Chilling story about child (allegedly) wrongly taken into care.

[Callisto]

It is from the Mail I'm afraid, but there are quotes from the couples MP which seems to add weight to the story.

Article here.

The DM article said the protest march etc. couldn't be held otherwise there would be prosecutions for revealing the child's name.

If I'd had my child taken away and therefore had nothing to live for, I'd take the risk.
I think getting real names out in the media may be the only way the public are going to sit up and realize this is happening to real children

Social workers make mistakes.

But in the case in the OP we are being asked to believe that in 74 different court proceedings no credible evidence was brought forward to suggest that the child in the case was at risk, but for some reason she is still being permanently removed from her family. Does that sound even remotely credible? 74 different court proceedings - all of them agreeing that choking on a lollipop is evidence of sexual abuse? It seems to me to be far more likely that there is material that cannot be put into the public domain or which the social services were not prepared to give to the newspapers.

And social services cannot snatch children without proper process. The police can - but social services can't.

seeker - you're not reading what I've said at all. Perhaps legally, SS can't "snatch" children without proper court proceedings, but I personally know of at least 1 case where that exact thing has happened. No court order, no police presence, just a carful of SW's taking a baby of its mother in the street.

And all the 74 court appearances may not have been a total of 74 court appearances talking about "Jenny". They could have been housekeeping cases, talking about the various minutiae and bureaucracy that goes alongside SS. Or they could have been appearances where SS didn't bother to show up, or the family's lawyer didn't show up (depends how good their lawyer was) or you could be absolutely right and there could have been a valid reason for the child's removal. I guess we'll never know.

"I personally know of at least 1 case where that exact thing has happened. No court order, no police presence, just a carful of SW's taking a baby of its mother in the street."

What happened when the mother sued them? I presume they have now been sacked?

I remember hearing of a case a while ago about a new-born that was nearly snatched from a hospital by SS without a care order. The Dr's refused to let them take the baby as I recall and they had to go infront of a judge to try and get the order (which wasn't forthcoming I think).

There are loads of child-snatching incidents by SS and loads of incompetance in not taking truly at risk children. But the social workers involved never seem to face diciplinary action or get fired - there is just a review of their departmental procedures, or some such bull, and everything carries on as before. To me social workers are the enemy because of cases like these. I would really like to adopt, but the whole process of social workers picking one's life and parenting skills apart just puts me off.

Another similar case here: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5743507/Couple-lose-custody-of-children-after-school-security-concer ns.html

seeker, you have your blinkers on again!

Not blinkers. Clearsightedness and refusing to leap to conclusions on insufficient evidence.

"It's true - it happened to a friend of mine" is not evidence.

A friend of a friend of mine is convinced she was abducted by aliens. That doesn't make alien abduction true.

The Daily Mail says that asylum seekers jump the queue for social housing, and the EU won't let supermarkets sell straight (or was it bent?) bananas. Neither of these things are true either.

I need proper facts before I believe anything.

So would you consider the Telegraph a more credible source as linked below ?
The whole point of this debate for me is the fact that nobody can prove who is telling the truth because the family courts are so secretive, in the same way that we are all told if we've nothing to hide we've nothing to fear, let them operate on the same basis and open up the courts and allow some accountability.

But seeker, there is reams of evidence of SS wrongly taking children away, albeit circumstancial. Why are John Hemming and the Times and Telegraph campaigning for open family courts if there were only the odd one or two miscarraiges? I think you are dismissing this on the grounds that it is from the Daily Mail so you are being biased.

I agree about family courts so long as someone comes up with a way of protecting people who need protecting.

The Daily Telegraph story is as vague and fact free as the Daily Mail one.

I'm not saying that these things didn't happen. I am saying we have no way of knowing whether they are or not. It would be possible to read from the Daily Telegraph story that the children were taken into care to keep them safe from their delusional, mentally ill father. But it would be wrong to do that. just as it would be wrong to say that social services 'abducted" these children without due cause.

But the FACTS are that he was proven not to be mentally ill, so should we not check the facts first and then remove children ? The mother was released and the children kept, do SS really not know what damage that would cause ?
It seems to me that SW as a profession simply attracts the wrong type of person, there should be psychiatric assessment of all potential social workers to ensure that they are mentally of sound mind before they are given such responsibility.
The sickness figures for SS are beyond belief which also suggests there is no where near enough support, added to the fact that the media highlights their mistakes and there is no accountability anywhere within the system and even those who do finally get sacked (baby P's case) it's with a massive golden handshake which sends the message it wasn't really your fault but somebody's got to fall on their sword.
Family courts can protect identity's in the same way that any other court can these days, video links etc etc.

He was detained under the Mental Health Act for 10 days and told the school his children were royalty. Concerns were raised when investigations were made. It is entirely possible that the social services were right in this case. It is also entirely possible that they were wrong. My point is that based on the facts available to us we just don't know, and it is unfair to assume guilt on the part of the social services. These reports are being presented as proof that the social services are in the wrong - they are simply Not proof of anything at all.

seeker - because of the secrecy in the family courts, the family are not permitted to bring legal action against Essex SS. In fact, getting Nursing Matters involved was one of the reasons why it took so long for Baby E to be returned to her family; Essex SS cited it (along with her mother's insistence on breastfeeding) as proof that the family were not suitable caregivers for Baby E!

I do understand your reluctance to treat the DM as a reliable source, and I know that the blog isn't much better. But this is what happens with the secrecy, you don't get accurate reporting or facts coming through, you get anecdotes and half-truths and, "My mate says...".

I know that you agree that the secrecy in the Family Courts needs to end, but until it does there won't be transparency, or accurate reporting. And cases like this will still happen, and families will have to jump through hoops in the faint hope that their children will be returned to them.

I called an elderly helpline for advice with regards to my elderly mother in laws depression and the first thing that was suggested as a solution was that I had her section. Not that she saw her GP, not that she took some time off work, but to be detained on a ward against her will, these things happen far to quickly and regularly and are such a waste of resources.
They haven't said in the article he was lying have they ?

I am a name changing regular and have posted this story a couple of times before but I just want to let you know how bloody dangerous SS can be .

I was 21 and had two young dc both under 3 I lived very happily with their father who worked and I stayed home with the DC .
DS had just started nursery and DD was one their father went out on a xmas staff do he came back drunk and hit me this was the first and last time it happened and I rang the police and had him arreted .
The next day SS were at my door I expected their help as the woman from the police domestic violence unit had told me they would help me .
The woman from ss seemed to take a total dislike to me she handed me forms to sign stating I would not let my dc see their Father until everything was investigated I agreed and signed .
She kept making a big point about how I should tell her now if I wasn't coping as I would make things worse for myself .
She then told me I wasn't supervising Ds properly because he was eating scrambled eggs from a china bowl not a plastic dish like his sister.
The next day I was in the supermarket with my Mum and the SW rang and told me she believed I was with exdp and if I was not at my house within the hour she would arrange an emergency care order against my children I asked what she meant and she basically said she would pick up my Dc and place them in foster care.
I was hysterical and scared and ended up in my doctors surgery with the Gp ringing the SS and basically bollocking them.

What I am trying to say is that I did everything right my exp hit me I contacted the authorities and did not expose my dc to any violence .
I had a clean warm home my dc were happy loved and safe .
I had the backing of HV and Doctors and nursery teachers but this woman was determined that in the very least she was going to have my dc put on the at risk register and she tried to get me jumping through hoops ..I can remember saying to her but I have done all the right things and she just sat there in silence ignoring me while I sobbed .

Luckily for me I had everyone backing me up but without there support I truly believe she would have had my dc taken away from me for nothing at all .

It has also had a lasting damage I am terrified of what people think of me I try too hard to prove that I am a good Mother and I have anxiety issues .

If my dp ever hit me or indeed battered me I would not call the police this time because I know only too well the hurt it has caused to me 8 years on .

I also totally believe any articles about ss dragging babies from the street or their homes for no good reason because it almost happened to me just for ringing the police to reporyt a DV incident and there was really nothing more to it .

BTW after many case meetings it was agreed my dc were not in any danger and I have a letter from the ss stating that they have no concerns and the case is closed.

GBaF - but not unfortunately.

That just sounds horrendous.

Are you all okay now.

We are all fine now Fabbaker Dc have a good relationship with EXDP I am in a happy relationship with new dp .

The dc are happy at school and doing well it is just me who is left with a fear of anyone in authority .

Did anyone see Dispatches last night about children at risk failed by the care system (investigating children who had been killed by their parents)? I don't know what the answers are, but it seems to me that SS can't win - if they act to precipitously, they are "baby snatchers", and if they stand back, they're accused of failing children at risk.

GB&F - I am involved with an organisation called Nursing Matters, we were originally set up to advocate for breastfed infants within the asylum system, but quickly extended our brief to all breastfed infants within the UK care system.

What happened to you (breastfeeding or no!) was atrocious, appalling and unfortunate. It is not, as someone else said, shocking. I can well believe - as presumably can anyone who has had negative contact from SS - that this SW would have had your dc removed for no other reason than she took a dislike to you.

I was in a similar(ish) position. When my ds was 7 weeks old I mentioned to my HV that I was concerned about the amount he was bf-ing. Rather than tell me that 6-7 weeks is a very common time for a growth spurt, she told me to give formula, and when I refused (he was not underweight or dehydrated, and was bouncing quite happily along the 50th centile) she attempted to have us put on the at risk register. Luckily, my GP saw that there was no case and SS discharged us, but had events gone differently he could have been removed. The same HV told me that if I was still bf-ing and co-sleeping when ds was 12 months old "SS would take an interest". Cowbag.

I reported her, but AFAIK (although she was suspended from duty) she retired soon after, so never faced consequences for her actions.

I will take a look at that link later thanks Urban .

I truly believe that some SW (not all ) just enjoy playing God with some people and this is what my SW did luckily I had a very good HV who supported me but I am still terrified when I think about what could have happened .

I even panic if I haven't tidied the house by 12pm now in case SS just turn up which they haven't done for years but that is how scared they have made me .

Your HV sounds like a loon Urban .

The thing is, Bramshott, that some SS depts are well-run, efficient and act correctly in 99.9% of cases. Presumably they receive similar funding to SS depts in other parts of the country? So why can't all SS depts be efficient and well run? As far as i'm concerned this is often an issue of poor management (Sharon Shoesmith, the head of Children's Services at Haringey who refused to resign after the Baby P case) rather than individual SW's cocking up.

Having said that, the power that SW's and paediatricians have is worrying. It only takes one paediatrician to suspect you of harming your baby, or one A&E nurse to flag the case to SS to catapult you into a whole heap of nightmares, where you have to jump through SS hoops or risk having your child(ren) removed.

seeker:
"I agree about family courts so long as someone comes up with a way of protecting people who need protecting."

You mean the social workers? It seems they are the main beneficiaries of the secret court system.

Or do you mean the children? Fetishing their anonymity is always said to be in their best interests, but that always seems to come from people who have their own reasons for preferring to work without public scrutiny.

What about parents? Currently they have no recourse to any kind of protection from social services, should they need it. How can that be acceptable?

Unless you believe that children belong to the state and should only be left with their parents if the state deems it to be "in their interests".

The courts are gradually becoming more open. Very very slowly though

the lates rules on media in family courts