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.

Nananina, that's why I keep pressing the point as I find it difficult to believe that JH's lot can't find any lawyers across the land to represent their clients.

Surely there must be some who are so incensed at the abuses that they'll offer their services, like FFJ's many volunteers do?

People need to make a living. We do have some barristers helping us, but family court barristers are often frightened of challening the system. Hence the barristers we have are not family court barristers.

It upsets the judges and they start ranting (as in Rachel Pullen's judgment).

So basically, you can't find anyone qualified to work with you? So this makes you believe more firmly in the 'evil' of the system and professional fearfulness in challenging it? What a perfectly circular argument.

As they say, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you".

" seeing parents in your "professional capacity" though rather late in the case .."

Yes, most parents have a belief that because they have done nothing wrong nothing bad will happen, that the evidence will show they are good parents and so they do not immediately seek outside help, they believe the system works, sadly they find out that the system works in the favour of the LA's, hence by the time they look for someone who will actually listen to them and help them it is rather late in their case.

" Why are so reluctant to explain the nature of your work."

Err, because it's none of your business what I do for a living.

""just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you". "

That statement is closer to home for many MK friends than you think Wahwah.

this drives me mad, SS are ONE group of proffessionals in a huge group. Its not a decision made by one social worker, there are police, courts, judges, doctors, health visitors, other fmaily memebers all involved in these cases. Not forgetting these then all have legal reps too.
Yes more babies are removed than any other group because research shows children under the age of one are at higher risk than any other age group.

ok rant over

" there are police, courts, judges, doctors, health visitors, other fmaily memebers all involved in these cases. Not forgetting these then all have legal reps too. "

Err? Explain please.

Oh, Lisa, you'll learn the errors in your thinking if you stick around. Don't you know we're all good little nazi's propping up an evil system to steal babies, to make money with the connivance of the secret family courts and everyone else, but only JH, his gang of chums and FFJ can see through to the truth?

I think I've summarised well enough. There's also a load of stuff about MSP or FID and a few people here who want any social worker posting to wear a hair shirt, shout MEA CULPA and then presumably retrain as something more palatable to them.

I think I might be a little jaded! There are some interesting discussions now and then, though!

well which bit would you like me to explain? the fact that all these proffessionals meet and discuss and make decisions, or the legal bit?

come on "There are indeed good lawyers. The problem for a parent is identifying them and separating them from those who are conflicted" a lawyer is done what they are paid to do, they do what they are trained to do, to repasent the person paying them.

Lisad - believe me I have tried and tried in vain to explain what actually happens in care proceedings, often at great length, in the way that you have tried to do. However it all falls on stoney ground or brings forth more condemnation and insults.

I honestly believe that JH and his ilk actually believe that a sw thinks to herself "ah this child is being ill treated" - removes him from the "innocent/decent" parents, pops into court, where the judge rubber stamps the decision and hey presto the baby is adopted. It is very scarey for those of us know how the system really works, to believe that this myth is alive and well, but I'm afraid it is and nothing we can say will change the mindset of these people. I ask myself (as I'm sure the other sws/lawyers) do on here why we keep trying to give accurate information and dispel the myths, still don't have an answer, other than it is so frustrating to have to read such nonsense written by people who don't have the first idea about how things really work in cp and care proceedings.

Wahwah - wonderful summing up about the conspiracy theory of JH and his chums. Can't believe Atlantis is asking for an explanation of how things really work - she can't have not heard it all before. It's a game "come into my parlour said the spider to the fly" because it will just allow her to vent further condemnation and insults on the socialworkers/lawyers on the thread. BUT if you feel it's worth a try Lisa we will support you.

JH and FFJ can't "find" lawyers with honesty and integrity because they believe that all lawyers involved in care proceedings are part of the conspiracy. What an absolute insult. Again the real losers here are the parents caught up in care proceedings because they no doubt think that if an MP is championing their cause, that the courts will listen and their children will be returned. Who can blame them for thinking this. And to top it all, JH can give zero information about the "success" or otherwise of his organisation in exposing these so called miscarriages of justice. Oh and JH any update on the CofA case where you "won" the right for the mother to be represented by Mrs. Haines. You said the judgement was due earlier this week............so presumably you have the result, or maybe you could give us a link to the judgement.

Oh and Atlantis I think I know why you can't give any details about the work you do in a "professional capacity" and that gives me a small measure of relief.

thanks, it is hard for people to understand what happens i guess unless you have stood there. I have spent hour on court reports aslong as my arm, having to state times and dates. Lucky for me i used to get the parents to read every observation and report and sin if they agreed and if not write a comment, so when it came to court it was easier, but have spent hours in the box being questioned by 4 different legal teams
Im glad I dont do that job anymore, it was hard work and now spend my days supporting parents in early interventions or just a coffee, which i love doing.
Its the kids i feel most sorry for knowing that because of the way the system works, most babies will spend the first year in Fostercare while courts/ss/parents battle it all out.

NanaNina, you are mainly the one who is being insulting/sarcastic/aggressive. I don't know whether in RL this is your manner, and know that it can be very different listening to someone rather than reading their words, but you seem come across as very cold and aggressive.

I have absolutely nothing against you personally, but your campaign against John Hemming makes you appear deranged. I believe you to be a social worker of good standing, and experienced in child protection, so you have a lot to potentially contribute to the forum. However, by your constant ranting and illogical comments has really lowered the professionalism of social workers as they should be able to discuss matters logically and objectively.

There are numerous social workers on this forum who debate issues calmly. They accept points, and when they don't agree, do not attack those who disagree with them in the form of a personal vendetta. They do not make sarcastic comments. They disagree, but with grace and dignity. In essence, they are respected.

Most people on here are educated and can distinguish between a logical argument and an argument that doesn't make sense.

Again, I do not have anything against you personally, although you have made sarcastic remarks towards me personally. I would like be able to debate issues where I feel that I have some experience without you lowering the debate to personal attacks.

Yes Lisa it is hard for people to understand BUT when it is explained time and time again and they flatly refuse to even consider that there is any validity in the explanations it begins to become very frustrating. I just think it is such an arrogant attitude.

I know exactly what you mean about the hours spent on court reports and the need to evidence everything that you are saying in the reports and the hours of cross examination. I think as social workers we accept the necessity for this evidence based practice but then to have to listen to rubbish from people who know nothing of what really happens is very galling to say the least.

Yes I too feel for the children as the cp investigations/assessments/reports etc etc are undertaken, and as you say it would not be unusual for 12 months to pass whilst all this work is being undertaken especailly if there is a residential assessment of the parents. Assessments of the parents by other professionals (necessary as it is) of course all takes further time. I get involved as an ind sw in court driven parenting a/ments if the court agree on such a course of action.

Anyway glad you have found a less stressful job and that you are enjoying it. Probably we should all steer clear of these threads if we had any sense!

ah you see, i was a social worker but a family support worker, mainly understanding court assessments, mostly 3 months long. Its hard work and you do get to see a lot, and sometimes thats why i spent hours on the stand, which was hard when you disagreed with sw, but most of the time we were on the same page, but not always.

I think its just so hard for people to belive that any parent would do there little ones harm, even if not intentionally, so maybe thats why people dont like to listen, but also very different when you only can hear one side of the story.

Nananina, just wrote the summary in about 10 seconds flat. Rather alarming I know the chorus so well.

I guess I hadn't really twigged until this thread And the judgement he posted exactly how JH and his friends give the impression of preying on the vulnerable, in terms of encouraging them to have MK friends rather than solid legal representation to fulfill their own agendas. The old adage about fools and clients has a ring of truth here and I really feel sorry for the parents.

Like you, I have seen some excellent legal reps fight really hard for their clients and with all that I know about the family courts as an 'insider' I would never allow myself to be represented by someone without the relevant training or experience. I can't imagine that any sensible person with any knowledge if the legal system would feel any differently.

I know wahwah I find it really worrying that parents involved in care proceedings are getting involved in FFJ. I posted a while ago that in the CofA case for which JH provided a link, that I thought that he and his organisation had "advised" the mother to get rid of her legal rep and have Mrs. Haines represent her instead. JH did not disagree with my understanding of this situation so we can assume that is what happened. It is easy to understand how parents put their trust in an MP isn't it and this makes it all the more exploitative, especially as it will raise their expectations about the outcome of care proceedings.

Lovemydog - yes OK you raise some valid points. I accept that there are other sws on here who are able to debate in a more measured way, but unfortunately my frustration at some of these nonsensical posts by people who have no idea how the system works in reality means that I can go over the top in my comments. You see when you have spent over 30 years in a profession where you have worked immensely hard and been incredibly fulfilled, and have fought injustice all the way along, it is unbelievably frustrating (which I accept tips over into anger at times and gives rise to inuslts) to hear people talking about evils sytems and peddling conspiracy theories in the way that JH does.

However having agreed with some of what you say I have to disagree that I am deranged or make illogical comments. Are you incidentally in a position to be able to assess whether my comments are in fact illogical? The sws and lawyers on here have supported me and know that my comments are not illogical, as they understand the system. I don't have a personal vendetta against JH and have explained this many times. I am simply challenging the view that JH expresses here and so aptly summed up by wahwah's post of today's date timed at 9.55 on this page. I have always fought injustice and his campaign to discredit the cp system as "evil" and that there is a conspiracy between all involved in care proceedings, including the lawyers and the judge who are all in it just for the money, is something that I will continue to fight.

nana, the system is what is under debate. Do I have 30 years of experience? No, because it would be physically impossible. Do I have respect for someone that does? Yes, of course, but realize that I only can evaluate your experience based on your postings here.

And I have read some of your posts on other threads and you clearly have experience in public law proceedings/adoptions. I really wish that experience could be transferred as you seem like such a different person on the adoption threads as you do when social work is considered. On the adoption threads, you come across as compassionate, independent and aware of the difficulties of all those involved.

Actually, I don't think that you and John Hemming are that far apart. You seem to be fighting the corner for social workers and that they are a force for good. No one is disputing that individuals are evil, but the system does fall down. So, what is the adjective to describe the void between what falls between? Failure? Evil? I don't know, but it isn't an adjective that describes social workers, but rather the failing of the system.

I think you have a lot to say and I respect that. Am, I qualified? Well, I think that social work needs to be understood by the masses. This is not to say that the reasons behind decisions are simplistic, but rather that since a lot of work is being done in the community, it should be transparent. But, yes, I am educated to post grad level in relevant field.

And the reason I am bothering, is that I am truly sad that with such experience as yours, you don't seem able to articulate. I want to know about your cases. What shapes your opinions?

nananina said "JH and FFJ can't "find" lawyers with honesty and integrity because they believe that all lawyers involved in care proceedings are part of the conspiracy. What an absolute insult."

This shows she really does not try to understand my posts. If she can only make an argument by misrepresenting the views of others then she should give up.

Unlike in the family court where she might get away with this, this is on an open forum where it is entirely clear that she is misrepresenting my views.

That is called the straw man fallacy.

In the mean time I am still waiting to see those letters she has claimed to have written complaining about me.

wahwah said "So basically, you can't find anyone qualified to work with you? "

No there are a number of family law firms that we refer case to incluing William Bache & Co, Brendan Fleming, Bhatia Best, Moss Coleman and Burton Copeland.

There are crooked lawyers, but not all are crooked. I am not saying that all lawyers other than the above five firms are crooked, nor that the above five are perfect merely that we have referred cases to the above.

However, finding people willing to work without being paid is a lot harder.

Why don't they get paid through legal aid? I thought all parents in proceedings were entitled to legal aid? So why if you have trustworthy lawyers are you getting parents to use Mk friends?

wahwah Remember this is not the Family Court. The record as to what answers people have given are in the thread. You cannot simply claim that I have not answered a question and people will then believe you. I answered that question at Sat 19-Dec-09 09:38:39 when I said:

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.

That is a full answer, but I am still a little puzzled as the link you gave to the appeal shows that the mother was entitled to legal aid and to instruct a lawyer and yet waived this right to be represented by Mrs Haines. Of course I am concerned as to how she came to decide on this course of action and be 'under' represented in such serious proceedings and I presume it was something to do with advice from FFJ?

FFJ if anything is "Fathers for Justice". I am pretty certain no such organisation has been involved in that case.

Furthermore I would not agree that she was "under represented".

Apologies, of course you're not FFJ, that strange bunch of people believing there's a conspiracy amongst professionals in the secret family courts to separate children from their loving parents! I was abbreviating 'Families for Justice', but I think you're probably 'Justice for Families'.

If Mrs Haines is a qualified legal professional with substantial experience of representing clients in the family courts, then her client would not be 'under' represented, except she isn't and her client was.

JH, if you were fighting for the thing most precious to you, would you go LIP with a MK friend? In fact, if children are the thing most precious to you, then will you give me assurance that if you are involved in legal proceedings for anything less important then you will go LIP with a MK friend, like this poor mother did? I can assure you that I bloody wouldn't.