Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Original poster

Panorama - I want my baby back

996 replies

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 13/01/2014 21:29

Anyone watching?

This promoting of the idea that SS want to steal babies makes me very uneasy...

OP posts:
nennypops · 14/01/2014 23:27

Bunchofolives: we have heard how assessment placements cost councils £4500 a week, and assessments usually last 6 weeks. On top of that, councils taking contested care proceedings have to pay out large sums for lawyers and experts on top of what they are paying for interim fostering. What do you say the payment for reaching a target is, and how does it compare with the costs that LAs incur?

nennypops · 14/01/2014 23:28

Why, bunchofolives, what is your concept of British justice? Remember the presumption of innocence applies to criminal cases only, and it only a presumption, not a fact.

bunchoffives · 14/01/2014 23:28

nennypops Did you click on the link? It is to a Govt site and was published last September 2013. It refers to stats 2012-13.

I'm afraid targets are alive and well. It's a Tory ideological position to roll back the state as far as possible. They want children out of care and being looked after by the 'big society'

nennypops · 14/01/2014 23:31

I don't see the word "target" anywhere on the linked website, nor any reference to financial reward. Yes, the government continues to encourage local authorities to improve adoption rates, because there are far too many children left in the care system for too long. That is not the same as encouraging councils to snatch babies to meet targets.

bunchoffives · 14/01/2014 23:32

The presumption of innocence used to - and should imho - refer to all courts of law in the UK. James Mumby has said he can think of only the death sentence (abolished) as a more serious intervention by the state than removal of a child from its parents. Yet the most basic condition of justice - that a case has to be proved - does not apply to a parent facing the removal of their child and a child facing the removal of their family, experiencing possibly numerous changes of home and a life of 'care'.

nennypops · 14/01/2014 23:34

Cases do have to be proved in the family court, but on a balance of probabilities - which is the standard of proof accepted in civil courts for all types of case.

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 23:35

What the Government probably doesn't realise is that the proverbial shit is going to hit the fan eventually. As I said care cases are massively up since Baby P - stable doors and all that - and it still won't stop those cases. It's the vulnerable people that get walloped. How about we spend some money helping them to keep their children instead of taking them at birth by seizing them with police in delivery suites

Due to the increase in cases it's inevitable that the number of wrongful adoptions has risen - that goes without saying. There are 'mothers/fathers' who 'may' snatch their children and run. Feeling is running very high. Remember last night that losing a child was likened to a death penalty - and I think that's right. What risks would you take if faced with a death penalty?

Mark my words - this will get nasty. That's why I hope last night's programme raised some serious questions. And why there is also another documentary needed on those mothers who have lost their children on various spurious 'emotional harm' citations.

Maybe then something will be done and the system changed. Before it's too late. We will very soon have a generation of kids leaving adoptive parents when they find out the truth (maybe). It is very difficult to stop a child over 12 going where they want.

There was a case last year where a 16 year old and 14 year old found their mother on facebook and both left to be with her - nothing anyone could do to stop them. This will happen a lot

nennypops · 14/01/2014 23:35

Lilka is perfectly entitled to say that innocence is not proved, particularly in relation to a family that has disappeared abroad to prevent full investigation.

nennypops · 14/01/2014 23:38

You get no argument from me, wizard, about the fact that families need much more and better support from social services, the NHS and others. That's why it's such a shame that people like John Hemming, who are in a position to do something about this, instead choose to spend their time posturing and scaremongering.

But again I don't think you can just claim that wrongful adoptions must be rising simply on a statistical basis. You need to produce that evidence that you keep avoiding answering questions about.

Original poster
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 14/01/2014 23:40

A mn poster posted this elsewhere, I've c&p'd it, as I think it makes a lot of sense, and you may not have all seen it :)

"But as the Panorama programme showed, the kind of parent who is most likely to be unfairly accused is the parent of a child with an undiagnosed medical condition which results in serious detriment, perhaps even danger, to the child."

"That medical condition isn't going to go away because you run away to another country."

"As a parent you must surely reflect that your child must have come by its injuries somehow: if not by abuse, then by something that needs investigating. And if that is your belief, what could be more irresponsible than keeping under the radar in another country. Surely the only responsible thing to do is to stay put and push for further investigations?"

"For the record, I am the parent of a child whose medical condition was misdiagnosed as abuse. I think it is fair to say that I was traumatised by the situation. But I never lost sight of the fact that my first duty was to dd, to stay calm and keep asking for help because it wasn't about me. I've had counselling since. But more importantly, dd has had treatment."

OP posts:
AnyFucker · 14/01/2014 23:41

I want to know how many other photographs of other people's babies wizard and his "others" are in possession of

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 23:43

People do desperate things. I dont think you can criticise that in some cases. Jill McCartan did what she thought was right. Im not going to criticise her for that. No doubt she's had a little financial help as a result of the expose too

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 23:44

Ive got yours- quite worrying :)

AnyFucker · 14/01/2014 23:46

Indeed.

bunchoffives · 14/01/2014 23:48

Thanks Beyond I'm sure that's what the majority of parents would feel - that whatever SS were saying the most important thing would be that your child was treated. I suppose some don't diagnosed though because medicine hasn't progressed that far yet. I think it would be very hard to remain calm in those circumstances and communicate rationally and civilly.

Ironically, with the vit D cases, going to Spain would ensure that the increased sunlight would solve the problem.

bunchoffives · 14/01/2014 23:50

AF It's the risk you take if you post pics publically on FB or wherever of your DC. Anyone can see them, download them...

Original poster
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 14/01/2014 23:52

Although if you don't post pictures of yourself, that makes it a whol lot creepier if someone claims to have them...

OP posts:
MrsBW · 14/01/2014 23:56

Ive got yours- quite worrying

Why do you have photos of an anonymous poster wizard and why would it be worrying if you did?

WestmorlandSausage · 14/01/2014 23:57

Erm wizard did you just intimate that you have got pictures of AnyFucker's children?

Bit creepy and uncalled for don't you think?

Not really doing yourself any justice in the whole 'i'm not trying to intimidate or influence potentially vulnerable women' stakes are you?

ouryve · 14/01/2014 23:57

So, are children not vulnerable, then, wizard?

bunchoffives · 14/01/2014 23:57

Beyond where is the other thread please?

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 23:58

Lighten up ladies. No one can actually get any photos that are not in the public domain unless they are sent them

AnyFucker · 14/01/2014 23:59

Indeed they can, BOF. But for what reason would someone do that ? Just because you can ?

There are lots of things I could do, but I don't. I also don't threaten others that I could do it if I wanted to or insinuate that I already have.

BOF, mind your bedfellows.

MrsBW · 15/01/2014 00:02

Lighten up ladies. No one can actually get any photos that are not in the public domain unless they are sent them

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that post.

Please answer my question in my post of 23:56:09

ouryve · 15/01/2014 00:03

As far as getting pictures of most people's children is concerned, you could follow us in the supermarket or park and get them. You would not have our permission, of course, but what on Earth can we do against someone who is determined and on a mission?

From my POV, as a parent with no distressing history in my parenthood, I'm happy with pictures of my boys being out there. Presuming that to be the same of others, however, is not on. Were the pictures that you saved put in the public domain with the permission of the current parents of the children concerned, Wizard? Also, what exactly are you hoping to achieve by saving them? Obviously, you have an agenda, since you seem to be quite proud of the fact in the way that my 10 year old is when he has a full set of coins from 2012 or something.