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.

JH -- I don't understand your point re: David Southall. Is the suggestion that he would be able to get his medical licence back, but be banned from being an expert witness?

So, if he does get his licence back, would this pave the way to a two tier system, or is this just so exceptional and a one off?

Also, didn't he give his 'professional' opinion having never examined the mother?

I bet the Court of Appeal will suggest that there was nothing in the FPR stopping him from giving his expert opinion which was reasonable given his expertise.

Problem too will be that there isn't anything stopping other expert witnesses from referring to his academic articles and body of research.

cory is quite accurate. Often there is a problem with someone kicking off child protection activities and them not really being challenged until a lot of unnecessary damage has been done to the family. The Family Courts are supposed to act as a check on the system, but they don't do that properly for the reasons I have gone into.

It is possible for someone to have a partial right to do things. My concern with David Southall has been the system's refusal to look properly at his research. (Such as the Carbon Monoxide experiments which I have some difficulty understanding the ethics of).

Cory,

I totally agree with you about doctors and headteachers and their ilk, them all seem to believe now that they are trained psychologists/ psychiatrists and can identify all manner of mental illnesses which as you said leads to a world of hurt for the families involved.

Even sw's believe that reading a book on mental illness makes them an expert, how many of us would read and book on brain surgury and then decide we were competent to operate on someone?

Anyone accused of a mental illness should have to undergo a full spectrum diagnosis with a practitioner of their choosing paid for by the ss before said diagnosis is even allowed to be entered on their file.

In court cases both sides should also be allowed to submit medical evidence and expert evidence as per the criminal justice system anything else is just a kangeroo court.

Anyone 'accused' of mental illness?? What a strange statement-its not a crime to be mentally ill.

Social services routinely refer parents with suspected mental health difficulties to teams like my own.

I've never known them to make a psychiatric diagnosis prior to referral. You'll also be suprised to learn that sometimes parents who are referred are found not to have a mental illness at all.

People are entitled to seek 2nd opinions regarding psychiatric daignosis. No social worker in their right mind would profer a diagnosis as they just aren't qualified to do so.
I've worked in mental health for 12 years and although I may have opinions about diagnosis I certainly know I'm not qualified to offer one.

Where are you getting your information from Atlantis?

Rachel Pullen was not entitled to a second opinion as to the diagnosis that she was incapable of instructing a solicitor.

This is the RP v The United Kingdom case that people like quoting from when the Judges in the Court of Appeal criticised me whilst I was supporting her right to a second opinion.

Tipteoing back in as Dittany seems to have gone to ground for the time being thought she will no doubt be back to insult me when she sees my post!

Wahwah and Staggerlee - I think (that coul dnot be 100% certain) that in the CofA link that JH posted, it was his organisation (Justice for Families) who "advised" the mother in this case to get rid of her lawyer and have Mrs. Haines represent her instead. I understand that Mrs. Haines does not have a legal qualification so I struggle to understand the logic of this action but I have long since given up trying to expect anything logical from JH. On the basis that the CofA judges allowed Mrs. Haines to represent the mother, JH asserts that they have "won" - a phyric victory methinks. However it would be interesting to know what happened next. Did Mrs. Haines manage to convince the Cof A judges that there had indeed been a gross miscarriage of justice in this case (as JH asserts)or did the CofA uphold the original decision of the court - I imagine the latter but would JH comment on this.

JH - let's change tack. You started this thread saying that you "track" cases like the mother fleeing to Spain all the time. What exactly does "track" mean in this context. I wonder HOW exactly do you intervene in these cases and on what basis. You have been criticised by a High Court Judge, Judges in the Court of Appeal and ordered to leave another Birmingham Court, so I can't help wondering how you manage to assist these parents, but am prepared to be enlightened by you.

You claim to have 800 cases "on your books" so to speak and vaguely claim to "win some" - but what I wonder do you mean by "winning". Presumably you keep records. It would be interesting to know in how many cases,(and in what given period) the intervention of your organisation has PROVED that there has been a miscarriage of justice and the care proceedings withdrawn as a result.

OK JH cards on table time - no more soundbites, no more random comments about CAF or RAD or the evil system or any of your other favourite topics, let's have some facts in response to the issues I have raised.

"Anyone 'accused' of mental illness?? What a strange statement-its not a crime to be mentally ill."

But given the way mental illness is stigmatised and the negative consequences that can result (losing your job, not to mention not being regarded as a fit parent) it is hardly surprising people would see it that way, is it? If someone told me I had a mental illness when I thought I hadn't I would definitely regard it as an 'accusation'.

Cory - I found your long post about factitious disorder and your own circumstances incredibly interesting. I absolutely agree that in those old abuse cases, there seems to have been a combination of medics and social workers putting 2 and 2 together and making 5. An over simplification I know but to be honest I can't remember all the details now. (Please Atlantis don't come on and harangue me for not remembering as you have done before, it's just called being human). I do remember the Cleveland sexual abuse debacle and it was medics and social workers acting together and I'm not sure who was taking the lead but think it was an over zealous GP (a woman if I remember rightly but can't remember her name - Jane someone?)

I absolutely agree that Drs need to be more honest about their limitations and I think some of the problems of the past have arisen when medics have given evidence which has sounded totally foolproof (so to speak) and unsurprisingly courts have accepted that evidence as it is difficult to challenge medical evidence if you do not possess the necessary medical qualifications. The thing is with sw evidence (or any other non medic) it is not too difficult for lawyers to cross examine in depth and so their evidence can be tested to assist the judge in his deliberations, whereas this is more complicated in the case of medical evidence.

Dr Marietta Higgs was her name and she was so adamant that ALL the kids had been abused in some way. For months after she was proved wrong she still believed she was right. What I was dismayed at was how many kids did get returned that had in fact been abused. Has any one thought of that.

I would also like some facts too from JH. How many cases do you "win" and how many do you "lose"

NN I would also like an answer on the SS System we have now and what you would like to see changed. I'm asking you as you seem to be the longest standing SW here even if you are semi retired. I would find your views very interesting.

" Anyone 'accused' of mental illness?? What a strange statement-its not a crime to be mentally ill."

It is if your dealing with the family courts, just ask anyone who's been 'accused' of it, especially when they can not 'disprove' it which is generally the reason for the accusation in the first place.

Good posts dittany.

I posted on Fran Lyon's original thread, the whole thing is chilling.

John Hemming, good for you, plenty of us appreciate what you're doing about the secrecy of the family courts, it's scandalous.

We have an adversarial system of justice. Hence one side wins and the other loses. That is not ideal, but that is the way that it is.

The appeal to the CoA was on two points. We won one and lost one.

The case has then reverted to the High Court and we are expecting a judgment tomorrow.

I have not tried to analyse all of the cases and list out which have gone where - nor am I going to. We get new cases all the time.

Remember that I help other MPs with their casework as well.

For example I am tracking the Mark and Kerry case by talking to the journalist to is looking after them to find out the situation.

With the people now in spain I speak to their erstwhile MP (Tim Yeo) and they liaise with the network.

DollyPS - yes that's right Marietta Higgs, and yes that's the worry isn't it that some children might have been returned who were abused. I remember when the whole sexual abuse issue arose in the mid 80s when I was a social worker dealing with children and families. I recall there being some rather over zealous social workers around who seemed to see sexual abuse "crawling out of the woodwork" and there was always talk of c "disclosure" work with children. Over time I think as we all became more experienced there was a more measured attitude towards the problem.

You ask a big question dolly so I will try to restrict my comments to child protection and care proceedings as that seems to be the live issue. I have posted at length before on what I think are the problems but can't remember exactly where and remember I have been out of front line work for 7 years, but I have to keep abreast of legislation changes, policies and procedures because I still do independent social work and a lot of what I do are court driven parenting assessments (i.e. I am appointed by the court to carry out a completely independent parenting assessment in cases where the l.a. have instigated care proceedings and the care plan is for the child to be permanent removed from the parents.)

1. Social workers are struggling with unmanageable case loads and this causes stress and is a potentially dangerous situation.

1. SWs are spending an average of 70% of their time in front of computer screens filling in forms devised by Lord Laming. This obviously reduces the time they can spend with families.

1. The vacancy rates in cp work are increasing all the time. Some l.a.s are trying to run a service with 30 - 40% vacancy rates. The sws that left get burned out and the chance of them going off sick with stress increases.

1. Because of the vacancy and sickness rates there has to be an over reliance of agency workers. Thus there is no case continuity and agency workers get paid more, so sws seeing this give in their notice and go on the agency, perpetuating the problem.

1. Sws are not given enough support by the in some cases and managers are not always competent/experienced enough to offer the support needed. Middle managers are not always properly supported by Senior managers.

1. Newly qualified sws are given complex cases from the word go, and again have high case loads. They don't have the experience to cope and again this is potentially dangerous.

1. There are always always serious budget constraints in children services and this impacts on all levels of service provision.

1. Government intervention hinders rather than helps in some instances. (Am not entirely up to date on this as as an ind sw thankfully this is not relevant tome) but the targets set and performance indicators and concentration on the "business" model of social work I know frustrates a lot of workers.

1. Once a cp investigation is underway, there is pressure for specific assessments to be undertaken and completed within a specified period. It is very stressful work and assessments have to be evidenced based (meaning that you have to be able to evidence in court what you are saying about pareting ability) This is how it should be but it is a very comlex thing to have to do, especially for inexperienced workers.

10. The problems in cp are increasing in complexity. Usually there are a range of problems that are causing concern e.g. drug /alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental health issues, parents too immature to parent, parents too damaged by their own childhood experiences to safely parent etc etc. Too numerous to mention.

11. Sws are pilloried by the media (especially the tabloids) and by some MN posters and one MP. They cannot do the right thing - damned if they remove children and damned if they don't. Sws a releaving the profession in significant numbers, fearing that someone on their caseload will be the bext Baby Peter - who can blame them.

I could go on but think I've said enough. YES social workers are human and they will make mistakes - no sw on here as ever said anything different, BUT what we are all saying is that there is absolutely no truth in the stuff JH peddles about this conspiracy theory to snatch children from decent parent to meet adoption targets. That is patent nonsense and this is why I am moved to keep on trying to challenge that ridiculous notion. ANYONE who is involved in cp in the UK knows this is nonsense.

Ah well JH WHY did I expect a logical response from you. However I think the response you have given has answered my questions and confirmed my beliefs about you and your organisation.

I have not said that all social workers are bad. I have said that some are. There are also good social workers.

I am not the only MP who expresses this view in public.

A lot of nananina's points about the over use of computers etc are true.

These lead people to making wrong decisions.

Again this is a system problem rather than a people problem.

Let take two of Nananina's points:
"1. Social workers are struggling with unmanageable case loads and this causes stress and is a potentially dangerous situation.

1. SWs are spending an average of 70% of their time in front of computer screens filling in forms devised by Lord Laming. This obviously reduces the time they can spend with families."

Hence they don't have the time to get sufficient information to make the proper decisions. Hence the decisions they make are often wrong.

Not their fault. The fault of the system. Not only that, but what the government are doing is making things worse rather than better.

Hence practitioners vote with their feet.

leningrotto this is the basic research source
www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000878/index.shtml this is a good starter for 10]]

Years for care tend to be 1st April - 31st March.

Ah well JH you are nothing if not predictable. I should have known that posting anything from a sw provides you with the opportunity to twist things to attempt to prop up your conspiracy theory. My comments about "potential dangerousness" were in fact a concern that too many children might be left in situations where they were unsafe and exposed to abuse/neglect, because of insufficent time to spend with the familes and assess what is really going on. Alternatively children might be left to linger too long before removal and thus increasing their risk of significant harm. It was NOT meant to imply that "wrong decisions" were made about the removal of a child. IF any child was removed without just cause, this would be picked up by any of the range of professionals involved in the case. IF the sw was unable to provide evidence of her concerns, this too would be picked up in court by defence laywers and the judge. Oh why am I bothering to say this, cus I forgot they are ALL involved in the conspiracy of the evils system and are only in it for the money.

Incidentally what were you going to do with the £300,000 you demanded in the writ you issued against Birmingham City Council and which you insisted should be paid by the social workers themselves...........how ludicrous was that.

Lenin - if you find this evidence I would be interested in it. Another poster who can't evidence her assertions.