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.

I think dittany is well able to look after herself atlantis.

I wouldn't say we were ganging up on anyone-but if you want to use it to demonstrate a point about social workers then do so.

I must admit I'm struggling to take you seriously.
The three witches-sorry- social workers on the thread have stated that they have never come across a MSBP/ factitious disorder case in relation to care proceedings but according to you 'they' bring it up in court reports every chance 'they' get.

Again where on earth do you get your information from?

" Again where on earth do you get your information from?"

Err, that would be from the court reports I have seen staggerlee.

" I think dittany is well able to look after herself atlantis."

unlike the parents that are brow beaten everyday I am presuming?

Bullyboy tactics is so unpalletable.

Ok Atlantis, sorry for being so thick.

How many court reports have you seen citing facitious disorder as the reason for child proetction proceedings? Because the way you describe it, its always being brought up. And yet neither of the social workers involved in CP on this thread have ever encountered a case.

No atlantis. I made no reference to brow beating parent and I despise bullies.

" I was going to ask how often you are seeing the factitious disorder come up in court cases Atlantis. Is it still common?"

Yes, unfortunately it is very common and all too readily used in conjunction with the reason why a grandparent could not look after the child as the mother would still be able to gain access, cutting off any hope to keep the child in the family.

Staggerlee,

" How many court reports have you seen citing facitious disorder as the reason for child proetction proceedings? Because the way you describe it, its always being brought up."

my easy and flippant answer would have to be too many.

But what you have to remember staggerlee is that as a MK friend, or as an adviser on websites, or in my professional capacity I see the parents usually late in a case when they have followed all other options and are still being beratted and accused of things that they simply do not comprehend because they have not done it ( I know easy for me to say, easy for them to deny, but trust me I have walked away from cases where something did not add up, or I can see a big problem, or the attitude of the parents is in line with the reports), I would say it's about one in three/ four cases where the parents are accused of what we call MSBP, FII, FD. It's not rare in CP and it's not going away.

I'm sure that injustices still occur and I would never deny that.

I'm just a bit suprised that they come up as often as you say atlantis and you describe it as not rare in CP. None of the social workers on the thread have come across a case in years of practice. I guess I'd be interested in the stats.

I'm interested in the frequency at which posters are claiming to see concerns regarding FII being raised, particularly at the level of cases being brought to court.

As far as I can find studies on the incidence of it (as reported by paediatricians) have given figures of 0.1/0.8 per 100,000 children per year eg in the UK BPSU study between 1992 and 1994. I believe, though I cannot find the reference at present, that a study in NZ suggested around double that incidence and that other studies have suggested that the BPSU study probably underestimated the incidence but to me it suggests that this form of child abuse is not being put forward as a concern with the frequency that is being suggested.

I believe that by far the largest category og harm under which children are made subject to a child prtotection plan is neglect.

I have recently come across a case of reported MSBP- in the OP to this thread. So that would make it a little hard to claim these allegations do not happen- they just have.

The time before that was reading a post in the SN forum (yesterday, I think) where a Mumsnetter said she had been accused of it.

Quite possibly these cases are no longer as common as they were: which probably means a lot of the dodgy cases are no longer occurring. If so, that is certainly a positive development. But it seems a bit disingenuous to pretend it's so rare that one no longer needs to worry about it: the parents mentioned in the OP clearly do.

Before anyone makes any points about my post being deleted. I'm going to ask Mumsnet why. Last time this happened to me there was no reason for it, but I think I got lumped in with something else thanks to an over enthusiastic reporter.

Now the only remarks I made were about JH and ime he isn't someone who pays any attention (is politician after all) and I suppose the line does get blurred here as there are lots of remarks about public figures which are less than flattering and perhaps mine were in line with this.

JH if I've upset you I apologise.

I don't spend all my life posting on Mumsnet. Also I am difficult to upset. I have not reported any posts.

Secondly if people want to see something from the Third Reich which is similar to what is happening then they should look at lebensborn.

In this instance children from poor people with regional accents are being given to middle class people with nice accents for all sorts of spurious reasons.

Thirdly, I am not going to trawl through all the case files to find out precisely the outcome in each case. Too much work.

However, I do think I have given links to research materials as required.

Finally it would be good if people who act as Mackenzie Friends in public family law woudl link up with our network. We can help with taking cases from court of first instance to Strasbourg. We also run training courses.

Of course we are not going to bring in a barrister when we have seen barristers act to maintain confidence in the courts by undermining their clients' own case far too often.

Yes, I doubted it would be you, John.

I still don't get why you don't appoint a barrister who can work with you and get the best of both worlds. Surely not ll barristers are against you?

Ladidadi, yes, I've seen estimates of one in a million, which is thought to be under under identfication.

Oh JH, she who does not want to talk to any social workers picked Staggerlee and I up on our interpretation of your rather insulting comments, but actually we were right, weren't we? Lebensborn, bloody offensive.

Again, I think you are scaremongering re adoption and keeping the dream alive for all the Daily Mail readers. When did you actually last meet an adoptive parent? They're not all posh you know.

Apart from the problems with funding barristers our experience is not good.

I last met adoptive parents about 3 weeks ago when I was trying to resolve problems they face.

Not all are posh, but the programme about twin tracking on Radio 4 had a regional accent birth mother pitted against an RP potential adoptive mother.

I have not said that all the interventions are wrong. I have always said that some of them are wrong.

There does seem to be a lot of consequentialism going on with people looking at the system from the perspective of finding "better parents".

Cory, I'm not sure if your last post was directed at me but I'm not suggesting that FII is so rare that it should not be worried about, rather that it seems that those who are most likely to identify it do so rarely in the studies that have been done, certainly more rarely than some posters on this thread appear to ascert.
Of course for the individuals involved it will be very worrying, and for individuals I men both parents, children and professionals.

Stats are funny things, take my mother for example, she had cancer and was riddled with it, but the cause of death on the certificate was 'brain bleed' because thats what she ultimately died of.

Now take CP, same thing applies, the reasons listed in the court files are neglect, possible harm etc but the diagnosis is MSBP, FII, FD. You do not have your children taken away for those 'illness' but they are said to be the route cause that you 'may', 'could', etc 'harm', 'neglect' you child in the 'future'.

As for posts disappearing I hadn't noticed and i'm not having a dig but the only poster on this thread I know to report posts is NN, maybe your did get caught up in a cull Wahwah.

I meant 'root' cause.

Sorry my spelling is always terrible.

AS I understand it where the concern is of FII those children are made subject to a child protection plan either under the category of physical abuse, if illness has been induced or the child has been made subject to significant invasive procedures/has been at significant risk of them, and/or emotional abuse. Not neglect.

If cases of FII are being identified so infrequently, by those who are probably most likely to identify it iyswim, then I struggle to see how vastly more cases are being hidden under other banners? If the BPSU study was a vast underestimate, say by a factpr of ten, then that moves it up to around 1 case per 100,000 children per year in which there is significant concern about this being a manner in which a child is harmed. This is still rare and of those children I would further suggest that many are managed within their family and are not removed by the courts.

I'm not trying to say that every case where someone suggests FII as a cause is truly FII but I am trying to say that I think that FII is not being identified by those who work in CP as readily as other posters would suggest. In addition I find it slightly disturbing that some posters, eg dittany, seem so reluctant to believe that this form of harm exists at all.

No adult is labelled as having FII. That is a description of the way in which harm is inflicted. THe rresulting harm may be physical and/or emotional.

I do not think that Roy Meadows actions in the case that you describe were ethical. I've got no idea regarding Munchausen's Syndrome by Animal Proxy.

Refusing to deny the existence of FII at all is not the same as saying that everything done by those who believe in it is right.