terribly sad story about wrongful adoption where the birth parents have been proved innocent

[edam]

Today programme look at 2hrs 10mins in this morning had a segment on the case of parents who were accused of abuse, their children were taken away and adopted. Now it's finally emerged that the parents are innocent but the Court of Appeal says the adoption order is permanent and can't be overturned.

I do understand that adoption has to be solid and safe but surely the courts and social services could promote some form of contact between innocent parents and their children?

In what universe does the 'best interests of the child' = refusing to recognise and address a miscarriage of justice? Surely the child has a human right to a relationship with their birth family?

Just makes me even more fearful of SS after the stream of stories about miscarriages of justice and heavy-handed tactics. I would NEVER ask them for help.

ceres, kat, I do not doubt that emotional abuse is damaging. However, weighed against that is the very well documented, real and significant emotional harm to children and poor outcomes of being torn from their family and dumped into the care system and shunted from pillar to post with nary a moment's notice.

Emotional damage, in the absence of physical harm, is a catch all concept that is a convenient for an errant child protection professional (does not have to be a social worker, could be a psychiatrist, midwife, health visitor) to point the finger at a parent, who is perhaps struggling from post natal depression, or under severe stress from being in a physically abusive relationship or who has learning difficulties, to remove her children.

I am not saying every social worker or health professional would abuse their power in this way. But it is a fact that family courts currently operate in secrecy and I do not agree that there are checks and balances in the system. The social worker who jumps up and down at an allegation of poor parenting by extended nursing, co-sleeping or poor eye contact could also shout down a health visitor who tries to argue to the contrary. John Hemming MP believes that there is corruption (not saying widespread) in the family justice system. For example, experts and lawyers for the family who are supposed to be independent but instead collude implicitly with the local authority because they want the local authority to refer future cases to them.

All this coupled with the fact that families who are most vulnerable to having their children stolen from them are often under great distress already from their personal circumstances or have learning difficulties, to then have to fight to prevent their children being ripped into a damaging care system simply for being being 'emotionally damaged' by their circumstances. It is not a level playing field for a lot of families who are fighting to keep their children.

As Sorrento says, resources should be directed at supporting families, rather than casting judgment. I say this for cases of emotional abuse without evidence or a real risk of physical harm.

Emotional damage is terribly subjective. And as the Websters' case sadly shows, even what appears to be compelling objective medical opinion on the non-accidental fractures can in hindsight be unfounded. During the proceedings in relation to their 3 children, the Websters were said to be poor parents and their care inadequate because their children were anxious and their first child had rotten teeth. In later proceedings in relation to their 4th baby, the consultant psychiatrist described them as having a strong attachment to their baby and a well developed social conscience. This finally made the local authority back off and allow them to keep their youngest child.

Am I to believe they went from in inadequate to adequate in such a short time or perhaps that judgments about another's parenting is inevitably riven with subjectivity - isn't this subjectivity what keeps half of the AIBU threads on mn lively?

For the family justice system and child protection to gain the respect and confidence of the public, there MUST be proper checks and balances and transparency in the family courts. There must be level playing field for families, not just in theory but in reality.

There MUST be a way for miscarriages of justice like the Websters' case to be addressed. It cannot just end with the Court of Appeal saying terribly sorry, you are likely to have been egregiously wronged but we cannot help. At the very very least, there must be a way for the Websters' to vary the contact order to allow maximum contact with their birth children in a way that is sensitive to the children.

Whistleblowers, like the one in Haringey who tried to expose failings in social services ahead of Baby P, should be given due respect and their claims investigated thoroughly and reported. Instead, what we read about is how she was sacked from her job by the Sharon Shoesmith managers of this world who even abused their powers to attempt to remove her teenage child from her until they were forced to back off.

Why are serious case reviews, even for ones as high profile as Baby P's, not allowed to be published, inspite of overwhelming public opinion? Why are professionals who give evidence in child protection cases to be treated with kid gloves in case they are discouraged from coming forward by having the public spotlight turned on them whereas since time immemorial experts and professionals who have been giving evidence in criminal cases somehow seem to be made of sterner stuff??

Transparency cuts both ways - it allows bad practice to be properly addressed and rooted out as well as gives due credit and exposure to the previously unsung good work that is responsible social workers and child protection professionals have been doing to date.

Stewie "There is very real evidence for emotional abuse: older children who shit themselves, who cut, suffer from anorexia/ bulimia, have no social interaction with anyone. It might be hard to see someone committing emotional abuse in a way that it is easy if you see someone beating a child but it doesn't mean that the effects of the emotional abuse aren't measurable."

But the chances of an older child being adopted are far less likely to happen or if they do likely to work. The outcome for such a child is likely to be a long term succession of foster homes. Surely there are lots of examples of children who self-harm or are suicidal or have eating disorders who are IN the care system. Who is to say that, whilst they could have been supported in their birth family, they were actually made much much worse by the shambolic care system?

There needs to be a lot more research about the harm caused by the care system in the UK before we think about removing children from their birth families for subjective concepts like 'emotional abuse'.

edam - thanks for posting that link which confirms what I thought when it comes to adoption law. I would be interested in a legal perspective on the issue of contact order which he doesn't address here.

I am leaving this thread - it's full of nonsense written by people who really don't know what they are talking about. Blueshoes - your last post is pure crap.

kat, you think it is pure crap that I am asking for more research on the harm caused by the care system? Is it wrong to inform ourselves and to ask what is the best way to ensure better outcomes for children?

If you wish to leave this thread, that is your prerogative. I am keen to hear from people in child protection as to how the system can be improved. Even Wall LJ in the Court of Appeal in the Websters' case admitted that he can be a critic of the criminal justice system (though criticism was not actually warranted in that particular case).

If you think everything is hunky dory, then clearly you won't be part of the solution.

What's crap about saying older children are less likely to be adopted? It's true. What's crap about saying emotional abuse is subjective? Of course it is! In some - maybe many - cases it may be clear that the children are not being looked after properly but 'emotional abuse' as a concept is not clear cut.

If you want to argue that it is, please explain, we'd be very interested to hear it.

I meant to say family justice system.

Before I start I have'nt read the whole thread just the first few posts TBH but just thought I'd comment anyway.

I watched a program about this case a year or two ago and it made me so angry to think that an innocent famly can be accused of this

I don't think blaming SS is the answer though there were many others who were involoved in this. The doctor who prescribed the milk didn't make proper notes of it so when the scurvy started they had no evidence of lack of dairy etc and there were people who tried to shout for the parents inocence within SS bu were basically hushed up. There needs to be a strategy put in place for possible abuse that means there can be NO adoption of a child until a case as been proven and I know that's what FC are for but that clearly does'nt work when this happens.

Also something in that program that made me feel sick was when SS sent a video of each child to the parents basically advertising their chidren to possible adoptive parents, can I ask exactly what that was meant to achieve? Does anyone know why they do that? To me that is just fecking cruelty towards the parents and it all just seems pointless.

I'm not claiming to know all but just wanted to ive my opinio on the matter.

Ceres, I have only one thing to say, my friend was the manager.
It's worrying but if you're correct in saying one lone voice doesn't have the weight I thought it did then that is reassuring.

The Websters were on This Morning today.

expat, I must have missed it. What did they say?

mamadiva, that is so sad. What you described did not come out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I missed it, too.

Oh Mamadiva, that is very sad.

But I'm not surprised the court of appeal didn't give the full picture. The more I learn about the series of miscarriages of justice to do with child protection, the more cynical I am.

I'm sure the system works very well much of the time, but when it goes wrong it goes very wrong indeed, and many of these cases seem to have factors in common.

This is heartbreaking, we had a similar situation with DD when she was a baby,she was having reactions to lactose and other food,but we pestered and pestered the GP,and our HV and got her referred to a paediatrician.

He couldnt find anything wrong and discharged her,he said there was nothing wrong with her legs and she later got dx,d with hemiparesis

we wouldnt accept it though,i was told i was an over anxious and neurotic mother by my HV who shouted at me on the phone one day,i was very upset but persevered and insisted that she be referred to another paediatrician who specialised in dietary deficiancy and i also pestered the dietician dept until they gave me an appointment,then DD was put on a very regulated strict elimination diet over a year,and saw her paed regularly.

it frightens me to think that this could have been us, people DO put their faith in the medical profession though and this family were let down.

its very very

Fiona Phillips is calling the adoption laws "licensed child abuse"

www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/phillips/2009/02/13/adoption-law-is-like-licensed-child-abuse-11587 5-21121632/

How frightening, jen!

Just look at that poor 8-year-old girl who died of dehydration and renal failure after refusing to eat.

Her parents did everything right, too, taking her back and forth to the doctors.

"By kat2907 on Sun 15-Feb-09 22:57:45

• This is nonsense. Emotional abuse is real and it is damaging. SS should not bother with cases of emotional abuse? Are you serious?

Sorrento's post is undoubtedly worrying. I have read back files which are full of judgementalism and snobbery, which would never be countenanced by any decent SW or their manager now. Any opinion like that will always be challenged. I have been in a CP conference where the baby's SW stated that they were co-sleeping as if it was an example of their poor parenting and lack of routine. This was jumped on by the midwife (mother was pregnant) and HV who defended the mother. Judgemental and narrow minded views abound in SS but there are always many professionals involved in these decisions and it's never as simple as 'SW thinks they are bad parents because they don't make eye contact/don't give enough fruit and veg/whatever'."

TBH...I can see where Sorrento scenario could have severe backlash....the case you state...what if the HV and m/w would have been against co-sleeping...could have gone completely against that mother...couldn't it...yes...o.k. if it does get challenged, but there is a chance it doesn't and what chance does the parent has then?
I have come across more H/v and m/ws that might have not agreed with my choices...but was lucky not to be under investigation, I suppose!
Also...Evidence Based practice...does that apply to SS...because it would help unexperienced SW's...

Ceres...so, how often do SW's have Supervision, in ot it seems to be weekly if Band 5 and than up to fortnightly...
also...if all really happens the way you say...every time...how can the miscarriages of justice happen, aswell as those cases that aren't really picked up in severety...have worked with youngsters in the caresystem, but not involved in the earlier stages...so...professionally (only as a residential support worker)I do not know...but having read a fair enough of books, including Cathy Glass's Books...I do wonder if an impossible caseload is maybe preventing good professional conduct on all levels...not the SW's fault, but the system....

OH my Stevie...bigger Kids who shit themselves are emotionally abused...always...or maybe nt...do you know how common entopresis and such things are...so...yup there is a generalisation which was my worst fear...which actually was part of why we were waiting maybe to long...concerns poopooed earlier but onve pottytrained there was no way to keep ignoring the problem....honest those sort of general statements can scare you so much that maybe you don't seek help, etc...

Sorrento an unexperienced SW should not be manager...and experience in those kind of areas are not just your prof quals...it's life-experience, too...and your friend possibly now can see that...

Oh, and older children tend to be either fostered if they can be "managed" tht way, but many seem to end up in residential care or worse, depending on criminal activity, etc...

So, basically my opinion is, that really more staff needs to be employed in SS and caseloads have to be managable...and that a SW either has to be experienced or they have to be in a supervised position until they are!
Obviously I know that is Utopia Talk...but...

It's not particularly Utopia talk, in fact it is the way the system should work. Supervision is the backbone of the SW model, and should happen regularly (can't remember how often, but more than the health equivalent where I have worked). Unqualified staff should be supported, and inexperienced staff should not be managers. Evidence based practice doesn't have such an emphasis in SW compared with health in my experience, but there is a very strong culture of quality assurance (where a separate team regularly look through randomly selected notes against strict standards), and in general SWers are much better at writing up their notes, and recording phone calls etc.

The big big problem is staff shortages, and the lack of trained and qualified SW applying for roles. This means that departments are often understaffed and as the role is stressful at the best of times, staff can get very stressed indeed. I think it is a fairly soul destroying profession in any case, as the majority of families are dysfunctional or struggling, and witnessing neglect and abuse is obviously very upsetting. When it is successful it is of course uplifting, but the burn out rate is high (which adds to the problem of manning the service with highly experienced staff). The problem is that when there are families who need supervising or support, it has to be done, regardless of whether that over-stretches the department or any individual. So long as there are not enough people going into social work this problem will persist, and it seems to be the root cause of the majority of failures in the service.

It is obviously a frightening experience for families who get wrongfully caught up in suspected abuse, but I think the current emphasis is none the less right, that the welfare of children should be paramount. The trouble is that that goes counter to the rest of our legal system which presumes innocence. I do agree that families who are not that educated or bright, or those who are under a lot of pressure are very disadvantaged at the moment. It is a pity that the right legal support often doesn't seem to be available. The Webster's lawyers must have known that the brittle bone defense wasn't strong enough, but it does seem surprising that the very strange diet was not at the very least referred to a nutritionist as having some impact on the toddler.

However it shouldn't be assumed that because there might be another reason for the fractures that that was the whole picture. A three year old having to have all their teeth removed is surely a sign of significant problems with care or nutrition. Plus there was some very intense support with the last child. I can't see as a total outside that one can ever make an informed judgement on a case like this, or indeed why we should feel we should be able to. I have read (in a professional capacity, and completely anonymised) some child protection reports, and I really really wish that I had not.

Very interesting posts, nooka and fairlady.

One of the things that worries me is that the phrase 'the best interests of the child' seems to be interpreted in very narrow terms and often as if that is always diamtrically opposed to the views or interest of the family. Surely 'the best interests of the child' include, wherever possible, a continuing relationship with their birth family?

Removal from their family is distressing and traumatic - but once that is done, the disruption of any more back to the family is treated a complete bar.

It does give the impression that 'the best interests of the child' is interpreted in a narrow way that can, in some cases, damage families. While social services are free to do exactly the same things to kids in their care, shunting them around foster placements. I realise there are reasons for this, troubled children and a shortage of foster parents, but why is it OK for SS to move children, but impossible to move children back to their parents?

I mean, doesn't there need to be some recognition that in some cases birth families DO actually have the interests of their children at heart?