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 don't think anyone is denying MSBP does exist in or form or another, we all know their are some very f-up parents out there willing to do evil things to their children which is why no one is saying there is not a need for social services, there is.

What we are saying is, how come in the couple of decades since Meadows and Southall picked up the MSBP ball and ran with it ( a very, very rare 'illness') there seems to be an epidemic of MSBP/ FII/ FD cases?

We know that the court has ruled that MSBP/ FII/ FD can not be the reason why children are taken into care and is deemed only a CP 'tag' which is why the stats don't hold up to the ammount of MSBP/ FII/ FD that is the reason for proceedings.

But why do sw's persist in seeing MSBP/ FII/ FD around every corner?

Firstly a look at the RCPCH website would show you that there is a more recent publication dealing with this issue, published this year.

Secondly, being discredited or unethical in one area does not mean that everything that one person has done is wrong.

this publication.

Thirdly, and I suppose my essential question to you, is: Do you believe that parents harm their children by fabricating or inducing illness in them? Do you believe that this happens at all?

I certainly believe that it happens, though the extent to which it happens and how it should be best managed is difficult to decide. I'd like to have a discussion about that, but not with someone who thinks that it doesn't happen at all.

The whole reason for the shift away from MSBP to FII is because those who were spotting FII were not qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses, don't know of any adult psych who lurk on paediatric wards, and also to make what the child experienced the focus of concern, not the motives of the carers involved which clearly could be multitude and vary vastly from individual to individual and not necessarliy feature a mental health/psychiatric diagnosis.

Sorry atlantis, that post was essentially to dittany, not you.

Well the thread seems to have dipped into a debate between dittany and atlantis fuelling each other up about FictD and puppies and all manner of other exaggerated claims that can't be substantiated.

Thanks LaDiDa for providing some stats on the issue that seem to be what would be expected. How very strange that Atlantis sees 3 out of every 4 cases involving this FictD when the sws on here have never seen a case in their working life, at least not one that involved care proceedings and the stats tell a very different story. And I have to say I couldn't help being concerned about Atlantis talking about acting in her "professional capacity" - are you willing to say exactly what that is Atlantis. Yes I know you have been LIP as you tell us so often and have had dealings with the courts but this doesn't make you an expert on child protection and care proceedings.

Anyway why don't you both start a new thread on this issue on which you are both fixated and then we can avoid it. You will have JH to keep you company and no doubt others out there will join in and you can air your prejudices till your hearts content. It won't alter the fact though that you are both completely and utterly misguided in your beliefs about this issue.

" How very strange that Atlantis sees 3 out of every 4 cases involving this FictD "

How very unusual NN that you twist what has been said, I said 1 in every 3/4 cases, but then lies and misrepresentations come so easily to you.

" Anyway why don't you both start a new thread on this issue on which you are both fixated and then we can avoid it."

This thread is about that very issue dear, something else you choose to ignore, just another mother who has been accused of MSBP/ FII/ FD to add to the statistics.

" It won't alter the fact though that you are both completely and utterly misguided in your beliefs about this issue."

says you, and who are you, just another washed up sw who couldn't hack the LA's and went independent for the time off and money, not someone who has stuck with the system and tried to help the kids who are being abused like the other sw's that post here, people like you who are in it for the money not the kids make me sick, go join an LA, get a proper caseload, work all the hours god sends and then you may have something positive to add to the debate.

I have much respect for the proper sw's who do the job properly, it's the one's like you that don't have a clue and don't give a damn and who treat everyone who doesn't agree with your view point I want to see held responsible for their actions and then drummed out of the system.

Your attitudes bring only pain to families where there is already enough of that to go around.

Ladi,

No problem about the cross post.

" Secondly, being discredited or unethical in one area does not mean that everything that one person has done is wrong. "

I do have issue with this though in some respects, I think it shines a light on the issues of what went before and indeed came after and the fact that his work is still being used today, not only be scholars who rely on his findings but also by practitioners who refer to his work and his criteria for diagnosis etc for their everyday practices.

No one can 'turn off' what they have read in the past, even when you know it's been discredited there is to some extent the conditioning in your mind to his work, so it's not so easy to dismiss this when you have relied on it throughout your working practices and it is indeed still taught in literature.

And what about all those cases in the past where the children were taken into care because of his work and the families that are still being tarred with the same brush, albeit the 'reasons' for care proceedings having to rely on 'other' evidence but still based firmly in the belief that MSBP/ FII/ FD is still rife.

This man's work has been discribed by the courts as inadmisable over twenty years after families were first losing their children and yet dr's, psychs and sw's still hold the faith.

I understand the nazi's (yes them again) made some great leaps in medical science by practicing on the jews, but at what costs.

SO sorry Atlantis I got the figures wrong - it was a genuine mistake but I won't expect you to believe that for a single minute. But still 1 in every 3/4 sounds quite ridiculous to me. I shall ignore your personal insults as at the risk of repeating myself they matter not one jot to me.

However on the issue of "lies and misrepesentations" I find it amazing that you accuse me of "not being able to hack the l.a. and went ind for the time off and money" ........HOW can you know what my working background is - can you read minds as well as all your other quasi medical/legal skills.

For your information I worked for a l.a. for 25 years and considered myself very fortunate to have a job that I loved even though it was stressful at times. I retired at aged 60 and have worked independently since then (I am now 67) SO again you have your "facts" entirely wrong.

I note that you have still not given any details about the nature of the "professional capacity" in which you claim to act. Wonder why..........

"No the lawyer will always be seen by the court as being the lead role and the judge would expect the lawyer to counsel the advocate in what is permissable, tying the advocates hands."

I can't comment on the underlying debate on SS, but I am concerned about this and other very wide negative statements regarding lawyers.

Lawyers do not tie advocates' hands and advocates can simply take instruction from clients at court about what the clients wish to happen. It is also perfectly possible to instruct the barrister/advocate not to negotiate with the other side.

Some of what has been said on this thread implies lawyers are conflicted, uninterested, do not put clients' interests first or are (willing) parties to an evil system. Some few may be, but if this puts readers off instructing solicitors or barristers altogether if they faced child protection proceedings that would be a real shame, if not a tragedy.

There are really very good and dedicated legal practitioners out there who really do fight for their clients. I know, because I've met many through my best friend, who is a barrister practising in family law, doing some of the hardest contested care cases around. It is truly unfair to dismiss them as having a 'financial interest' as if getting the money is the only thing they care about. Much more importantly, parents need to know they are not helpless and can get access to independent and expert legal advice.

There are indeed good lawyers. The problem for a parent is identifying them and separating them from those who are conflicted.

Dittany, yes I have an interest in child protection from a professional point of view. What about yourself?

The work done by Meadows is important and gives a historical context to the issues around FII. At the time that they were originally published the term used was MSBP. Whilst views have moved on and terms have changed the previous literature cannot be altered to reflect that, though it is important that it is viewed as historical. In all medicine, and in deed much of society, terms and views alter over time.

I do not disagree that some areas of Meadows work was unethical, I do think though that it is not particularly sensible to ignore all areas of his work. He highlighted cases where parents harmed their children in a particular manner, others recognised it within their practice at an international level.

Dittany, I'm certainly not an expert witness though I wish to preserve my anonymity more than I wish to reveal more to anyone on this forum about my work.

I'm defending Meadow from the point of him drawing attention to a form of harm that he saw taking place and that others also saw taking place. I think that a greater awareness of FII will help to protect children from harm.

I am not disagreeing that he did some unethical things or defending him without limits. I have repeatedly said this however you seem unable or unwilling to understand what I mean, this makes it very difficult to engage with you tbh. I feel that I see shades of grey whereas you see black and white. I have noticed this on other threads on other topics so I don't take it personally.

Eldritchcleaver, I think you've picked up on some important issues. I have asked JH why his organisation promotes Mackenzie firends over instructing a really good barrister for their clients. I worry that it leaves their clients really vulnerable and I haven't had a satisfactory answer except an explanation that mrs haines is so good that she has 'won' cases which solicitors would have not (nice bit of prediction 'crystal ball style').

I just can't understand why they might do thi,s other than self aggrandisement / fantasies of persecution, but perhaps there is a rational reason...I can wait to find out.

If it's any comfort, regarding the insults towards lawyers on these threads, if you're involved in care proceedings as a professional, you're going to get a lot of shit flung at you from some of the posters. It's a real shame that they try to kill the threads as I have had some interesting exchanges on.

I thought long and hard before I 'outed' myself as a social worker on mumsnet because I didn't want to be seen as posting in a professional capacity, but decided to show solidarity with others who had named their professional backgrounds.

I have answered the question about Mackenzie Friends.

When we identify a situation where we feel that the legal representation is inadequate we try to transfer the case to a reliable lawyer.

The Legal Services Commission, however, resist payinng the new lawyers and often won't agree the transfer. Hence this leaves the parent with either the option of going Litigant In Person or sticking with the original legal advisors.

Hence they have to go LIP.

There is also a problem with appeals that you cannot get legal aid to put in an appeal without permission from the LSC which is difficult to get.

Because England is out on a limb on family law cases which will be refused by teh Court of Appeal will be accepted by the European Court, but first you have to go to the CoA.

Hence there is really no option other than to go as litigant in person.

Secondly, there are cases involving grandparents where there is no legal aid. The costs of using solicitors are massive and hence LIP is required.

I really do think this is a complete and reasonable answer and it is basically an expansion on what I said previously.

Ok, I hear what you're saying, thanks.

However, if the original instructed lawyers aren't representing their client and they complain, then are they still refused an alternative?

Also, given the number of lawyers around, is there no-one sympathetic to your aims you could employ to support your clients from the beginning?

It is very difficult to get the LSC to transfer funding.

JFF runs on volunteers. People who are so incensed at the abuses of human rights in the family courts that they will help others fight for justice.

JH says that "when we identify a situation where we feel that the legal representation is inadequate we try to tranfser the case to a reliable lawyer. I would be interested to know on what basis the "decision" is made that the legal representation is inadequate. I strongly suspect the notion of "inadequate legal representation" is in the mind of JH and his volunteers. Could it be that the legal rep is deemed "inadequate" for choosing not to conduct the defence on the basis that the system is evil and sws snatch children from decent parents, for no good reason, other than to meet adoption targets, and all other professions and the judge are involved in this conspiracy. We know from JHs posts that he is as scornful of lawyers as all other professionals involved in care proceedings and in a recent post, involving the ludicrous notion that a child was removed because a relative called the sw fat, he commented that he "expected the lawyers acting for the parents to roll over in order to pay their mortgages." Indeed JH and his ilk believe that all professionals and the judge are part of the conspiracy theory in which they believe. If I am wrong, maybe JH could enlighten us on what basis the decision is made that the legal rep is inadequate.

As you say wahwah, what would be the point of lawyers refusing to conduct a proper and appropriate defence of their clients. All legal reps need to maintain their credability in court (which means conducting a defence based in reality rather than some fanciful notion of an evil system) and if he/she fails to maintain their credability this will react adversely on the clients.

Since working independently I have worked with numerous lawyers/counsel and have never met one that has not conducted an appropriate defence of their clients. I am routinely cross examined for 3/4 hours by leg reps for the parents and I don't object to this, as my evidence needs to be rigorously tested in court in order to assist the judge with his decision at the final hearing.

I understand that what happens in JH's cases where the lawyer is deemed inadequate that representation is taken over by one of his volunteers who are not legally qualified, like Mrs. Haines in the recent CofA case. I fail to see how this supports the parents in any way shape or form.

Oh NN you do come out with some drivel.

Wow Atlantis what an intelligent and insightful critique of my post..........and I'm still waiting to hear about the details of your involvement in your "professional capacity" in care proceedings............any chance of a response.

I never said I had a professional capacity in 'care proceedings', I said I meet people in my 'professional capacity'.

As usual NN you twist everything.

"Wow Atlantis what an intelligent and insightful critique of my post"

It's all you post is worth.

In your post of 17th Dec you talk of being a MK friend, an advisor on a websites and seeing parents in your "professional capacity" though rather late in the case, when they have been accused of doing things that they haven't done etc etc. This sounds like some kind of child care proceedings to me. If you meet these parents (and yes Ok they are of course people) in a "professional capacity" then it is reasonable to believe that you are a professional. Why are so reluctant to explain the nature of your work.