have copied what was posted by johnhemming above that he considered indicative of the madness of the child protection system....
"The dreadful paragraph 19 that makes the nonsensical suggestion that adoption for an 8 year old boy is best best option is the one to concentrate on viz:
"19. In their summary assessment, which by now included M, the assessment team made the following findings and recommendations in response to issues raised in the letter of instruction.
a) Overall S appears to be functioning well. He appears to be a remarkably resilient little boy who has adapted to his experience of emotional abuse, neglect and distortion of reality over a long period of time.
b) We have one serious concern with regard to his emotional welfare. S can be emotionally guarded and is clearly sensitised to others' wishes and feelings.
c) Although S clearly stated that he wished to live with his mother he was unable or unwilling to provide any positive descriptions of what his relationship with her was like beyond its 'nice' to be with her.
d) Observation of the relationship between S and his mother suggested a disorganised attachment system. There was only a low level of reciprocity between S and his mother.
e) The difficulty in the relationship between S and his father stems from the father's own emotional personality regulation difficulties. S still wishes that his parents will get back together but does not express a wish to live with his father.
f) The assessment indicates that the mother is aware of some of S's needs and can list these as a need to socialise, have a routine, boundaries and a sense of belonging. However, her awareness seems concrete and sometimes relates back to her own needs. There is a strong sense that S's needs continue to be about her own needs.
g) Overall there has been no significant improvement in mother's insight/approach to S since July 2006. Significant improvements are not possible while the mother continues to be of the opinion that much of the previous judgments has been wrong or exaggerated. She does not accept the final judgment and she minimises and excuses and blames others. The mother did not accept that she needed to make changes to her parenting.
h) The mother's new husband, M, was an unknown quantity. He could be a negative or a positive influence. He presented as well meaning but blinkered. He was closely aligned with the mother's position.
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.
j) It is in S's best interest for these proceedings, which have been long and drawn out, to be final.
k) The conflict between the parents is unlikely to change in any substantial way and, with either parent, S is likely to experience split loyalties, to be hyper vigilant, untrusting of adults and cautious not to upset anyone.
l) The father does not accept the need for change.
m) The father requires long term psychotherapy for his narcissistic and histrionic personality traits.
n) We do not consider it advisable to return S to the care of either parent.
o) Contact with father and mother should be supervised and should be suspended in the event that either parent is unable to contain feelings about foster carers, each other, social services or other professionals.
p) S needs stability, predictability, security and permanency as well as his emotional, educational and basic care needs being met. Adoption would give S the best possible opportunity for permanency.
q) Long term foster placement would not offer S the same chances of permanency as adoption, but would be an appropriate alternative. There is a risk of the (current foster) placement being undermined by the parents and the court process. There is a danger that this pattern would be repeated in any foster care placement unless the parents change significantly."
Madness."
have to say i am suprised by johnhemming's views and the number of posters who apparently agree. i am professionally involved in child care legal system. i am sure there are people who have been subjected to unfairness and discrimination in their experiences and have sympathy for the very diificult personal stories posters have related here..... but have to say the general view of conspiracy and miscarriages of justice etc does not mirror my lengthy experience.
in the para quoted above from a judgment what does johnhemming think should have happened to this poor boy? if neither parent was considered capable of meeting / prioritising his needs what should a court have decided to do?? send him home despite the assesed lack of change? leave him in foster care despite the lack of fundamental security that would involve for him?? do you all think emotional abuse and neglect are not important? isnt it every child's right to expect that they receive "good enough" parenting?
it is the courts that make these decisions, after hearing all the evidence. decisions that a child cannot live with their family are never taken lightly in my experience and nor should they be. the legal test for a final care order is that a child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm, based on findings of fact about things that have happened.... not vague / hypothetical speculation. harm can mean sexual / physical / emotional harm or neglect. significant means serious.
johnhemming.... how have you read "all the documents etc" in particular cases when these are not allowed to be seen by anyone except a party to that particular case and their lawyers and any experts instructed save with the permission of the court?
xenia, i have to say i do not think that if most families were assesed by appropriately qualified professionals they would find reasons to remove their children. that is not a fear i share. i think the threshold for state intervention in private family life is (quite rightly) a high one.
scummymummy, agree with the points made in your posts!