Baby joy for couple forced to flee the ss

[atlantis]

The mail are reporting that the couple forced to flee the UK after their first daughter was forcibly adopted and plans were in place to do the same to their new child have had a baby boy, good luck to them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251801/Pregnant-Briton-fled-Spain-prevent-social-services-taking-c hild-gives-birth-son.html

"Oh come on atlantis - are you telling me you wrote "flee the ss" with not the slightest intention of making some comparison to the Nazi regime? Really? "

Look at the boards, any story involving sw's (social workers)and ss (social services) and you will find that everyone (including the sw's (social workers)) write ss as an abbreviation for social services.

The only person using Godwins law here is you.

I know that atlantis. But the ss? If I've misunderstood your intention then I'm sorry. But the title very much (to me at least) gives the impression that you're trying to make use the coincidental initials. Which would make you look stupid and seriously devalues your argument. IMO.

make use of the coincidental initials.

I am aware that I am making myself look stupid.

...but SS do not have the ultimate sanction in removing children - that belongs with a judge and loads of evidence is needed from a variety of sources not just a social worker.

I still believe that children have the right to anonimity even if it means the rest of us have to say "but I don't get how thay came to this decision.....".

Contrary to common belief it is not that easy to remove a child unless that child is at immediate risk of danger.

Seems very odd that the child protection concerns were raised by the ex-husband's partner, who just happens to be a social worker. Huge possible conflict of interest there.

Also questionable that the SWs have shifted their ground repeatedly. Looks as if every time the parents demonstrate X is not the case, the council come back at them saying 'oh, actually it's Y that's the problem'.

Jollypirate, that's an interesting point. But there are cases on record where children have been removed on less than concrete grounds, while we are all aware of other cases of children who have remained with abusive parents. Maybe it's partly down to massive differences in approach between councils and practitioners.

Otterinaskoda,

are we really going to argue over semantics? Because i'm Jewish and trust me we're pretty good at it.

No need, atlantis. I'm still vaguely interested to know if the reference to the SS was deliberate.

Well done Jolly pirate, seeker, sixtyfootdoll and others on this post in trying to inject some reality into this "debate" but I fear you have no chance at all as JH and Atlantis and their ilk are not interested in anything that detracts fromtheir notion that the entire workforce of social workers in this country are a bunch of incompetent idiots whose only intent is to "snatch" children from "decent" parents.

I have tried many many times to explain in great detail the steps that by law have to be taken before a Judge will agree to making an Order on a child that removes parental responsibility from the parents. It all falls on stoney ground however even though these people who discredit the entire "ss" have noreal knowledge of what exactly happens in care proceedings.

When John Hemmings talks of children being wrongly removed from parents, what he actually means is children who are removed from parents who disagree with this action. In 30 years experience in childrens services and involvement in hundreds of cases of care proceedings I have never met yet a parent who does agree to the removal of their child. I have met many parents who fail to turn up to the court hearings (including the final hearing) where the decision is made about the child's future. I have also met many parents of our of control teenagers who have requested (sometimes demanded) that their son or daughter is taken into care. On the issue of child protection, JH has absolutely no idea of whether in fact these children who are removed have been subjected to significant harm by way of abuse or neglect. There is no way he can know this - he forms his view that they have been wrongly removed on the basis that the parents disagree with the action of the SSD and the courts.

I find it absolutely indefensible that an elected MP can assist parents who are involved with SSD on the basis on child protection concerns to "flee" to other countries,on his own admission to Ireland. He does this on the basis of the parent's wish to prevent their child being removed, regardless of whether that is necessary for the child's safety.

Someone asked him for evidence of his assertions - he never can give any evidence at all, because he doesn't actually have any evidence. He claims that he can't give it because of contempt of court but this is not the case. His only evidence is that the parents object to the action taken by SSD, other professionals and the courts. He doesn't in fact know anything about child protection (he once actually admitted this) and why would he - he is a politician, not a child protection expert, so how is it that he can make a decision that a child has wrongly been removed from a parent. Would you like to explain JH - no I thought not!

As for Atlantis - I think I am right in saying that she has had a bad experience in private law with CAFCASS (she has in other posts explained this in full) and it does seem that she had to put up quite a fight in respect of her case. However on this basis she has decided that the entire workforce of the "ss" (as she calls childrens services SSD) though I hadn't actually made any Nazi connection, are totally incompetent and are the lowest form of human life. What in god's name her comment about "12 months paid leave for taking a child out of the pool" is about I dare not imagine.

The women she names as being the victims of miscarriages of justice, Sally Clark, Angela Cannings etc were convicted on the basis of inaccurate medical evidence - absolutely nothing to do with social workers, but hey it's all grist to the mill of discrediting every social worker in the coutnry isn't it.

The fact of the matter is that the biggest worry is that children are left at home who should be removed through lack of resources in terms of social work time and end up being unprotected and in some cases end up being killed by the parents or caregivers. This is the real concern, not as they would have it, that the wrong children are removed. Buy hey why do I bother, becuase nothing will change their view. Nonetheless it's good to see on MN that they are being challenged.

"He claims that he can't give it because of contempt of court but this is not the case."

Really? You have never heard of contempt of court in all your years as a sw? Wow, you must be on some pretty slam dunk cases there NN. I have personally had five contempt of court orders attached issued to me for differing reasons (two in my own case for media participation, two for media relating to two other cases and one for parliamentary lobbying (nothing to do with JH).

"However on this basis she has decided that the entire workforce of the "ss" (as she calls childrens services SSD..."

And so do you and other sw's on other threads, but of course it's a case of 'don't do what I do, do as I say' how very sw of you.

"... are totally incompetent and are the lowest form of human life."

Would you like to produce proof of where I have said this, I know your not used to having to produce proof and this maybe quite hard for you but if your going to claim such nonesense on here I would like to see your evidence. I have never said all sw's are incompetent, I have never said sw's are the lowest form of human life, as I have previously posted, there are some extremely good sw's out there and there are some extremely bad ones, dispite my differences on here with wahwah I think she is probably one of the good ones, you on the other hand exhibit all the reasons why we need to clear the rot from the system.

"The fact of the matter is that the biggest worry is that children are left at home who should be removed through lack of resources in terms of social work time and end up being unprotected and in some cases end up being killed by the parents or caregivers. "

Would there not be more time and attention paid to these cases if sw's were not off chasing after pregnant women who make easy targets?

I can not speak for JH as I have never worked with him but I assume he has viewed the casework of the parents he represents as I have in the cases I take on under the law relating to MK's so I would assume he does in fact know all the evidence relating to the claims of abuse or neglect.

Otterinaskoda,

"I'm still vaguely interested to know if the reference to the SS was deliberate. "

In the initial title thread, no I don't believe so, although subliminally.. maybe(?), I can't say with my hand on my heart I haven't drawn comparisons, I can think of reasons why they would be drawn (the bests interests of the child was a nazi slogan, the blanket secrecy (that doesn't need to be there for confidentiality of the child, as per rape cases etc) , the tactics that are employed by some sw's, the lack of accountability...

But to be honest as well it seems strange to write ss without writing a 'the ' in front of it.

Am I biased against ss as NN has suggested, yes I probably am, but just as she is biased in favour of them. I work with people who's cases I have read with somewhat disbelief ( I wont work with people I am dubious of, if I think there is evidence to suggest wrong doing I will walk away) as to how they have come to be in the position of having their child/ ren taken away on the 'evidence' produced.

nananina uses the straw man approach again.

On a number of cases I have access to all the court papers. Let us take the case of the Websters (Hardinghams) it is now accepted that their first three children who have now been adopted were not at risk.

That is one case. There are lots more.

nananina says "he never can give any evidence at all, because he doesn't actually have any evidence."

But I do have the court papers. And yes it is contempt of court to publish those.

I agree there needs to be questioning and debate. This is essential so that families where there have been dubious assessments have someone on their side.

FWIW as a HV I have recently supported a young girl with LD who was all set to have her baby removed but who wanted a chance to see if she could parent. I supported her because the foster parents responsible for her and baby were very worthy of investigation, they took her cashcard for example so she had to ask them for money when she needed to buy anything, they took money to buy the baby some shoes and allegedly bought a cheap pair pocketing the difference and they also actually suggested to the SW in my hearing that they had friends who would love to adopt the baby. As they were supposed to be impartial observers giving unbiased information to the SW about how this young Mum was coping I felt I could not (and nor could anyone else) rely on their information. I made a formal complaint to the fostering agency and to the SW, the mother's solicitor seized upon this and the upshot is that the judge agreed that there was insufficient evidence to merit a removal of the baby. The Mum and baby are now with different foster carers and she is doing well. However, coping with a baby is very different to coping with a child and I suspect that in the long term this Mum will not manage ..... but how sad - she and baby have bonded now and any removal at a later stage will be traumatic for them both. Had all the parenting assessments been done properly the baby might indeed have been removed and both he and Mum would be adjusting - leaving it until a future date will be awful for both. The case was mismanaged from the beginning and the foster parents badly chosen. It did not put the needs of the child first.

In all of this the baby needs to come first and the chances are that he will need removal at some future point unless society is prepared to fund intensive parental support in the future (higher taxes anyone?).

I think the point I am trying to make (very badly) is that this baby has now bonded with his Mum (who is lovely btw) but who will struggle long term. It might have been better for both had the parenting assessments been done properly the first time to prove a need for removal rather than the lazy arsed approach of using very dubious (in this case) foster carers who were evidently on the make (there have been many other allegations now and they have not had any other children placed with them).
If it had all been done properly then the baby could now be settled with adoptive parents and the Mum could be adjusting.

"and the Mum could be adjusting."

Can I take this point first. A mother who wants her child as obviously this one does can not 'adjust' to having him forcibly adopted, I am told it's akin to having your child kidnapped, the child is alive, it's out there in the world without you, you don't know whats become of it and you can not see, cuddle, help or raise it, there is a small comfort in knowing the child is alive and yet it makes it impossible to move on.

It's the same for the child, once they know they are adopted, my ex partner had a fabulous family, huge house, exclusive area, the best schools and yet all he ever wished for was to see his birth mother. He said there was just a huge hole in his life that nothing would make up for.

" This is essential so that families where there have been dubious assessments have someone on their side."

The problem with the family courts themselves is they are presented with one sided evidence, that of the CP team, the parents must petition the courts to allow their own evidence to be submitted and it is usually denied, very rarely financed and is taken with a pinch of salt.

Look at Fran Lyons evidence, it was ignored in favour of some very dubious evidence from the CP team and as we now know (because the country in which she is now living have completed their own investigation and advised her to sue) Fran is an excellent mother, had she stayed in this country her DD Molly would have been forcibly adopted.

"as a HV I have recently supported a young girl with LD "

Your very lucky your views were taken into account. I remember a case that was publised a few years ago when the HV stuck up for a girl only to be threatened with losing her job and her recommendations were ignored.

"(higher taxes anyone?)."

In a heartbeat if the money was going into the right places and the system was overhauled completely so the best interests of the child was the primary factor in CP.

I have spoken to many sw's who say 'we just don't have the money to support families in this way so we have to remove the child'. My local LA and the portfollio holder for childrens services have admitted the same, they are under staffed, under funded and over loaded with paperwork, they are surviving on independent help, which means the assessments and follow ups are sketchy at best.

But to say a mother with LD's can not raise a child is akin to saying poor people can not raise a child, or black people, or disabled people or even people who employ a nanny, look at sw's , police officers and soldiers all highly stressful jobs should they be raising children?, everyone is different, everyone flounders at some point at being a parent.

I don't think I ever said parents with LD cannot raise a child but it IS more difficult for them and at the end of the day the needs of the child HAVE to come first. It's not in anyway akin to saying black or disabled people cannot raise children. It's all about cognitive ability and some people just do not have a good enough abilty to manage long term. It wasn't just my formal complaint which stopped proceedings in their tracks but the lack of assessments and the dubious observations of the foster parents.

Is it in the best interests of the child to leave him with someone who may not be able to cope with him long term? Who has a history of being vulnerable to the kind of people who prey on those unable to appreciate the risks. Her LD's make that vulnerability far worse and places the child at potential risk. I would like to see her supported in the community but don't hold out hope that this will happen long term.

Nobody threatened me with the loss of my job but then I wasn't colluding with the adults in this case but simply pointing out that the appropriate assessments had not taken place and that in contrast with some of the other parents I deal with that this Mum was always well prepared in groups with nappies, wipes, food and the baby was always appropriately dressed (which is more than can be said for some others). This is niot the same as saying she will always manage long term but that she is giving this baby a bloody good start and that more assessments need to take place before writing her off as a parent. The judge agreed with that but had these assessments taken place and deemed the mother not able to parent long term I would have accepted that. Had I THEN objected I might indeed have been threatened with job loss as not putting the interests of the child first.

How do you see the system being overhauled atlantis? Genuinely interested as this system is not perfect but at the moment is the only one we have. I'd like to see changes and much more support for some parents but at the end of the day there are those who cannot and never will be able to parent a child all the way through childhood and who WILL place their children at risk of significant harm. Unfortunately these families are not black and white and there are always good things in them which are sadly sometimes out weighed by the difficulties.

Jollypirate your post made me so sad. You seem to be assuming that because the mother has LDs she will somehow not understand what she has lost when her child is taken away, and will 'adjust'. Would you adjust if your child was taken away and you had done nothing wrong?

And you say "higher taxes anyone?" as if anyone would object to helping this little family stay together! I certainly wouldn't, not when I see some of the people who are given chance after chance to keep their children. In this country it seems to be ok to bring up children when you are regularly out of it on drugs/drink, have a boyfriend with convictions for GBH and a rottwieller and live in squalor (because oh we mustn't judge must we?), yet if you are a loving mother with a LD who needs a bit of extra help you can forget it.

"I don't think I ever said parents with LD cannot raise a child"

No, sorry I wasn't saying that to you but in the general context of CP.

I totally agree that some parents should not raise their children and this is why we have CP and why it is such a valuable tool in our society, we all know that children need protection from some adults but CP is usually aimed in the wrong direction (they seem to put a bandaid on a gunshot wound and sew up a papercut.

"How do you see the system being overhauled atlantis?"

I'm not a sw so I only know what I have been told from sw's I have spoken with.

Firstly sw's should not be spending their time on paperwork they should be out in the community working with their case families.

There are too many cases per sw's to be able to dedicate the time needed to deal with each case properly, add to that the paperwork and you have a recipe for disaster.

Managers and the upper echelon should be qualified in sw and not other fields.

Targets should be scrapped, you can not apply targets to this kind of work.

Anyone identified as having MH issues (LD's included) should be seen at length by MH professionals and not assessed by sw's as this is not their field of expertise.

In the family courts themselves any family member and close family friend should automatically have the right to put themselves forward to have residence of the child.

All parents should have the automatic right to their own experts in the fields that the LA's are putting forward into evidence.

Family law solicitors should not be allowed to work for LA's and families as this is a conflict of interests.

All parents should have immediate access to a solicitor under legal aid as soon as an investigation is started.

More money needs to be spent in areas which would help families stay together.

I agree with the poster above that we seem to have a two tier system in this country where many people who are putting their children in danger are given endless chances and yet babies in the womb such as Fran's are deemed to be taken at birth under very dubious evidence.

We also need to stop the (now) majority of private law cases that get bogged down using ss as a strong arm tactic to enable contact. It's understandable to call in a sw when there is evidence of abuse but cafcass are shoving off their cases under s7 to ss because they can then shift around their caseload and they can use the threat of ss as a blackmail tactic (all done with the full knowledge and understanding of the court).

I would also like to see the judge removed from being the deciding vote from family law cases (private and public) to be replaced with a panel (much like a jury) where criminal law rules apply (perjury, right to a fair trial), we have childrens panels, they work quite well, they can work well under these situations.

I'm sure theres a million more things i'm forgetting.

No Pixel I am not assuming anything and I know very well that this mother WILL understand what she has lost if her child is ever removed. My point about higher taxes is that many people huff and puff about the idea of higher taxes without thinking about where this extra revenue might go. I'd love to see this girl supported to parent in the community as she's lovely and her baby is delightful and a testement to the input he has had from her. I wouldn't object to higher taxes but it's a sad reflection upon our society that people can and do object to this. That was the point I was trying to make(not very well put in my previous post).
My other point is that some people (not all) do not have the cognitive ability to care for their children long term (LD or not) - we are naive as a society if we think otherwise. Belive me I deal with plenty of parents out of their heads on drink and drugs too and I get as frustrated as anyone else about that.

The term "adjust" is crap actually because you are right and I am not sure anyone can adjust to losing a child but with DS running about my brain was not clear.

The Mum is question has already had some very concerning partnerships though (and one partner who had convictions for offences against children and with whom she showed reluctance to part) and is easy prey for these people. That's just her and not necessarily true of everyone else with LD. Her own parents are very toxic as well and have no intention of supporting her . This Mum is not actually under my care any more but elsewhere in the country and I've heard she is doing well apart from the external issues of dodgy partners and a lack of understanding about the risks they may pose to her son. That's fact sadly - not me saying that all people with LD will be vulnerable to this sort of partner.

IF the powers that be do parenting assessments which show that long term this child is likely to be at risk of significant harm and go for removal I will be sad for this Mum but (and this will sound hard hearted but isn't meant to) I will consider the child's safety to be a greater priority over the feelings of the parent. That is the crap side of any child protection issue but make no mistake if this child ever DID come to significant harm because of the mother's vulnerability then believe me the sh*t would hit the fan and many would be saying "but why was he left in the home when you knew all these factors might endanger him..."

This is not to say that the child protection policies get it right all the time - I think it's quite clear they do not but we will never know how many children are protected from harm because of course those cases do not make the papers...

Have to leave this thread now. I don't think anyone who works in child protection does so to be malicious but to try and make life safer for children in society. They won't always get it right and the system we have is not brilliant but without any extra funding it's the only one we have and I'd welcome ideas about how it can be changed while keeping children safe.

Thanks atlantis - just seen you've posted so will sit and read your ideas now

"Isn't it 12 months paid leave a sw gets when they take a kid home from the child pool?
"

What does this mean?

atlantis - thank you for your (very much not stupid) answer to my question.

Have just returned to the thread and see it has moved on but feel I must reply to JH and Atlantis. Yes Atlantis of course I have heard of contempt of court. I don't know what "slam dunk" cases are.......have to say I was astonished that you reveal you have contempt of court orders served on you on 5 occasions. Do the people who you assist as a MJCK friend know about the these orders, or more pertinently the judge in the cases in which you are involved. I am a little puzzled about your claims about your involvement with the courts on the basis of a McK friend. For those who aren't familiar with this concept, it is a person (not legally qualified) who is allowed to sit with and assist someone who is not legally represented. The way they may assist in court is limited to giving moral support to the person, taking notes, whispering advice etc. They are not entitled to speak unless directed to by the Jugde. This limited assistance however does not stop you boasting that you have won every case with which you have been involved - it is not within your gift to win cases - it is the decision of the Judge that decided the future of the child.

So Atlantis who are all these people who are litigants in person (which means someone not being represented in court) who are wanting your services as a McK friend? How do they come across you and who are all these people that you walk away from after reading the court papers. Just curious. I have never come across parents who are not legally represented and so been assisted by a McK friend.

OK Atlantis I know I have used words to describe my perception of your attitude to social workers and you have not used those exact words. However I don't intend trawling back to give exact quotes. I was using a shorthand as you have made your views about social workers and their incompetence abundantly clear on these threads. Incidentally WahWah and myself are always in agreement - it's just that she is more measured than I am and is able therefore to come over as more rational, which I accept is probably preferable to my somewhat direct approach.

I'm afraid both John Hemming and Atlantis misunderstand me when i say they don't have the evidence. I did not mean that they don't have access to court papers, nor that if they put details of cases in the public domain this is contempt of court. The point I was trying to make (though admittedly not very well) is the basis on which you make decisions that children have been wrongly removed from parents. I suspect you are only involved in private law cases Atlantis though may be wrong.

However I challenge both of you JH and Atlantis to explain on what basis you make the assertion that childre are wrongly removed from parents other than on the basis that the parents object to the removal of the child.

In order to make a judgement in this very complex matter a person needs to be suitably qualified and experienced. They need to have an in depth understanding of the following issues:

1. The developmental process of a child - from birth to young adulthood.

1. The needs of a child through the ages and stages of childhood. The physical, social, emotional, and educational needs.

1. The physical, social, emotional and educational needs of the child who is the subject of the proceedings.

1. The ability of the parents to meet those needs in all respects, both now and throught the child's lifetime. An awareness of how these needs may not be being met.

1. An understanding and working knowledge of attachment theory and the significance of this in child protection matters.

1. An ability to evaluate the local authority's case for removal of the child. In particular the evidence they are putting forward to demonstrate the child is (or likely to be) at risk of significant harm.

1. An ability to consider any factors which may give rise for concerns about the local authority's case

1. The ability of the parent's to understand the concerns of the local authority in relation to child protection matters.

1. An ability to understand and evaluate the care plan for the child presented to the court.

10. A complete understanding and working knowledge of the legislation that underpins all child protection work in this country.

Can either of you explain what qualifications and experience you have to undertake these assessments on which to base your judgements. As far as I am concerned you are both driven by the same thing, a deep mistrust of social workers, (in JH's case all professionals involved in care proceedings, lawyers and the judge himself, and that the system is evil (a direct quote from JH) based on your own personal experiences. This does not qualify you to make judgements about whether children have been wrongly removed from parents. I find it arrogant in the extreme that you seem to think that you can make these judgements.

You talk Atlantis of social workers being able to protect more children if they were not busy chasing after pregnant mothers. This is nonsense, complete nonsense and the sort of thing JH posts. You talk in another post of social workers having to remove children because there are no resources to support families. Again this is illogical. Removing a child and ensuing court proceedings calls for immense social work time and money and the placement of a child with foster carers whilst the case is awaiting the final hearing (can be up to 2 years) costs an enormous amount of money and is a huge drain on resources, so I'm sorry your assertion is totally inaccurate. You and JH seem to post all sorts of inaccurate information in an attempt to support your hypothesis and do all you can to discredit the child protection system.

Me again Atlantis - I agree with some of the things you say that need to be changed. However I thought I should point out that some social workers are experienced and qaulified in mental health and children's work. If they are not, then the services of a mental health social worker can be made available.

Any family member or friend does have the right to make application under the terms of the Children Act to offer substitute care to a child removed from his parents. Any applicant has to be thoroughly assessed as to their suitability (or otherwise) to care for the child. These assessments have to be carried out prior to the final hearing.

Not sure what you mean about family law solicitors not acting for l.a. and parents. I am assuming you mean when l.a.s cannot allocate a case to the la lawyer and they sub contract the work out to lawyers in private practice experienced in family law. Given that these lawyers are employed outside of the l.a. it is perfectly conceivable that they may be acting for the l.a. on some occasions and acting for parents on others. This is how the adverserial system works. So long as they carry out their duties in a competent and professional manner I cannot see where there is a conflict of interest.

All parents do have immediate access to a lawyer and are entitled to legal aid.

I know that CAFCASS are in dire straits because of a huge increase in care proceedings and private law cases and extreme staff shortages and I accept that this inevitably causes problems for all concerned, not least the parents and children at the heart of these proceedings. The reason that l.a. social workers are being asked to be involved instead of CAFCASS social workers is because they do NOT have the resources to cope with the increased workload. Courts are understandably becoming increasingly frustrated with the significant delays and this is another reason cases are being shunted back to l.a. social workers. This is no solution as they don't have the reources to cope with this extra work.

Jollypirate - I have found your posts very interesting and thoughtful. It is very sad when foster carers exploit service users especially when they have LDs - it is rare I know, but I too have known it to happen, again involving misuse of funds.

I applaud the fact that you have actually come out and made the point that parents with learning difficulties often cannot offer safe and effective parenting to a child through all the ages and stages of his life. As you say it is to do with cognitive ability and it is unfair to expect parents with mod/sevre LDs to be able to effectively parent. This is sad but true. There are so many posters on MN who seem to think that parents with LD are being victimised by SSD and get very angry about cases where a child has to be removed for their own safety.

I think some of these people do not understand the limitations of some parents with LDs. This is not meant to be offensive to these parents, it is simply a fact. As you say JP, many young mothers with LD are exploited by men who dominate and often physically and emotionally abuse them. The child in this situation is very vulnerable. I accept that a parent with a mild LD will cope with support but there are degrees of LD and those with mod/severe LDs are just not (without an enormous amount of support)going to be able to be effective parents. MNs often call for this support to be made available, but this is simply not realistic. These parents are going to need ongoing support on a daily basis for the child's entire childhood. As you say JP in these cases, the needs of the child must come first.

nananina England and Wales has one of the worst records for protecting chilrren from death as a result of Child Abuse and Neglect of developed oountries.

The outcomes for those children in the care system are spectacularly bad.

Why do you refuse to accept any criticism of the system?