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.

just to add I said nothing nasty in my post, just do not want to get drawn into this argument again.

NanaNina you seem slightly obsessed by johnhemming You're coming across as a bit creepy IMO.

I've heard plenty of cases, like the couple who fled to Ireland to have a baby after their older 3 had been WRONGLY taken away. The judge said SS were wrong but they didn't get their children back

I don't know how common it is for solicitors to represent both parents and LAs. I checked in Birmingham simply by asking how much firms had been paid by the oouncil's childrens services department.

I don't know who litchick it may be that I should refer cases to her.

"we are all parents and can imagine how utterly awful and terrifying it would be to have our children taken from us."

This is absolutely true, callisto, and in my opinion it is no accident that johnhemming posts so frequently in such a context or indeed that the Daily Mail so regularly publishes such stories for a similar audience. jhemming and the daily mail are, for their own reasons, playing on our deepest fears as parents- that of being permanently separated from our children- while at best glossing over the fact that a minority of children are in desperate need of protection from their frighteningly abusive parents and that many more are in need of support because their parents, though perhaps well-intentioned, are not coping. And clearly there will often be shades of grey- cases where it is unclear whether removal from or remaining within a significantly flawed home environment is the better option for the child. Working out where to draw that line must be amazingly difficult and I admire people with balls enough to collect the evidence to make such a decision and recommend a course of action for consideration by the courts.

I don't have personal knowledge of children's social work or the family courts but, from my experience as a social worker with adults, I am prepared to believe that there are significant problems within the system. We need more good social workers and more transparency, imo. But I also think it really can be forgotten that it is the children, not the parents, who are the clients of child protection social workers. Parents are only of interest in so far as they form part of the solution in protecting the child (which they quite rightly do in the majority of cases, of course, but not always.) The process of deciding which parents cannot realistically form part of the solution for a child is a nasty, I imagine, but necessary part of a child care social worker's job, which will often not endear her/him to people under investigation, even if the conclusion is in their favour. Understandably. It must be a horrible position for a parent who is fantastic but under false suspicion or one who is basically alright but in need of some support, let alone one who is well-intentioned but struggling very badly. I'm not sure that this is a process that could ever be pleasant for parents, though I'm sure a bad social worker could make it an even worse experience, and clearly an unjust decision is a terrible miscarriage of justice. Nonetheless, this situation is one that has been underwritten by MPs (such as johnhemming- the irony!) via the Children Act, which enshrines in law that the welfare of children is paramount and that in certain circumstances securing that welfare entails removing children from their families of origin. It seems facile to suggest that because it can be a nasty process for many parents it is not a necessary safeguard for some children, albeit in the context of the ongoing need for close scruntiny of and improvement to the system.

(I too am concerned to see the response to wannaBe, onebat. I think her posts have raised valid concerns and it is quite astonishing to see an elected representative reacting in this way.)

Yes, the Children Act (and subsequent Adoption Act) has the welfare of the child as the paramount principle, but running parallel is deep suspicion of social workers and family courts.

This isn't the case in other EU countries, such as Denmark where a more holistic approach is taken, but not sure if the paramount principle is in operation?

The principles generally is that the state acts in the child's interests. The key decision is what is in the best interests of the child.

There is a question as to who practically makes that decision and how it can be challened. There is also a question as to whether the decisions made here are as good for the children as they are else where (I would argue not).

In the academic and publishing world people declare their financial interests.

I have no financial interest in child protection. Family Lawyers do. Child Protection Social workers do. Foster Carers and Adoption Agencies do.

It is not unreasonable to ask wannabe to declare her financial interest. If she were to be publishing in a journal she would be required to.

"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"

Complete nonsense. Whilst I might believe that the social workers have made that comment, I flatly refuse to believe it happened.

"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.

More nonsense. It is of course normal for local authority prosecutions to be handled in-house. Some may be outsourced if there is not enough capacity within the local authority to deal with workloads. When they are outsourced, they are dealt with by firms who have experience of childcare cases (who else would you want them outsourced to, pray? Firms of tax lawyers?). There is no individual case where conflict of interest can arise.

But this isn't a journal, John. And your tone was disrespectful.

Many of the people who are qualified to speak authoritatively in this debate will have a professional association with this area of policy.

To imply that their motivations are therefore likely to be corrupt is rude, and rather silly imo.

Glad to see some voices of reason here Skegness, onebatmother, wannabe and quattrecento. I agree that the insults that JH have made to wannabe are out of order. It isn't the first time he has made such comments about lawyers making money out of the "evil" cp system. In a recent post he angered a familylaw barrister by saying that a child had been removed because the mother called the social worker fat, adding that he expected that the lawyers who were meant to be defending the parents in the case would "roll over" in order to pay their mortgage. The implication being of course that lawyers would not do their best to defend the parents but would collude with the local authority for an easy life. These wild allegations are completely withou foundation and are wholly irresponsible comments from an elected MP.

Quatt - JH does talk complete nonsense as you say. He believes that there is a conspiracy between social workers, guardian-ad-litems, psychologists, psychiatrists, play therapists, GPs, consultant paediatricians, (and indeed anyone else involved in care proceedings) lawyers and judges, whose sole aim is to remove children from decent parents for no good reason, other than to meet adoption targets. I don't have a personal vendetta against JH as has been suggested but I cannot stand by and not speakout against such patent nonsense.

His campaign is driven by his own personal experiences which are in the public domain (can be seen by googling him) and as is so often the case, these campaigns are often completely irrational. The people who I feel for and who I think are the real losers here are the parents who are caught up in care proceedings. These parents need clear, straightforward information presented to them in a way that they can understand and the services of a competent lawyer and barrister. What they do NOT need is some MP taking up their case and giving them false hope that he can somehow influence the court process which of course he can't. He was ordered out of a Birmingham Court and I am not surprised. Quatt - have you seen the judgement of WallLJ about JH's behaviour in court. It is quite astonishing that JH is allowed to continue with this scurrilous campaign in the light of the Judge's comments. I don't understand why the Lib Dem leader is not concerned.

quattrocento "There is no individual case where conflict of interest can arise."

The conflict of interest arises from the need to keep the local authority sweet in order to get future work.

JH, You'll forgive me for not having previously heard of you. So I googled to educate myself on Mercian Noatables. Your frankly hilarious cv includes having been nominated for the Love Rat of the Year award. Did you win, by the way? Did you get to take the Ratty Trophy home?

notables

Fuck me, I can't even be withering without a typo.

I don't believe the situation you describe makes for a conflict of interest. Nor in fact does any regulatory body, including the Law Society.

jh I think the problem is, as has been identified numerous times, that you appear unable to evidence many of your assertions relating to the 'evil system'.

Neither do you appear capable of responding to any crticism.

That to me makes you a less than credible commentator and makes me wonder about your motives.

I think its unfair to state that nananina has a 'personal vendetta'-if so then so have I and other posters who know that jh has a tendancy to spout dangerous misinformation.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions but just as social workers have professional responsibilities so do MP's

Leningrotto - LA solicitors aren't appointed to act for parents - they work for the l.a. and in that capacity only. Birth parents are entitled to free legal representation and it is the duty of the social work to ensure that they understand this and advise them to instruct a solictor to handle their case. What JH is on about as Quatto has explained is when the l.a. solicitors are unable to handle a case because they are too over worked and so they ask a firm of solicitors who are experienced in child care matters to handle the case for them. He sees this as a conflict of interest but of course he is just jumping on something else to try to discredit the system. As Quatto says it isn't a conflict of interest at all because the solicitors will take on the case for the l.a. and the birth parents will have their own solicitor.

JH who tries every which way to discredit the system is again talking nonsense by his comment "the conflict of interest arises from the need to keep the l.a. sweet to get future work" - this again is nonsense. If the l.a. are going to court to start care proceedings then they need a lawyer to conduct their case and if that is outsourced to another firm, then that is what that solicitor is going to do, in just the same way as the la. would do. This doesn't mean that the same firm might not be acting for birth parents in another case - this is how the adverserial system works. The job of the lawyer in care proceedings is to act for their client, whether that client be the l.a. or birth parents or other relatives etc.

This is just another way for JH to try to peddle his conspiracy theory.

Quatt - didn't think I would raise a smile on this thread but your comment made me do justthat. However I am less worried about the Love Rat thing than all the nonsense he posts onhere.

guardian ad litem

Interesting article here.

Lenin - the thing is when people talk of mistakes happening, unless you are aware of how the system works it is difficult to understand. You sound reasonable so I will try to explain.

If a child is removed from a parent and this is always a last resort, then the matter has to go to court for a decision by a judge. There are numerous lengthy assessments undertaken of the whole situation, by social workers, guardians (ind sws appointed to be the voice of the child in court )pyschologists, sometimes psychiatrists, sometimes paediatricians etc etc. Before a case can be presented in court it has to be proved that EVERY attempt has been made to do everything possible to enable the child to be reuntied with the family. Any sw knows that unless they can prove this to a judge it is no use going to court, as the case will be thrown out by the judge.

Sometimes parents are given the opportunity of a residential assessment where they can care for their child but are monitored as to whether the child is safe in their care and the workers also produce reports.

The parents are assessed by psychologists and psychiatrists if there are mental health problems and all reports have to make recommendations based on the best interests of the child, not the parents. In addition if the lawyer for the parents feels that the parents are not being given a fair chance, they can request that the court appoint a completely independent sw to do a parenting assessment. (I work as an ind sw and get involved in doing these

All of this takes many months and if the parents can improve their parenting, make good use of the support on offer etc then the proceedings can be stopped and the child returned to them. Sadly this is often not the case and the concern for the child is such that the matter must proceed in order to protect the child.

All of the reports have to give a recommendation on what is best for the child's future. Then the matter goes to court and the final hearing takes 4/5 days and everyone who has made a report has to given evidence to prove what they are saying about the parents and the child and why they feel the child is not safe with the parents (if that is what they do think) if they think something differently then they say so. The solcitors for the parents cross examine all the people who have made reports and this can take 3/4 hours. SO you have to be able to evidenc what you are saying.

At the end of it all the judge makes the final decision.

If you are interested I can tell you about why fostering or adoption is planned if the child is not going to be returned to the parents. However I have been caught on these threads before when I give a lot of info only for people to come on and insult me, so I am a little wary.

Skegness - yes I saw the article when I googled JH. Again I think the wonder is that he is allowed to continue with this outrageous campaign. Why isn't Nick Clegg concerned I wonder - I can't imagine that JH is not bringing his party into disrepute.

Lenin - a guardian-ad-litem is a social worker employed by CAFCASS (Children & Family Court Advisory Service) which is completely independent of social service departments. Guardians are very influential in care proceedings and judges tend to set great store by their views. Their job is to interview everyone involved in the case and form a view of what is best for the child. They appoint a solicitor to act for the child in court. If the guardian is in disagreement with the l.a. about certain aspects of the case, they will say so in their reports and again it is for the judge to make the final decision. In my experience judges are very astute in these proceedings and make appropriate decisions, always in the best interests of the child

I was trying to stay out of this as these threads really bother me, but seeing JH refer to my area of work as evil is just appalling. He also fails to understand the need for social work with children and families where children are not at risk of significant harm and a great deal of support can be given to effect change. If we stopped child protection work tomorrow, we would still be needed, so I have no vested interest in keeping the 'industry' going.

JH, you just always go too far. On occasions I can deal with you as a critic of the system and a champion of parent's (NOT children's) rights, but when you cross over into your frankly loony conspiracy theories, you come across as a bit of a for example.