you for your kind comment.
Yes, my DD definately gets it from me in fact, she continued to fight to come home even at times i felt like throwing the towel in for my own sanity.

AWR sorry if i have hijacked your thread i know you haven't said anything but i do bear it in mind, hopefully though my case can show the reason you have done what you have.
If i knew then what i know now i would have gathered my daughter up in my arms and run to whatever country they could not touch us in.

England, australia and america's child protection systems are the same and all have the same problems, stumbling blocks and failures.
In other countries you do not hear of such things as you do here yet other countries' CPS systems seem to be working well?

N1..yes the sec 91(14) order doesn't prevent me from going back to court, unfortunately the SS had a very SS sympathetic judge who stated that the amount of time my daughter has been in care she .. and i quote.. "May as well stay there"

I, to be honest, was sick of attending court, i have been a litigant in person through an emergency protection order (which was only refused on the grounds of myself agreeing that it be refused and my daughter finally get the counselling specifically for sexual abuse that she needed) i then withdrew my application and the SS (still licking their wounds) paid 100 pounds an hour for a specialist sexual abuse counsellor.

This was my greatest victory, but now i am deemed to be a vexatious litigant, which i pointed out was ridiculous as i had a valid point, valid reason, and only withdrew on the grounds that i had got my daughter the counselling she required.

When the SS found out that i was expecting, my son was on the child in need in the area thing.. not a register as such, but noted as a child in need, although the most any SW has ever done for him is took him to McDonalds and asked him about how he feels about his sister being taken away..so they started a new baby assessment.
Carry on, i said, i have nothing to fear or hide.
They obviously worried about the past history of the case and that i wouldn't take any crap, but i think they were pleasantly surprised to find that i was open and willing to work with them. I did make a point that i was willing even though they had done my family a great wrong, and they sort of humbly accepted that i was to be assigned a new worker with no previous experience of the case, she was to meet me and my family before reading any of the made up crap on paper.
This they agreed to, and i found because i had done it like this, that the situation was easier on all including the SW assigned to the assessment.

However, despite acknowledging that there are no worries about my parenting, upon the orders of an old adversary (the team leader) they decided they were going to go to case conference on the grounds that 7 years ago my daughter was sexually abused.
Well i would have laughed but it was just not funny.
So i sat and waited to be sent a date.
Then i got sick of waiting on tenterhooks and phoned up, to be told they had decided there were no grounds to go to CC and no way they could use the past case in the new case with the baby, so they had decided to go along the child in need route. Child in need being for the same reason as my son, only in need because he has a sibling in care.

Well i decided to ask what benefits i could expect for my baby being on the child in need list.
Basically i was shocked and horrified to be told not a lot..a child in my area apparently needs to be at risk, in care, or on the child protection register in order to access most services.

So what is the point of the child in need bollox?
I would have taken full advantage of any services offered, i do not have a local sure start programme because my area is not a poverty stricken one
.. My daughter who is in care doesn't get visits regularly from a SW so am i to expect a support worker to take time out to visit me and baby?

I just don't get it.

BlueSapphire77 The s/w did well getting you to agree to work with them, they might have had all their hair drop out.

Yeah or had the Margaret Hadley experience of a snake in the contact room hehe
Ask if you will but it put our case in the annals of court proceedings..everyone knows who i am lol, solicitors, barristers, judges, SW's, that one incident was my crowning achievement

In any case it was a simple bit of give and take. I told her if she cleared her mind of any crap she had heard about me, i wouldn't add her to the list lol.

The problem with the SS is that they know how powerful they are, and how powerless you are. Some people feeling powerless will react angrily or with suspicion, this plays further into their hands, as does being completely and utterly open and honest.

You can not win.

In my case however, they know there are consequences to their behaviour. And they also know they have put us through shit they shouldn't have, so out of guilt comes a grudging respect.

I had a bloody fab sw for my daughter who recently left (Craig Evans sniff sniff ) I was GUTTED
The new one is crap. Or should i say was. After a few weeks of wrangling and moaning on my part, she is history. so looking forward to what the new one is like.

Sigh

hi bluesapphire, I admire your and dd's gutsy spirit that won't be defeated by the appalling treatment you and dd received at the hands of SS and the care system.

What is this about the team leader ordering a 'case conference' for your son only to abandon it without informing you whilst leaving you to stew. This is just power politics and pettiness in extreme. Do SS enjoy their power over the families they 'support', all conducted under a veil of secrecy in the name of 'confidentiality'? Such unprofessional conduct would be laughable were it not for the fact that their actions can potentially break up families and cause untold damage to children by forcing them into an unsatisfactory care system.

'Child in need' just sounds like a box-ticking exercise.

I would agree with bumblybee that the foster care system in UK also needs to be urgently looked into. Why are outcomes from care so dire? Is it because putting a child into care is inherently damaging or is it because of the real risk of the children being abused in care? If so, how are allegations of abuse within foster homes, as bluesapphire's dd suffered, being followed up and rooted out?

If a child should not be left with their parents, there needs to be research about the effect of half-way house alternatives to costly foster care eg supporting the family in various scenarios listed by Xenia, boarding school (for older children), open adoption. One size cannot fit all, and it should not have to be all or nothing.

Asking the Bluesaphire son how he would feel if his sibling got removed is really low. Some social workers really take the biscuit. A child more south that R was asked to agree to a special guardianship order in his favour, when he has been asking to return home to his parent since being snatched.....how mad it that.

Blue....you heard from terminator recently?