Mum on the run goes to Spain

[johnhemming]

This is a story of a couple going to spain to avoid the removal of a baby at birth.

I know concern in parliament about the failures of the family courts is growing. However, there really should not be any toleration of a system whereby people have to emigrate to avoid the removal and adoption of their children.

I track a lot of cases that are not in the media. It really is that bad.

Ok, Dittany, sorry. I do agree that diagnosis is not reallythe biggest issue for CP work. We need to know what it may mean for a child. There are many parents diagnosed with scary sounding things like schizophrenia who remain perfectly fine parents and have really good contingency plans for their illness, kind of advance directives. I am always mindful of this when I hear about a 'diagnosis'.

Re JH's link, all it shows was that the Mackenzie friend was allowed, my concerns are that the organisation did not appoint a really good barrister to support theit client. It also does not appear that the first judge acted well and I agree with that.

Re the mother's wish for further assessment it rather looks as if sadly, this was just in her interests and in conflict with her child's. Now it's important that she had the opportunity to appeal, but it hardly shows the LA as evil child snatchers and a massive miscarriage of justice imo.

Wahwah,The case I came across involved an adult with frequent hospital admissions across the country with feigned symptoms. I've never forgotten it because I've never encountered a similar case again.

Thats why I'm a bit suprised that some people seem to think its a major factor in child protection work.

Wahwah and staggerlee - well done for your continuous attempts to try to challenge these ridiculous and often insulting comments about social work and the courts. Dittany wants a list of what JH is not providing - I was for a brief moment tempted to provide one but decided against it as it will be playing into her hands and will bring forth further condemnation and insults. In my view she is totally and utterly obsessed with this MSBP or factitious disorder and her mind is closed to anything else, other than getting her prejudices confirmed. Do you have the stamina to continue? FWIW I have never come across a case of anything like this in over 30 years. Numbers are being bandied about - 5000 cases - without a shred of evidence that there were anything like this number of cases. No matter how many explanations are given to Dittany she seems unable to move on from her position. She sets herself up as having more knowledge than a mental health team manager with years of experience - how arrogant is that.

As for JH. I think the fact that he was completely unable to provide any factual information on the activites of his organisation absolutely incredible but not totally unexpected. 8000 cases and NO information available - no explanation of their manner of intervention with the families they allegedly "assist" and no information on the percentage of cases where they are successful in exposing all these "miscarriages of justice" by the evil system.

I have decided he is nothing but hot air - huffing and puffing about these so called injustices that he alleges he is challenging. If he was running a thriving organisation I don't think he would need to be on here posting one sided accounts and talking rubbish about children being taken into care because the sw was called fat. If he is challenged on particular cases, he usually says the judgement is due "tomorrow" as in the case I raised about Mrs. Haines representing the mother.

I think maybe that the reason JH is allowed to get away with the rubbish that he puts in the public domain is because he is in fact ineffectual in the cp process, unable to effect care proceedings and unable to expose these so called miscarriages of justice and is heavily criticised by judges when he attempts to intervene. As I've said before I think the real losers here are the parents who he purports to assist. I imagine his fellow MPs see him as a rather obsessed pathetic figure and give him a wide bearth. And how can anyone have any credability in an MP who enters himself for a Love Rat of the Year Competition. I rest my case.

Yes, it surprises me too.

..and I seem to have forgotten until now about a young person I knew who fabricated illness and admitted this in the end. I'm so dense it never occurred to me they weren't genuine...thankfully they didn't have children at the time as they had a lot of work to do to get better.

In relation to harming animals, this does correalate highly with child abuse and is always a concern. As I've said before, it doesn't mean that on its own its a reason to remove children at all.

Lordy, must go. Ironing and organising to do. Will return with interst.

Nana thanks for the answer but it wasnt what I wanted really but very interesting all the same. I asked what you would like to change in the system you work in. Your views on seeing what you'd like done for the better.

John you never answered me either how many cases have you won and lost just out of interest.

Have to say I would of thought the same restrictions would apply to JH as a SW as the childrens courts are still shrouded in secerty. Not unless the case was spent if you like then all and sundry should be allowed their view surely.

Sorry I got caught up in real life and my studies again but I will be back as this is getting more interesting.

Wahwah, I think the problem is that some people don't consider the holistic nature of assessments and choose to focus on particular aspects which support their jaundiced views.

Nananina, I agree dittany will never be moved from her position-not just in relation to this issue. Who cares?

However I do care about what jh says as hes in a position of power and influence.

Not hard to grasp (why, do you think I'm a bit thick?), but he's wrong. He has also made connections about children being reomved to meet 'adoption targets' and professionals acting in a conspiracy to remove children, or did you miss that.

i appreciate that you find it hard to see what he is about and are very kind to him, but I don't have the same difficulties. He really does troll on here and he is inflammatory, but not honest in the way that Nananina is about him.

He thinks us social workers are good little nazis and explains this through cognitive dissonance theory. anyway, am not spending any more time on him. He is what he is and some see, others don't. i don't care so much about that am kust bothered by the disinformation and insults.

At the end of the day I have a hugely responsible job to do, which I take very seriously. Jh really offers very little of use in relation to the work. It's all smoke and mirrors when looked at properly, with the odd very good point.

Of course jh is talking about conspiracies-hes quite open about his views on the the judiciary, social services, legal reps, medical witnesses etc being in cahoots with each other to meet adoption targets.

Oh Dittany, just because you talk about 'Social Workers' like JH does, doesn't mean that you're not being attacking or insulting.

You can go and play by yourself now, I can't be bothered responding to you for tonight. I'm tired of all the nastiness.

dittany, you've kindly rewritten jh's posts but please don't do the same to others.

I'm not sure that any social worker on here has been sneering, belittling or blustering ( a bit of projection going on there??) but you'll say that as a way of undermining anyone who disagrees with you. Its your modus operandi.

I think both you and jh have valid criticisms of the system which I know posters such as wahwah and nananina have attempted to answer. If you choose to disregard those answers then it seems to me that you are not interested in debate.

Because winning the argument is all important to you isn't it dittany? And you are more than happy to kill off a thread to do that-sad

Of course you would dittany-because you don't take kindly to people disagreeing with you. Thats your insecurity not mine.

Nananina, myself and others disagree with jh spurious assertions about the 'system' and believe that he should be accountable for those assertions particularly as hes in a position of power and influence -is that a vendetta?

I wouldn't describe the sw's on this thread as Nazi's, more like raptors, three on one. But while the mention of nazi's is in place I would like to add that the saying 'in the best interests of the child' was a nazi slogan, a fraudulant slip by someone there perhaps?

Is nananina conducting a vendetta against JH? Yes, she probably is, sw's do not like anyone in a higher power position than them because the 'lowly' person is harder to intimidate, and we've seen a lot of that on here, three sw's ganging up to try to intimidate someone who doesn't agree with their way of thinking.

That is much the same way as it happens in RL. A social worker will say something (something read from a book of psuedoscience and having no real world applications in real life ) and the parent is supposed to agree and ' jump to it', if the parent does not agree then the parent is not 'co-operating' and must be seen as working against ss.

I have read some of this psuedo science junk that is produced by Coram and the tavistock clinic and quite frankly every parent in the country could be in line to have their child removed under it's rediculous good parenting practices and 'how to' guides, I put as much stock in this for best parenting practices as I do for those idiot nannies on TV.

As for MSBP, Dittany is right the thread was and is about it, albeit, by it's new disguise, if sw's are not still holding onto the discredited teachings of Meadows and Southall then why bring up their work every chance they get in court reports.

As for JH's group JFF, I am not a member but from word of mouth they are reportedly doing good work, although, of course because of the secrecy laws surrounding the family courts how can anyone expect him to mention cases that are not already in the public domain and the ones that are are still liable to Contempt of Court issues.

Fran Lyons case is the perfect example of the system malfunction, gross exaggeration and screw ups by sw's and then a witchunt with subsequent lies by sw's to get her back into this country so they could hush her up and we are only able to hear the details because the case was not already shrouded behind the veil of the courts.

For anyone to know the full extent of the system failure we need the courts open to public scrutiny and all cases to be open for examination into the workings of each social worker on that case.

I doubt that day will be far off, we only need a change of government.

A lowly person is easier to intimidate. DOH