'snatched' by social workers

[DuelingFanjo]

oh ffs

I know it's the Daily Mail but Social workers don't snatch children!

She looks good for 48 mind!

GSCC website, just been having a look. Am at what the SW on there have been getting up to.

It's good that they are being clobbered when they've done wrong, I was just suprised at the frequency of hearings and the severity of the wrongdoing.

How many SW are there in the UK, does anyone know?

I was also trying to find out how many reports they get every year but I couldn't.

Have a look at my link, what the supposed regulatory body has been up to is even more shocking!

One thing that has worried me about NN is that she claims to be an independent social worker who acts as an expert witness, IIRC. If that's true, her dogmatic, bullying posts on here and attacks on anyone who dares to question her view of the world really do cast doubt on her fitness for that role.

But I haven't tried to find out who she is in RL or attempted to complain to her potential employers (presumably lawyers and councils).

But, Dittany, that's exactly what some posters were working themselves up to a few threads ago for Nananina.

What people seem to forget is that there is a context here which is that of a witchhunting media irl and a similar sort of attitude from some posters here which does become more difficult to bear as it goes on. Some of us try to avoid these threads and then (stupidly) take a look and see something really alarmist or untrue and want to correct what we've seem, for those who are not familiar with the system.

There are some interesting questions here that I'd like to respond to when I have more time.

I've been a bit busy, but have now read the posts and aim to answer some points.

Spero - unsurprisingly - is unhappy with my assertion that some parents' lawyers work against their own clients.

I was made aware of this by a social worker who told me how he had previously worked with parents' lawyers in order to identify how to ensure that the parents lost their case. He thought this was wrong which was why he told me.

I have since looked for this and spotted occasions when parents' lawyers have worked against their clients. Very often they persuade people to not oppose a care order when really they should do so.

I also had a case where the mothers' lawyer told the client that she did not want to fight the case too hard in case the social workers made up a case against her and took her own children.

Let me stress, however, that there are some lawyers that I recommend. For example William Bache & Co are a good firm. However, as part of supporting cases one thing we do is frequently to advise parents to sack their lawyers because they would be better off without them.

The "fat" issue. Obviously the official reason won't be that the social worker was insulted. However, it is often part of human behaviour to be vindictive.

Emergency Protection Orders do not have a letter before action.

I revert to my point that social workers can initiate procedures that result in a child being taken into care. This gives them the "child snatching" power.

One case which was a Solihull case was one where I was working with a mother whose foster mother was a constituent. In this case I was thrown out of the Family Court because I was supporting the mother in opposing an EPO. The hearing was delayed to ensure that she could be bullied by the system into accepting the EPO.

If more people saw what was going on they would not be as trusting. Those who have seen the system and are not financially dependent on it are often very critical.

Merely asking for more money is a complete non starter. It is not the amount of money that is the problem. It is that the system destroys families and chews people up. Obviously there is a time when intervention is needed, but the intervention should make things better rather than worse. Some times it does make things better, but often it doesn't.

It also chews up practitioners which is why so many vote with their feet.

Yes, what johnhemming reports is terrifying. However, in all my years I've never seen or heard anything like it. It's such a contrast with my experience that it is hard to believe, but I suppose it's a bit like an air crash, when it goes wrong it's disastrous, but generally planes get people safely from A to B.

Starlight, no not you. It was a couple if months ago and I can't remember exactly who they were, but I don't think they're on this thread. I was just making the point that there is a context to Nananina's posts, she gives out, but there's also been a lot of crap thrown at her.

Sounds like a reasonable analogy, wahwah.

Starlight, you have the right to complaint without retaliation. I find often that like you, people just want to sort the crap out and if they can't do this with the worker or their manager, then they have no alternative but to complain. Complaints are boundaries by a procedure and timescales usually, so this can ensure you get a response.

What I find helpful is a letter setting out the areas that need resolution and a phone number. Some times we can sort things out really easily, other times we need to meet a few times to resolve the matter, sometimes matters do need to go further....it's really your choice.

Good point about not wanting to get on the plane in the first place. I know it's not any kind of consolation, but I hope I've never underestated the impact of our unasked for intervention on families. We really do try and balance the harm of unwarranted intrusion with our duties to children.

Gosh, I can't make much comment on specifics, but our assessments should start with the child and their needs. There are lots of judgements from all of us about parenting styles (and SWs are certainly nit immune from this) but to say a style needs changing I would have thought required some evidence of a negative impact on a child.

Just having a look to see how things are going even though I had decided to leave the thread. I think Wall LT's comments (link provided by Spero on 4th Dec Page 8 of this thread) says it all about JH, far far more eloquently than I ever could. The Judge has the gift of being able to express his "outrage" that an MP is allowed to behave in such a way in the court process, without resulting to insult, which I accept I have been unable to do.

I have expressed myself very forcefully and sometimes inappropriately on this thread which I accept, and I have received forceful and derogatory comments back which is fair enough. However I have fought injustice all my life and I don't intend to stop now and I will not stand by and see someone (be he an MP or anyone else) post totally inaccurate ifnoramtion and distort facts to support a hypothesis which in reality is insupportable.

As for all JH's supporters, what you think about me doesn't bother me - if it did I would have slunk off a long time ago. But one question - have you read the link provided by Spero - Wall LT's comments on JH. If not maybe you should.

For those of you who worry that I am bullying sw in RL - worry not. I have enjoyed excellent relationships over 30 years with all with whom I have come into contact in my profession and have always, always treated service users with respect. OK so you won't believe it but again that matters not to me because I know it to be true and that's really all that matters.

On the issue of the LJ's comments this is the subject of additional proceedings initially in the OJC, then Judicial Ombudsman - where it has been stuck for a number of months. Depending upon what happens there it will go to Europe either as an individual application or both as an application and as part of the inquiry into the Family Courts.

Don't place too much weight on those comments.

For those who don't want to link to the Wall LJ comments, here they are:
In the judgment Wall LJ recalls an exchange with Mr Hemming in which he made the allegations that the file had been changed and says that the "feeling of incredulity" he experienced at the time of the hearing was "not diminished" by the time he came to make the judgment. He goes on to say,

"I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them."

He also refers to comments about the proceedings on the MP's website that refer to the "evil" of the arrangements for appointing expert witnesses,

"In my judgment, these comments are not only wrong and ill-informed; the simple fact remains that they have no foundation in the evidence presented either to the Nottingham County Court or to this court. That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again strikes me as an abuse of his position.......

(the allegation) only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming's position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly."

Finally, Wall LJ comments that Mr Hemming's standing in

"his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence."

The MP has responded to the criticism on his blog by stressing what he thinks was the key point which was that

"the mother had never been given an opportunity to put her side of the argument ......This is a far more important issue than whether or not my contested assertions are true or not".

Don't beat about the bush John. was Wall LJ right about you or not??

for those who think I am a 'bully' do you understand my concerns? Do you understand why I think a letter to Nick Clegg is more than appropriate?

Not that anything will be achieved, but I cannot sit by and do nothing.

The full text of the judgment can be found on the Family Law Week website via this link:
www.familylawweek.co.uk/library.asp?i=3583