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

I don't have a problem with accepting constructive rational criticism of the system - none whatsoever. I have posted on here many times and in great detail of my perception of some of the problems in childrens services and the issues that need to be addressed to resolve some of these problems.

What I do have a problem with is people like you who are simply out to spread scaremongering stories based on the bloody Daily Mail FGS and your endeavours to discredit the entire system that you have called evil and your belief that there is a conspiracy theory shared by all involved in car proceedings, to snatch children from decent parents.

I see that you have made no attempt whatsoever to address the issues I have raised (no surprise there as this is your modus operandi - I should know by now) about the basis on which you make your tedious assertions that children are wrongly removed from parents. Is there the remotest chance that you will address these issues and if not, why not?????

I have often responded to your specific issues and you normally ignore that.

Can I suggest that you raise individual issues one at a time and we aim to resolve these and please don't use the straw man technique where you misrepresent my argument and then argue against the misrepresentation.

This discussion is in public and has a record that others can read. Techniques that work in the secret court will not work here.

Try raising one point and then see if others believe that I am not answering your points.

John, what are your concerns regarding the court system if a variety of professionals need to give and provide evidence? You surely cannot believe that everyone is in a secret conspiracy to remove children. I would find that absurd as I believe that most people involved in child protection work understand that the best place for a child is with his/her birth parents. In a few cases this is not the case. It takes an awful lot to get a case into court and even then the threshhold for removal is not met in some cases.

If the courts did not provide anonimty what would be the consequences for the child at a future date? If it's in the public domain it might well feel dreadful knowing that you, your family and the circumstances have been discussed and judged by the public. Do you honestly think that if the courts became public that this would change anything? People would need public access to all the evidence if they were to make a judgement regarding wether or not the criteria for removal had been met. Again this has implications for the parents as well as the child. What's to stop vigilante behaviour if people read evidence which offends them?

While I understand the reasons for wanting more openess about family courts I see only problems for everyone were that to happen. As for a jury type of affair - this is not a bad idea but can we honestly leave something as serious as protecting a child to a jury system? What if the jury got it wrong and a child died?

ss make very difficult decisions. Sometimes they make very bad decisions and if they are made in secret the consistently bad decision makers are protected. It's also impossible to show that most decisions are properly taken. The courts have to be more open.

It may be dreadful if a child reads things about their family, it is also dreadful to be deprived of your family and not even know that they fought to keep you.

" As for a jury type of affair - this is not a bad idea but can we honestly leave something as serious as protecting a child to a jury system? What if the jury got it wrong and a child died? "

I believe this was from one of my posts.

We leave these life and death decisions to a jury everyday in the criminal courts when we allow a jury to decide the fate of a criminal, how many criminals have we put back on the street for them to reoffend against children.

If the evidence is there then surely a jury would make the right decision.

And what happens when the judge in the family courts gets it wrong? On either side he allows the child to go home and the child could die or he allow the child to be adopted and the child could die. Adoptive parents and foster carers can also be abusive. The child can be put up for adoption and the parents decide they no longer want the child and it goes back into care.

"what are your concerns regarding the court system if a variety of professionals need to give and provide evidence? You surely cannot believe that everyone is in a secret conspiracy to remove children."

It's not a 'secret conspiracy' per se, more of a catch the ball and run with it effect.
You have a refural for whatever reason, so suspicion is raised, then you have a sw who may decide something is hinky and notes this, then you have an investigation, that may hinge on a dubious disagnosis of a MH problem, but each time you will find that each person has spoken to the last or read the file and are reluctant to reach a different conclusion and rubber stamps the first one.

You then find that they class the parents as uncooperative, or hostile (who wouldn't be in that situation, picture yourself battling this machine of CP) and then your in court, the child is probably taken into care in the intrim and ss limit the access of parent to child to form a new status quo and the access gets less and less to prepare the child for adoption (in some cases they have found there is no problem with the parents care but the child has settled with their new carer (the prospective adopter) and ss are reluctant to allow the child to go back to the Bio parent because of this).

At the hearing the LA will provide all of it's 'evidence' but unless the court has granted the right to the parents to get their own experts ( which very rarely happens and the LA's evidence is deemed to be the most reliable) so the judge will dismiss what the parents are telling them, showing them (because it's he said she said against professionals) and then you have this show trial where the judge will rubber stamp the decision of ss.

"By ImSoNotTelling Sat 20-Feb-10 15:29:18
"Isn't it 12 months paid leave a sw gets when they take a kid home from the child pool?
"

What does this mean? "

Anyone?

I totally agree that parents should be able to access their own experts.

OK JH - I know that you don't have a head for detail so I will try to keep it simple.

You repeatedly post about the wrong children being removed from decent parents.

I have in a recent post itemised all the issues that need to be addressed by a qualified, competent and experienced professional, in order to decide whether the removal of a child is the appropriate course of action in terms of child protection.

I am aware that you are not qualified, competent or experienced in the field of child protection.

My Question therefore is:

Q - on what basis do you make the decision that a child has been wrongly removed from the parents?

My belief is that you make this decision based on the fact that the parents object to the removal of the child. If this is not the case can you say on what basis your decision is made.

Hope that is not too confusing.

Jollypirate - brilliant post and so accurate and thoughtful, but I'm afraid it will fall on stoney ground, as demonstrated by Atlantis's post, the majority of which is completely inaccurate. Her talk of judges dismissing the parent's point of view and there being a "show" trial and judges "rubber stamping" is complete and utter nonsense and could not be further from the truth. She clearly has had very little experience (if any) of what actually happens in the 5 day final hearing in these matters. In fact Atlantis sounds more and more like JH the more she posts.

Atlantis - wonder why you are choosing not to respond to the issue I have raised. Hmmm?

Ah - would atlantis and JH be one and the same?

Yes am aware that juries also get it wrong when dealing with criminal cases but they are then dealing with adults who can mostly take evasive action to defend themselves unlike children. That's my concern with a jury system. I don't have any objection to parents being able to access their own experts to prove a case.

My experience of children in care is usually regular contact with the parents and in one case I can think of this is virtually daily.
So although the child settles with the foster parents they still get regular contact with Mum and/or Dad. Often they settle because they experience (sometimes for the first time) predictable routine and care.

Also as far as I have experienced - family members ARE considered as alternative carers where possible. I have three children on my caseload at present placed with a grandmother and another child placed with an aunt. In the case of all these children the problems of the parents were so bad that had relatives not been able to provide care they would have entered the care system. In the case of one family the mother makes little contact with her children as they unfortunately come second place to her drug habit

Jollypirate - I'm afraid this is exactly what John Hemmings believes are child protection and the court system. He has posted on MN many many times, making his position quite clear. He has called the system evil - he has staed unequivocably that social workers engage in snatching children (especially babies) from decent parents in order to get them adopted to meet targets. He has said that lawyers for parents will roll over and agree with the local authority because they need to pay their mortgages - he has stated that all professionals are involved in the conspiracy and he has also stated repeatedly that judges merely rubber stamp the decisions of the local authority. It is absurd but that is his position. Interestingly he never comes back when I post like this to challenge me or deny that this is not his position. That in itself is very telling I think. The words in bold are words he has actually used.

It is all the more disturbing as he is an electred MP for the Lib Dem party and Nick Clegg seems disinterested in JHs activities. JH also assists parents to "flee " the country when their are child protection concerns about their child/ren (this is on his own admission) and therefore the child remains unprotected. I find this utterly irresponsible especially as it is being done by an MP.

John Hemming has been severely criticised by a High Court Judge and this judgement is available - it has been posted on MN previously be a family law barrister who is as horrified as I am at his activities. Also JH has been ordered out of a Birmingham court by a judge.................JH won't deny any of this has happened, so what does that tell us about this MP.

The real losers are the parents who are caught up in care proceedings who go to JH for help. They will of course believe that as an MP he can help them and sometimes these parents are "advised" by JH and his ilk to get rid of their lawyers (because they are not relaly interested in acting for them) and putting in a McK friend instead (oh god I've just thought - would this be Atlantis by any chance) could well be as she is using the same words and phrases as JH.

I have asked JH how many cases where he and his ilk are involved in care proceedings actually result in a child being returned to parents after the final hearing, and his reponse is that his organisation "Justice for Families" do not keep records of this nature. yeah right.

Sorry I know I am ranting but I just cannot believe how he gets away with all this as an MP.

jollypirate at least is trying to discuss the issue and asks
"John, what are your concerns regarding the court system if a variety of professionals need to give and provide evidence?"

The biggest problem is that the local authority jointly instructs experts with the parents. This means that the LA can veto experts who come up with answers the LA doesn't like. The experts depend upon fees for each court instruction. Hence the LA has control over the expert's income.

Social Workers frequently do what they call "advocating for the child". That involves telling experts what conclusions they expect from the report.

It is argued that the parents have equality of arms because they can also veto the appointment of an expert. However, the parents generally only face the one set of proceedings whilst the LA are doing this day in day out.

Hence we have expert reports which are produced as opinion by people who are financially beholden to the local authority.

To obtain a second opinion is indeed still contempt of court. The judges permission is required to instruct a second expert.

Rachel Pullen's case (the one where the judges criticised me) is one where she was prevented from opposing the local authority on the basis of an expert jointly appointed in this manner.

I think the above is sufficient for a starting procedural criticism. There is a lot more, but a system as above faces real challenges in getting objectivity.

nananina is clearly incapable of properly engaging with the debate.

Actually to be fair to nananina she has tried to engage and said this:

"Q - on what basis do you make the decision that a child has been wrongly removed from the parents?

My belief is that you make this decision based on the fact that the parents object to the removal of the child. If this is not the case can you say on what basis your decision is made."

Firstly, this is another example of the "straw man". Nananina misrepresents my argument and then argues against the misrepresentation.

I have made it clear that there are circumstances when a child should be taken into care even though the parents disagree. I should not have to continue saying this, but it is quite clear.

Secondly, I responded to this point earlier in the thread and cited one case - that of the Websters - where three children were adopted and then it was recognised that this was a miscarriage of justice.

It is unusual for the courts to recognise that mistakes have been made.

Thirdly, the question as to whether it is appropriate for a child to be taken into care are really about what is best for a child. That is indeed a complex question of judgment.

Fourthly, the report that looked at judgmental issues in Birmingham by Birmingham City Council found that many practitioners (about 50%) were poor in their ability to judge these matters.

Nananina has the belief that one needs to be a qualified social worker to make these judgments. I have seen a case where a mother was criticised for allowing a 2 month old baby to play on the same mat as another baby. Much that I am not a qualified social worker I feel no hesitation in expressing a view that having two young babies witin a yard of each other is not a major risk.

People who are not qualified practitioners have the right to challenge publicly the judgment of those who are practitioners. It is society as a whole that gives some people authority over others. Those who exercise that authority are accountable to society as a whole.

"Q - on what basis do you make the decision that a child has been wrongly removed from the parents?"

I have answered this before on another thread for you NN, I hope your not this selective with your memory when it comes to casework.

On the evidence presented by the LA of course.

It is especially helpful when parents have taped conversations of meeting between themselves and the sw's also and I strongly advise anyone in this position to tape everything.

"Ah - would atlantis and JH be one and the same?"

snorts at the political rammifications of this question. With no offence intended towards JH (everyone has their right to choose) I am not a wishy washy I am a conservative (check other more political posts).

I do not work with or for JH and although I know many of the MK's on his site I am not one of them.

I do not know who Atlantis is, but I would encourage anyone interested in Mackenzie Friend work to contact us. We can assist in various ways including in all levels of courts through to Strasbourg.

For example we have details of how to appeal from the Family Proceedings Court.

We are also putting together material for the council of europe's investigation into the abuses of human rights in England's family courts.

Okay - you are not one and the same just thought I had missed something.

Actually have been thinking more on the jury thing and I suppose my biggest concern is that in adult cases - say where the accused has assaulted someone leading to a prosecution. If the jury gets it wrong and the accused is released (no system being perfect) we do not then usually see the victim going home to live with the accused (except in DV cases where I see it happen on an all too regular basis). The victim is an adult who can take evasive action and put distance between him/herself and the nutter who assaulted them. A child could not do this - that's my real anxiety were there to be a jury system.

I don't work as a social worker so cannot really comment on how reports are obtained or what they contain. However, certainly when I write reports for child protection conferences (not quite the same I know) nobody tells me what to put within it. I write my report based upon my observations of the family and child looking at a variety of factors. I wouldn't accept any interference in the writing of that report except from the parents when I share it with them before the conference. This is not about collusion with them but about acknowledging their views or giving information to explain a certain aspect of my report. For example - no immunisations could be part of a pattern of neglect but equally might be parents who have elected not to immunise a child and who can give good reasons behind that decision.

I take the point about conflict of interest though.

The system does not always get it wrong. Sometimes it works reasonably well.

Well JH you have as usual slid around my question with your usual unconnected ramblings, not surprising though as this is what you always do. What you have not done is answered my question.

You are again talking nonsense about reports provided by experts in care proceedings. It is absolutely not the case that the local authority can veto reports written by experts nor do they tell the experts what conclusions they expect them to reach. I have never heard such rubbish. Are you really expecting people to believe that consultant psychiatrists, psychologists, GPs, H.Vs play therapists etc are merely puppets who will write reports based on what social workers want to hear. These experts are commissioned by the l.a. and they carry out assessments and report to the court. The l.a. do not see the reports until after they are filed in court so how in god's name they can "veto" anything is beyond me.

You say these reports are "opinion" - wrong again - all reports must be evidenced based and anyone writing a report can expect to be cross examined at length. I am sometimes commissioned by the court as an ind sw to carry out a parenting assessment where the local authority have already carried out their a/ments. This is a second chance for the parents. I have carried out hundreds of these assessments over the past 7 years and have never been told by sws what they expect me to write. Utter nonsense. I write my reports based on my assessment and expect the report to be evidence based and am cross examined somtimes for several hours, at the final hearing. You really do talk a load of rubbish JH. This thing about 2 babies on a mat is getting tedious - it was probably one sentence in a lengthy report that has been pulled out and used as if that is the sole reason for concern. But then anyone who is gullible enough to believe and post on MN that a child was removed from parents because the granny called the social worker fat, will believe anything.

Oh why am I getting drawn into your nonsensical arguments again - I will try very hard to ignore your nonsense in future.

Well you too have slid around my question Atlantis - I suspect I know the reason why.

I am not intending to change your views but for the benefit of others who may read your posts, giving totally inaccurate information about cp in this country I wish to set the record straight.

When a child is removed from parents, numerous assessments are carried out by a variety of professionals and presented to the court. The SSD have to provide a care plan for the child to present to court. This care plan advises the court how they intend to secure the child's future if the court make an Order. In the period between removal from parents and final hearing, children are either placed in the extended family (this should be the first option) or with foster carers. Contact (not access - this term is no longer used) is afforded to the parents ona regular and frequent basis and all social workers know only too well that they must ensure that every opportunity is given to parents for this contact to take place. Dependent upon the age of the child, this can be daily or 4/5 times per week.

No child is placed for adoption before the final hearing and there is no "back door" into adoption in the sneaky way that Atlantis thinks "probably happens" A child cannot be placed for adoption until after the final hearing and the making of a Placement Order, which means that the child can be placed for Adoption. If this happens then contact will over time be decreased and finally ceased altogether in most cases as the child is not going to be re-united with the parents.

If at the final hearing it is decided that the child can be returned to the care of the parents, this is what will happen. It is patent nonsense for Atlantis to say that this won't happen because the child has settled with the new carers. The only time a child cannot be returned to the care of the parents is after he/she has been placed for adoption and this willhave been decided by the court by the making of a placement order.

Please Atlantis - try to get your facts right if you are going to make assertions about these matters, of which you are clearly totally unenlightened. Like JH you use anything (accurate or not) to support your view that miscarriages of justice are routine. Sorry this is simply not the case.

nananina "You are again talking nonsense about reports provided by experts in care proceedings. It is absolutely not the case that the local authority can veto reports written by experts ..."

Another straw man. I said that the LA could veto [the appointment of] the expert.

The "advocating for the child" was confirmed by BCC.

Basically if an expert does not behave then they should not expect future instructions.

I have been told exactly how the system is abused by practitioners.

Now let me stress. It does not always go wrong. In Birmingham, for example, only 50% or so of practise was thought of as poor.

I said;

" the child is probably taken into care in the intrim and ss limit the access of parent to child to form a new status quo and the access gets less and less to prepare the child for adoption "

nn said;

"No child is placed for adoption before the final hearing and there is no "back door" into adoption in the sneaky way that Atlantis thinks "probably happens" A child cannot be placed for adoption until after the final hearing and the making of a Placement Order, which means that the child can be placed for Adoption."

www.cypnow.co.uk/inDepth/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/982455/Social-care---Adoption-agencies-fight-survi ve/

A quote;

"Many agencies meet the shortfall through other more profitable services, such as fostering or concurrent planning, where potential adopters foster children on a temporary basis while parents resolve difficulties at home, eventually adopting the children if problems remain."

I heard a radio programme which discussed concurrent planning where you had middle class adoptees battling away with parents with regional accents as to whether the parents with regional accents were "allowed" to have their children back.

You need to understand what concurrent planning is all about before you start making assumptions based on a snippet you heard in a radio programme.

Concurrent planning is a scheme where children who have been removed from the care of their parents (not wrongly removed of course) but removed for their safety and protection, are placed with prospective adoptors rather than short term foster carers. This is NOT to be confused with Atlantis's outlandish claims that children are placed with adoptors when they are first removed and are somehow sneakily adopted.

The prospective adoptors are made fully aware that the aim of the SSD in these cases is to carry out extensive assessments on the parents and to attempt wherever possible to reunite the child with the parents. Short term foster carers already know that this is what happens and do not in any event want to care for a child on a permanent basis, hence the term short term carer.

Prospective adoptors involved in concurrent planning have to sign up to fully co-operate with the local authority's aim to reunite the child and parents. There will be extensive supervised contact between the child and parents (which is always the case bt something short term foster carers are used to)and the prospective adoptors will need to co-operate with the birth parents as well as all professionals involved in every respect.

IF at the end of the assessments it is decided by the courts that the child can be returned to the parents, then this is what happens, sometimes without any order being made, sometimes a Supervision Order and sometimes a Care Order, both of which can be revoked at a later date if appropriate.

IF it is decided by the courts that the child cannot be returned to the care of the parents, then the court will make a Placement Order (used to be called Freeing for Adoption) and the child remains with the prospective adoptors who in due course are entitled to make an application to adopt the child.

The thinking behind this scheme is to prevent the trauma of moving the child from foster carer to adoptor (unless the child is returned home) and so enabling secure attachments to be made with very obvious benefits to the child.

It is a difficult concept for prospective adoptors who are longing for their own child, and many will not want to be part of this scheme, or indeed will be suitable for the scheme. They run the risk of building secure attachments to a baby or child, only for the child to be removed and returned to the parents. I think this is wholly right if the child can be safe and protected by the parents, but it does not mean that the prospective adoptors will not suffer in the process. However this is all about the needs of the child rather than the adults, be they parents or prospective adoptors.

SO JH I don't know what you heard (but knowing you you will have got it round your neck and will now be busy using it as grist to the mill to support your hypothesis) and quite how you can determine the social class of someone by their voice on a radio is beyond me. The radio programme was probably something similar to the DM reports.

It is absolutely nothing to do with the prospective adoptors as to whether the parents are "allowed" to have their children back. This is the decision of the courts and they were probably using the term "allowed" to mean exactly that. You will distort anything you read or hear to support your nonsensical hypothesis.

I hope anyone reading this can now be convinced about the scheme and that it's aim is to protect children from being moved from place to place (incidentally this is something that you have complained about JH many times) so you should welcome such a scheme.

Atlantis - IF you have bothered to read my post (which I doubt) you will have more understanding of the concurrent planning scheme and will see that it is not the "backdoor" road to adoption in an underhand way by reducing contact etc.

I didn't include it in my response to your assertions about back door adoption because I didn't think of it - it is a scheme that not many local authorities have taken up, though an excellent scheme for the benefit of the child rather than the adults...................so you haven't caught me out as you so like to try to do Atlantis and prove me wrong. It is you that consistently gets things wrong and it is small wonder as you are in no sense involved in SSDs or child protection. I also wonder about your claims to be involved in so many coirt cases as a McK friend as when asked for detail on this you go unusually quiet.

The issue about the voluntary organisations is about finance as the article that you linked made clear. The volunataries have had agood run for their money in my view in the sense that they are a "luxury" service - they have no statutory resposnibilites and so can pick and choose with what they get involved in. For instance most people still think the NSPCC are responsible for child protection on the frontline, but they aren't. If they get a phone call about a child being abused they simply pass it to SSD to deal with.

The voluntaries have very high staff ratios to service users and modern buildings and expensive equipment. They do recruit and assess foster carers and adoptors and then have to "sell" the families to the local authority at a cost which has meant that many la.s can no longer afford these costs. Naturally the voluntaries are not happy about this as they could go out of business.

In my view the task for the voluntaries is to change the way they operate and help more with frontline services and become involved with joint work with local authorities as what seems to have happened in Harrow with Coram. Local authorities are facing enormous budget pressures and it'sno good tghe voluntaries trying to "save their skin" by ciriticisng SSDs - they need to work together for better outcomes for children.

Well Atlantis I am tired of trying to defend myself against you and JH and I think you are both driven by the same thing, a bad personal experience which has left you with a severe grudge against all social workers, other professionals involved in childrens services and anyone (including the judge) involved in the courts.

I cannot however just sit back and let you post on a public forum such inaccurate information without trying to set the record straight.

I think you should maybe consider the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

"quite how you can determine the social class of someone by their voice on a radio"
Received Pronunciation is a reasonable good class indicator.

I think the underlying problem lies with the unnecessary removal of babies at birth.