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.

The figure of 5,000 referred to over a number of years. The stats don't go into any real details about care proceedings.

DCSF did some specific research on care proceedings and the basis for them.

nananina will be pleased to know that a good use of the funds would have been to fight miscarriages of justice.

Thanks for providing what information - JH hasn't provided any! Just more confirmation that none of these assertions can be evidenced.

Dittany, don't be daft. We can't know all the data and it changes all the time as it gets updated. What we NEED to know id how to proceed if fabricated or induced illness is suspected and i do.

Dittany, both myself and nananina have posted with reference to MSBP. If you have chosen to overlook these posts then what can we do?

No one is denying the devastating affects on families through mistakes that were made by a number of professions including social work.

However I take exception to jh's opinions which he presents as facts that he never appears able to evidence.

jh, you appear a bit confused about the 'system'. First you say the system is 'evil' then you say that the problems are related to resources/performance targets etc. I'd agree with you about the latter but not the former.

In fact I think the use of the word 'evil' says a lot about you and your motives.

The system is inhumane. It is driven by numbers. It is harmful, injurious, wicked and bad.

I think using the word "evil" to sum this up is appropriate.

Where I disagree is that I do not think everything would be better by paying more money to everyone involved.

I think we need to get things right instead.

Claiming I cannot evidence things is ignoring the facts in the same way as the Court of Appeal was inclined to.

Dittany, it's never been raised in proceedings I'vebeen involved in. I've also dealt in thousands of referrals for longer than a decade and never investigated any fabricated or induced illness.

JH, you sound like a stuck record being played backwards to tell us some message about the devil!

What insulting rubbish jh. The 'system' as you put it (ignoring the humanity and dedication of many of the workers) is much more than harmful, injurious, wicked and bad.
It supports a lot of families and keeps many vulnerable children safe. Not that you are interested in that.

jh when you present facts, by definition you should have no problem evidencing them. But you can't and thats why many on this thread are questioning you.

I see we are in good company as apparently the Court of Appeal ignore the 'facts' too. What does that imply jh? Or are we all in it together?

I am expecting an answer from the Judicial Ombudsman. It is currently with the LCJ and LC.

The system does do good as well, but it does a lot of harm.

Crikey dittany-you'll be comparing social services to the Third Reich next.

I don't know your area of medical expertise but I'm assuming that you are disputing the exsistence of facitious disorder? I thought it was a mental disorder and classified as such in the ICD 10 and DSM 1V diagnostic manuals used in psychiatry. Please let me know if you've heard otherwise.

I find the word 'evil' insulting when applied to my profession and I think to express that terminology you should have evidence to back it up. Otherwise expect to be criticised.

Dittany, parents do fabricate or induce illness in children. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the pain of children and adult survivors. I certainly do not think it is common and if suspected or alleges, there is very clear guidance to follow. You've heard many of us condemn parents and children being separate and harmed by medical diagnoses and try to explain the role of CSC actin in good faith, but getting it wrong. I not going to put on a hairshirt to appease you.

Apologies for spelling, but not for objecting to the 'evil' word. Jh comes on here and dies not provide any subtantive evidence for his assertions, yet is still supported. Bizarre.

I don't intend to play the man and not the ball, but actually what is the difference between him and a troll?other than not bring anonymous that is.

I have not said Social work is evil. I have not said that all social workers are bad. What I have said is that the system we operate in England (and to some extent Wales) is dehumanising and in the damage it does to so many people evil.

That is not attacking a profession. It is critical of the system in quite a similar manner to those criticisms of nananina (concentrating on computers, not enough time for people)

I have knowledge of how things work in other countries and it is a lot better than England.

It does have a pathology dittany-look at the diagnostic criteria.

Is there a scientific test for any psychaitric disorders apart from possibly those arising from organic causes? Let me know if there is because again you know more than I do.

I would hope that no diagnosis of factitious disorder would ever take place in the way you describe.

As I've said-oh more times than I can remember-Southall and Meadows theories were endorsed by the mainstream medical profession as well as social services. I'm with wahwah, I've come across one case of factitious disorder in 12 years working in mental health services.I would be interested to know whether this is a recurring issue in CP work because my feeling is that its pretty rare.

Dittany, look at the link JH provided, it doesn't really give any evidence of what he says. In my opinion it shows his organisation in a dodgy light. Why aren't they employing barristers to tackle the concerns within the legal fora rather than helping people run off? I'm sure it feeds all sorts of underground railroad fantasies, but ultimately it's not very helpful, is it?

Again, we can agree on some things. I do not find labels particularly helpful, I want to know what the child's experience is, whether they're in need and/ or in need of protection, whether this is attributable to the care given and what is necessary to ensure they cease to be or are not likely to be harmed. That's it in a nutshell really.

Staggerlee, it is pretty rare ime! I've recently had a colleague in another LA talk about such a case on training and I've later found that a couple of cases where it all seemed a bit odd had something like this happening (exaggerating children's behaviour to pathologise them and get masses of attention and involvement, but this was addressed with the children remaining in parental care).

At the risk of causing Dittany to explode I rather suspect it's under identified in my area...most 'physical' forms of child abuse are,as I think medicl staff generally want to be completely certain before they refer...and of course certaintly is rather elusive.

Dittany, I get 'ad hominem'. it's what you do to a man. What's it called when it's addressed to the female social workers on this thread and where is your defence of us?