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

[Heated]

story
What do we think?

Ok, so I have had wine and would like to speculate wildly. Perhaps what I am about to put into type is what other people have been thinking.....could it be that the dad has convictions to do with minors? This would explain why ss have done what they have done, non?

If there was a case in the press that a convicted paedophile had got a 17 year old girl with ld pregnant, there would be outrage if the baby wasn't taken away.
Just my half cut musings....

johnhemming are you aware of the full details of this case? Obviously I am not asking you to divulge them at all, just asking if you are aware of why ss ft it was appropriate to remove the child.

. yes or no would do JH .

felt

suwoo, you could be on the right track. I posted on the original thread, when the wedding was called off, that there was possibly something in his background rather than her LDs that caused the SWs to take the action they did.

all round. If our speculation is true, then how sad is that for the mum. Maybe her radar for dubious characters is not as it should be due to her LD's.

This is OUTRAGEOUS. If Fife Social Services have anything OTHER THAN "mild learning difficulties" on Kerry, then they should tell the public and stop all this speculation. Otherwise, they should give Ben back to Kerry and Mark IMMEDIATELY and offer them all the practical support necessary; because from where I stand Kerry and Mark deserve to be MARRIED and have their family intact. Sounds to me like SS stopped the marriage before the baby could be born because then Mark would have had paternal rights. There have been no reports of drugs/violence or anything else horrendous, so unless this is the case, they should be allowed to live their lives with their baby back with their family and friends in Scotland, with support and assistance from social services if needed - after all isn't that supposed to be their job. AND THEY DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PUT THE BABY UP FOR ADOPTION WHEN NO CASE HAS BEEN ANSWERED/PROVEN if that's a possibility. Surely, if there were any horrific details about Kerry or Mark they would have been leaked to the press by now.

I havent seen anything to say the baby will be put up for adoption just yet.

GretaG

Sounds to me like SS stopped the marriage before the baby could be born because then Mark would have had paternal rights.

• that has been shown to be untrue - he gains parental responsibility by being on the birth cert in scotland

If Fife Social Services have anything OTHER THAN "mild learning difficulties" on Kerry, then they should tell the public and stop all this speculation.

• they aren't allowed to 'tell the public' what they know about this couple. Even if we really really want to know.

There have been no reports of drugs/violence or anything else horrendous, so unless this is the case,

• No reports in the news. You have no idea what happened in actuality. It might be the case. It probably is the case. if it is not, there will be other issues that you don't know about

they should be allowed to live their lives with their baby back with their family and friends in Scotland, with support and assistance from social services if needed

• it seems they have been offered support and declined. That is also only speculation though.

AND THEY DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PUT THE BABY UP FOR ADOPTION WHEN NO CASE HAS BEEN ANSWERED/PROVEN

• The case has been answered. A baby has to be freed for adoption by the courts. They work like any other court - by hearing evidence and witness examination etc.

Kat2907

I guess you work for the social services then.

not quite like any other court if it is in secret, kat.

Actually I do have something to say to that

yes I do, which is how I know what actually goes on. I am not a CP SW, I actually support a lot of teen parents during CP proceedings.

Really - is that all you want to read in to my post? You won't actually read it and think about it? What a shame for you. It must be exhausting living in such a narrow world.

It is like any other court in its procedures. I have sat in on family court proceedings. The cases are heard just like any other type or proceeding. The rights and wrongs of secrecy in family courts are a red herring.

kat, we have read what you have written.
But you are assuming that social workers are good people, who have the best interests of the family at heart.

I have sat opposite a social worker who was DYING to take my son from me. She tried everything to bully me into signing my son away. She had no evidence of any wrongdoing, because there was no wrongdoing.

So when I read "they were offered help by social services, but declined" I don't automatically think that that means they are bad parents.

Yes, we don't know the facts. About the couple, or about the social workers.

how can he gain parental rights to the baby?
the baby has been removed from hospital probably before he has been regestered, and do you think if he applys to court for parental rights , he will be successful when the baby has already been freed for adoption by the courts.? not a hope in hell.
If the dad hasnt done anything to warrent the baby being taken, then this is wrong. if he has then its not.dont think we will find out for sure either way tbh.

Sorry, but secrecy is not a red herring, just because you who know, choose to tell us so.

Drloves8
the baby will still be registered as being born to his birth parents whatever happens. Nobody can register a baby to anyone other than their birth parents. They will have PR until/if the baby is adopted.

Even if they were in england and the baby's father was not on the birth certificate, they could not go through with an adoption order if the putative father was asking to be assessed as carer. The thing about 'snatching him before the dad could get PR' is complete tosh.

nighbynight
sorry for your experiences. You can choose to believe what you wish about my motives - I assure you I have no wish to deceive anybody. In my experience (limited, I am not a CP SW as I say) family courts run on exactly the same lines as any other courts. Believe me or don't believe me -

Thanks Kat, I understand your points. It is indeed a shame that we can't find out because we really really want to know.

Naughty, stupid courts.

kat - i never said ben was "snatched".
i have never had a child taken from me, at birth(or any other time) ,i was asking(?) i just couldnt see how he could have parental rights? so would the couple get to register the baby then in the normal way after the baby is gone? or would SW bring them forms instead?.would they get to show them to a lawyer and ask advice then?

Thank goodness there are so many rational MNs on this thread who are pointing out quite rightly that the only people who know the facts of this case are the social workers and the relevant parties to the care proceedings and this is how it should be. SSD as has been pointed out many times on this thread cannot give their side of the story because of the need for confidentiality. The Daily Mail like these kind of sensational stories. There will be good reason why this baby has been removed and the entire matter will be the subject of a lengthy court case where the parents will be legally represented. The social workers and all other professionals involved in the case will need hard and fast evidence which they will have to present to the court, to convince a judge that they have taken the appopriate action to safeguard this child.

As others have said, surely it must be striking some of you that social workers can't do the right thing - "damned if they try to remove children to protect them and vilified if they don't remove them" - no wonder there is an unprecendented shortage of social workers in the whole of the country.

And surprise suprise that John Hemming is here - and NO suprises for guessing who is the benefactor of this couple. Shame on him that he is trying to protect the adults in the case rather than the innocent child. And as for your comment that "social workers engage in these wild speculation style analyses".................coming from you that is rich indeed.

wild speculayion style analyses

That comment from the SS spokesman that he would urge Kerry to get all the support she needs does seem to hint at the problem being the father.

Which may be terribly unfair speculation about a decent man. Or may be exactly what Fife SS want us to think.

Btw, strikes me that this news emerged on the very same day that the full horror of SS failures in the case of the two boys who carried out that sadistic attack in Edlington was revealed. And the chair of the safeguarding board in Doncaster had the immense arrogance to refuse to let the judge have a copy of the full report.

I devoutly hope Fife SS are a darn sight better than Doncaster, but we can't assume that all SS depts and all SWs are competent.

I think taking a child on the basis of so -called ''intelligence'' or lack of it is awful. It's like Nazi Germany.

Of course we can't and that's why there are a large number of checks and balances ( despite what some say) because the stakes are so high.

What strikes me here is that the parents flit to Ireland to prevent the concerns for their baby either being acted on or reduced by cooperating with the support, yet the risks to the baby are so great that removal 4 days after birth is agreed by an Irish court using a different set of legislation. So unless I've missed something significant a separate
group of professionals and courts see the risk and JH and his mates have done this family a huge disservice in aiding them to move rather than supporting them to reduce the risks to the baby. That seems lke a great shame to me and I would be interested in hearing of they feel any reponsibity for the separation of his baby from it's mother.