Mother 'not clever enough to raise child' has baby snatched by social workers

[Heated]

story
What do we think?

one of JH's favourite phrases is "forced adoption" - by this he means cases where the child is removed from the parents to protect him, there is a lengthy court case and the Judge makes a Parenting Order (this means that the child can be adopted) and the child has the opportunity for permanence and security in a loving home. The birth parents unsurprisingly disagree with the outcome and so JH calls this "forced adoption"

It is true that adoptions do fail and the older the child is the greater the chance of this happening. Many children have been so traumatised by their experiences with their parents that they cannot ever trust adults again and have numerous behavioural problems, and many adoptors struggle for years but in the end sometimes they cannot continue. Conversely there are many situations where the adoption is successful. I don't have figures but I could find them if anyone is interested.

I have heard some nonsense from JH but his latest comment just leaves me speechless "the evidence from Alan Rushton's work is that the behavioural problems of the parents are not linked to the parents" never have I heard such patent nonsense. I don't know who Alan Rushton is but one thing I do know is that if he really believes this he is as ill informed as JH. I suspect however that JH has read this into whatever he has read, in order to support his hypothesis. He did something similar with Michael Rutter's work recently.

I really wonder where JH thinks behavioural problems come from - the family dog maybe, the cat, out of the woodwork..........another of his favourite themes is that it is the care system that creates the pschological damage. Of course this theory supports his notion that children are "snatched" from decent parents without any good reason and then they suffer in care through being separated from their parents.

I am not saying that the state is a good parent for all children (the resources are simply not avilable) and I would go so far as to say that being in care, especially if the child is passed from placement to placement does not exacerbate their difficulties, because it clearly does, but to say that children's psychological difficulties are caused by the care system is like saying that a child's cancer is caused by the hospital. Total and absolute nonsense.

Manatee - maybe this is your first experience of JH - this is par for the course........he either fails to respond to issues raised/direct questions, is dismissive or ignores the issue and changes tack on to a different attack on the system.
Wish I could ignore him and usually I get so ffed up on these threads that this is what I do.

OK JH here's a direct request - please post a link about Alan Rushton's work or advise how we can get hold of it.

I agree. John Hemming, could you please answer this:

Looking at it from the child's perspective, under what circumstances do you think it would be reasonable to take a child into care? In cases of abuse, in cases of exposure to risk through substance abuse or other criminal behaviour, if parents are unable to provide basic care?

And in particular, how do you think SS should procede if the parents are unable to provide for the day to day care of an infant due to LDs, yet unwilling to accept support? It is all very well to say it's the fault of society if there is no support, but what if support is offered and turned down? Or if a SW is allowed into the house, but the parents do not follow advice given?

How will better housing help if parents do not, for instance, follow advice on feeding or nappy changes?

I have just come in from the Pub. I am not going to try to find all the questions people have asked to answer them.

nananina asks a question which is quite specific. (in answering this can I suggest that people who think I am not answering a question actually tell me what the question is that I am not answering).

The research is on page 79 of the book Enhancing Adoptive Parenting
www.baaf.org.uk/res/pubs/books/book_eap.shtml

cory I am happy with Article 8 of ECHR. That is good.

It basically says when the it is "necessary" for the child.

hobbgoblin what question?

Yes, but could you define when you think it is necessary? And in particular what you would think in a case where the child's material wellbeing is likely to be compromised, yet the parents refuse help.

Sorry it is page 72.

ocry the housing issue is the cause of a lot of family problems according to my local surestart and homestart groups.

Going back to the original thread I think Kerry is getting access to the net.

Do you want to debate this with her?

No, I don't. I want you to answer my question.

And you know perfectly well that I was not asking about problems arising from housing issues. I want to know what you think about cases where parents are unable to provide for a child because of (e.g.) LDs and where they refuse assistance and advice offered.

To put it bluntly, if a parent cannot work out how often to change a baby's nappy, putting them in a palatial mansion with all the modern cons isn't actually going to solve that.

JH - you have provided a link but I am not about to spend £12.99 on a book I don't need, just to look at P 72 or P 79. This book is being promoted by BAAF and from the blurb about it I have no reason to believe that it is not a well written and well researched book.

However I am not willing to believe that it is stated that "the behaviour of children is not linked to the parents" - this is nonsense. I am sure that you have misunderstood the point being made, just as you did with Rutter's work. Indeed I have come to believe that you are incapable of giving consideration to anything that does not support your hypothesis about child protection in this country. I believe that you can twist and distort anything that you read to support your hypothesis. You have long peddled the ridiculous notion that it is the care system that causes pyschological damage and will therefore be only too ready to distort something to prove your point. It is all very worrying.

Maybe you can give more detail about the point you are making that is outlined on P 79........it is quoted out of context. No why am I asking as I know I will not get a sensible reply.

I think my best bet is to contact the authors and ask for clarification. I think they deserve to know that their work is being discredited by an MP

Cory - I think JH will always struggle with direct questions about child care and child protection. In my view he simply does not understand anything about child development, child rearing or child protection and this is evidenced in his vague answer about Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, nor is he particularly interested in any of these matters. His mind is closed to anything other than trying to prove his hypothesis, that there is a conspiracy to snatch children from "decent innocent" parents (he has used those very words) to get them adopted to meet targets.

I have met people like him before who are on a crusade because of something that has affected them personally and in my view such people are always irrational and are driven by the need to "hit back" at a systme that they believe has treated them unjustly. I can even understand how such a situation arises but at the risk of repeating myself the horror of this is that this is an MP who is acting in this irresponsible manner and a lot of his nonsense is in the public domain and yet the Lib Dem leader seemingly is not concerned.

cory of course is right. There are parents with LD who cannot sensibly be left dealing with a child. These issues are all matters of judgment.

In the case that this thread is about the judgments are clearly wrong.

I accept that the Scottish system is different. I spend more time dealing with the failures in England. There the checks and balances in England normally fail. Hence children are taken into care that should not be.

At the same time this means that the limits on the system leave other children who are really at risk still at risk.

ie The wrong children are taken into care.

I think that matters.

Nananina wants me to shut up about this.

In the case that this thread is about the judgments are clearly wrong.

JH, if you are referring to the Fife case (as opposed to the Bermingham case you seem to have had dealings with and of which I am not aware), then in my opinion the judgements are not wrong. Again, we are dealing with a case where the full facts are not in the public domain, but if they were then it would be quite clear the best decision was taken in this particular case.

I am intrigued by anyone who would argue against a child being protected from a harmful environment in general - this is how your argument comes across to me, at any rate. Writing on an internet forum does not give a true picture of how any of us interact in everyday life, it is true.
I can only assume everyone here has a child's best interests at heart, which is why these threads attract such interest.
The care system is not ideal in any country, true, but sometimes the alternative is just too dangerous, full stop.
Now I shall bow out!
A final word - I don't think we have heard the last of the Fife story.

I have the advantage of having talked to both parents.

Can I ask JH, if your views are representative of the LibDems as a party.

I am not the party spokesman on this issue.

Does that mean no?

Good question Litchick. I have already written to Nick Clegg to complain about JH but have not received the courtesy of a reply - not even an acknowledgement. JH you have nicely "scooted" around the question which is your normal modus operandi of course. We know you are not the party spokesman on this issue but can you answer the question - it's quite simple yes or no............I should have thought you could manage that?

You say I want you to "shut up" -that's a rare piece of insight on your part. I would never try to stifle debate but your ridiculous posts that never provide any evidence for your assertions are just tedious. You rarely respond to issues that are raised and revert instead to peddling your views that cannot be evidenced.

NanaNina - you post at extraordinary length on child protection subjects and expect everyone here to see you as the expert because you're a social worker and I've noticed your 'empathic' character is always to the fore when posting on other threads.

However, your personal attacks of another poster are really quite amazing. Personally, I think that you want to stifle debate on this issue because you see it as an attack on your competance. I think your posts are ridiculous and I find your style tedious in the extreme. I don't think, despite your endless posturing, that you understand the heartbreak and terror that parents go through when they encounter SS. I'd quite like you to shut up tbh. Perhaps you can grow up a bit (mentally I mean) and stop slagging off JH? You add nothing to the debate by doing this and it just makes me and lots of other people think that you have a vendetta against him. My theory is that you've come up against him in RL and come off worse?

PS If you get my post deleted I think you should ask MN to delete all of your very, very long posts about how clever you are and how shite JH is.

Just read your post NanaNina and it seems fine to me. No awful personal attacks that I can see.

Asking if an elected member's views are in line with his party, is, I feel, a fair question.

All the more so with an election coming up.

Of course JH, is not a spokesperson, but that doesn't mean anything does it?
Why not just say, my views are not in line with my party,we disagree on this issue, they are my personal views? Or yes, my views are at one with my party?

LOL at a politician not being able to give a straight answer to a straight question.

None of them can, I think it is actually physically impossible - it can be fun watching/reading the verbal contortions though.

I wonder if John Hemming was a labour or conservative party MP (i.e. a party that stood a chance of coming to power), whether his posting so freely and critically on the internet would be tolerated by his party leader. I don't imagine it would.

I don't think what NanaNina has to say amounts to a personal attack at all. If an elected MP chooses to post here under his real name and expressing such strong views then it is IMO fair enough that those views be challenged if people don't agree with them. I'm sure if Nick Griffin were posting here regularly on topics regarding imigration people would have a lot stronger views and I don't imagine people would be so quick to jump to his defence.

If Johnhemming doesn't want to be challenged then he should namechange and post here as an interested party with no references to his involvement. But while he is posting here as an mp he is answerable to us, his constituents, (after all there can be no way of knowing that any of us aren't from his constituency) for his views.

Callisto that was rude to Nana Nino who imho is posting very sensibly
JH is a disgrace to his party

Got to say this was an interesting thread with a lively discussion on a serious topic until jh showed up. It then degenerated into the usual dispute with his usual opponents.

Since jh can't tell us any of the things he has heard from the parents or read in the documents his contributions hint at much but don't actually take matters forward. The polarisation of views (hate NanaNina vs don't hate her, trust social workers mainly vs don't trust them, loathe them all) gathers pace.

John, why not post a thread that doesn't just invite comment on Daily Mail articles (necessarily) short on facts, but which sets out some thoughts and detailed suggestions on system reform? We'll all gladly comment on that. Well I will, anyway. For example, you mention Denmark a lot. Very different social conditions there I think, but what specifically do they do which you feel we could usefully adopt here?

I care about this issue. I'm sick of your oblique, sensationalist 'tar the whole profession with the same brush'posts and evasions and I'm sick of the enraged 'How very dare you' reactions they always create. I want a proper debate. Go on.

I was the 10th person to post on this threat so it didn't last long as an "interesting thread" then.

In terms of reform we need to move away from managing process and towards managing judgment.

Ideally I would wish to move to a more inquisitorial model of judgment accountability and away from the rigidity of the adversarial family courts.

In Croatia, for example, the Family Judge visits the people concerned and obtains first hand knowledge rather than sitting in a room looking at paperwork.