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.

"evil system"

This evil system protects the lovely child in my (foster) care. I'm quite sure if a story was told solely from the mothers perspective emotively in a newspaper where social workers couldn't comment because of confidentiality lots of people would be calling for her child to be returned and saying how dreadful Social Services were.

Far more of a concern is the abuse of public money to pay for a solicitor for court to get them back. What a terrible waste of money as it's unlikely to happen.

lf jh is equally scathing about the care system on other threads. So I guess that as you are one of them you can't possibly have an objective opinion!

"Lib Dem MP says that ss is an "evil system,"" would make quite a headline, don't you think? (and no, I'm not a journalist either.)

I know someone whose children were on the CP register for a while, they were removed from the register, then a few years later her youngest died of cot death, SS came round the same day and removed the the older kids. I know that the kids were removed off the register as I saw all the paperwork that she had when she was seeing a lawyer. I know that there was some background, but she lost her kids.

Laurie - are you really objecting to public money being spent on representing parents rights in closed family courts? Do you really think that parents should only be allowed to contest SS decisions if they can afford it?

Course not Callisto, this is her third time. The amount of person hours spent on interviewing the children, appointing the children a solicitor, the mum a solicitor and social services having one. Not to mention the costs of a guardian for the children (an independant one is costing the department 20k). The courts time, the amount of time social services have to spend building and collating a case to keep them in care.

The constant complaints from mum which have to be investigated properly. The impact on the children is enormous as on one hand they love her and on the other have to be interviewed over and over again about tiny little things. As an example mum complained that the children didn't have contact in August (raised an official complaint) - she was away for 2 weeks herself, then the children were away on a prebooked adventure holiday so it wasn't possible.

The abuse of process and public money is disgraceful.

I accept that the system does some good, but it also does a lot of harm and does a lot of damage to children.

Basically the system tramples on lots of people (including practitioners) and we end up with a lot of damaged people as a result.

I accept entirely the need for a child protection system. However, we should have one that does not do as much harm as this one does.

I accept entirely that people make mistakes and to eternally look for a scapegoat is wrong. However, I see a lot of cases where the system only does damage and does no good at all. This should not happen.

JH - I am pissing my sides laughing that you think anyone gets into child protection for the money .

Unlike MPs who seem to have made a fair bit in recent times no?

The major issue here imo, is the fact that the family courts are so secret. If the courts were open then any judgement that is seen to be a bit unfair or unjust could be publicly challenged.

Well I think JH is absolutely right to be doing what he is doing. These women, and it could end up being anyone , you , me, your friend, your sister, have nobody to turn to or to stick up for them.

It is well-known among family law practitioners that councils have adoption targets and bonuses for the children they take away from their parents. It's really pretty disturbing.

Of course I'm not saying SS are always wrong but their actions are frequently exceptionally damaging, not only to the parent/parents but to the child.

I have read previous rants from NanaNina about SS and she really does appear to be hysterical and blind to the evidence. I suspect she is a social worker, but any truly professional social worker wouldn't feel it appropriate to launch personal attacks on MN.

And MmeLindt is absolutely right. The secretive closed courts are the problem.

it is also well known that so-called adoption targets have long since been abolished as jh himself has confirmed on several threads..

And do you not also think that making claims such as that a mother could have her children removed for calling a social worker fat (as claimed on another thread, questioning how someone who disagrees with his opinions must be earning money from "this evil system" is hysterical?

you know what, wannabe, you're as bad as NanaNina.

Well popped in to have a look - and see some of my fan club are back.........recognise some of the names from other sw bashing threads.

Wannabe - yes I too am very concerned (as is a family law barrister who is a MN poster)about the way in which JH in his position as an MP can make such inflammatory comments about the "evil" system etc. However if you google him (John Hemming MP)you will see that what he posts on here is absolutely nothing to what is already in the public domain and his vendetta against social workers and the courts has been going on since 2005, (beginning by something that happened to him personally) details of which are in the public domain if you google him. The fact that Nick Clegg nor anyone else has not taken steps to prevent him trying to bring social services, a wide range of other professionals, lawyers and courts into disrepute, says a lot about the Lib Dem party I think.

The judgement by WallLJ is as someone has said unprecedented and I would have thought that in itself would have prompted some action from Nick Clegg. Myself and the barrister I referred to are writing to Nick Clegg in the hope that something can be done about JH's outrageous allegations, none of which are true or can be evidenced. The thing is of course he only has the parent's account which is not going to be the whole story or anything like the true version.

Laura - good to see you trying to put the other side from your RL experience (rather than something you read in a tabloid) but to be honest I think you are probably wasting your time. These people on here who want to "bash sws" really have absolutely no idea how things work in reality and in my experience, no matter how much you try to explain, they aren't having it. Indeed it makes things worse because they then start criticising your explanations. I used to try to explain again but it only brought forth greater criticism and insults, so I have more or less given up.

I think the other thing is that these people who like to bash sws about snatching children etc are the very ones who will be shouting the loudest when there is a child tragedy that something should have been done.

And what a very intelligent comment expat -(Wannabe - you are as bad as Nananina) says it all about you really.

I am also concerned about the amountof time that JH spends on MN - I can't imagine any other MP having the time to devout to this kind of forum and we will be raising this as another concern to Nick Clegg.

'Well popped in to have a look - and see some of my fan club are back.........recognise some of the names from other sw bashing threads.'

of course.

NN,

my god you really are pathetic, for every letter you send Nick Clegg, which of course will be laughed at behind closed doors, there are thousands of parents who would send in letters supporting JH, and i'm sure do.

It is attitudes like yours that give SW's a bad name to start off with, bully boy tactics do not work when you don't have the muscle of the ss behind you and your tactics are exposed to scrutiny, which of course you don't like because your used to being under your little rock protected by layers of secrecy.

As for people posting 'intellegent' comments it would be the pot calling the kettle black.

Nana, it's a judicial opinion; that's all it is. One man's opinion of another man. It's obiter.

Despite your personal comments to me in the past, I was raised that one can have a debate and still respect the other's opinion.

wannabe has still not ask the question as to how she makes a living.

What most upsets me is when I see solicitors deliberately acting to undermine their own clients' case. I may get some of those situations into the public domain soon.

You may think it is acceptable for solicitors who act for the parents to also tout for work from the local council. I don't. It creates a clear conflict of interest.

Not only that but I have had it oonfirmed by two social workers (even a very senior one) that at times the parents' solicitors collude with the local authority to ensure that the parents lose.

Now of course this does not always happen. There are good firms, but I really do think that having a solicitor acting against his or her client is fundamentally wrong.

"I think the other thing is that these people who like to bash sws about snatching children etc are the very ones who will be shouting the loudest when there is a child tragedy that something should have been done."

And your evidence for that is?
I think it's nonsense - not least because many of the people who object to children being removed by the state do so from a libertarian standpoint. Others argue that if you have to err you should do so on the side of non-intervention rather than intervention because the negative impact of unnecessary intervention is so great. Some will, of course, be criticising sws whatever they do, but if you think that's everyone who is critical of the system in these cases, it suggests you're not really listening to the arguments of those who disagree with you.

Will these parents be hounded in Spain as well then will their own SSD want to see them as I hope so to confirm the facts not what the papers say. Just the bare facts. If it turns out another SW being overzealous so be it. Wouldnt you rather have that than the said child being in the papers a few months down the line and us baying for blood again.

NN we know you are an independant SW but are you stating you have NEVER made a mistake in all of your 30 years.

Why dont you leave JH alone as writing to whomever wont solve anything. Maybe make you feel better but it wont really as he will still do what he is doing helping others. You think he has an agenda maybe he does but isnt it for him to do. He will interview these people with an open mind and not just listen to one side of a story you know as that would be madness or are you stating he isnt helping but hindering as I would like to how.

I did state in my other thread my own past experiences and they where frowned on as if they couldnt be true when they where.

SW are human the same as any other person on here and they do make mistakes. They shouldnt be allowed to then use the SWA as the scapegoat and have him/her sacked whilst they are promoted. Where is the logic in that pray tell. This does happen. It has happened in the past.

All SW on here have stated the SSD dont snatch babies and it is a judge that decides this well you are a big influence on that decision are you not. Some SW even stated illegally they will remove the children from their mothers knowing full well they cant. Some folks out there are frightened of SW as they are usually the ones taking the children hence the phrase "Social Workers Snatch a baby again". Some SW are on a power trip and will use that against parents for whatever reason they see fit. Now that is wrong.

So a question for JH and the SW here what do you want to happen to SS now. As I can see it getting worse not better in the next few months.

We need to change the pattern of accountability from key performance indicators which are about how fast decisions are made towards what the decision are.

There also needs to be an urgent review into what are the better ways of treating children. One option would be to bring in experts from Denmark or another country where they get this right to guide our practitioners in protecting children without doing massive damage.

The process of scrutiny in the family courts has to be more accountable even if it is mainly anonymous. People would be shocked as to the ridiculous reasons used for removing children from their family.

We also need to look at whether it is acceptable to have around a quarter of adoptions ending with children returning to care.

The psychological damage for children of being adopted returned to care and sometimes adopted again is massive. This, however, is not really looked at.

JH - don't LAs generally use in-house legal teams? Certainly in the areas I've worked they do.

I can hand on heart say that when I worked in private practise representing children ( and very occasionally parents) I was never once instructed by the LA. Nor would I have ever wanted to be instructed by them or saught their work.

That just was not my area of specialisation.

Is it really common for lawyers to rep both SS and parents and children? I've only met lawyers who specialised.

And please, when I disagree with you don't say it's because I have a financial interest in doing so.

The average child care lawyer makes around 25-40k max.
My DH ( also a lawyer) makes ten times that in a very, very bad year

NanaNina - you very obviously have a personal vendetta against John Hemming. For this reason alone most sensible people will discount your ravings against him and ignore your posts. The other problem you have on MN is that we are all parents and can imagine how utterly awful and terrifying it would be to have our children taken from us. Telling us we are wrong to question you/SS doesn't build faith in your 'profession', quite the opposite. Every time you post you make the case stronger for avoiding contact with SS at all costs.

I feel a little embarrassed that one of our elected representatives should speak with such contempt to a voter (WannaBe) on a public forum. IMO it shows disrespect all round - including to the issue itself.

And I really dislike the expression 'child protection industry'. Child protection is an industry to the degree that our health service is an industry. Yes, people get paid for the work they do. Surely no-one is suggesting that it should be voluntary?

I also find it hard to follow the argument that it is better to err on the side of non-intervention, because the risks of harm are so great if we err the other way. Surely quite the opposite is true?