Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

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

wizard interesting that you think physical abuse is a very small overall part of "forced" adoption cases. I know offhand of 12 (though that number is partly due to sibling groups) UK domestic adoptions in person (not via MN posters which would add many many more). Every one of them was due to actual physical abuse or serious issues such as continuing maternal drug addiction or removal of all children due to older siblings having suffered such abuse. Evidence was clear cut - broken bones (one with video footage by neighbours of child being thrown against the wall), sexual abuse, cigarette burns, drug dependent new borns and thats just off the top of my head.

I don't doubt that there are cases which are not so clear cut, but (given my not statistically valid) experience I'm baffled by your continuing insistence that its a huge problem as that's not been my experience so far. In fact my experience on the flipside of a parent who was accused of abusing her child was that the system worked because despite a fairly officious social worker who seemed determined to find something wrong, the child was never removed.

In the case of both the child with cigarette burns and the child with a non-accidental broken arm, the parent made no attempt to deny they had caused the injuries (or allowed a partner to) but still refused to give consent to the adoption even when given the option of removing the violent partner from the home and keeping custody of the child refused to do so. That would come under your "forced" adoption definition as birth parents did not give consent. Indeed my own DS's adoption would come under the category "forced" adoption in the statistics because the court had to waive birth parent consent because the birth parents couldn't be found despite having given consent once but within the 6 week post birth period which is not deemed valid consent in the UK.

hang on...

there was a creepy web designer on a tweet...let me go and look....

Actually no. I don't want to out anybody on this thread. If W wants us to know who he is I am sure he will tell us at some point in the dim and distant future.

And I can't be arsed either.

Kew. In the cases featured I think most of them demonstrated a vit d deficiency in both the mother and the babies. So much so that one was treated aggressively for this deficiency in their time in fostering because it was so low.

The medical point of view is that vit d deficiency will not cause fractures until it has progressed to rickets. That is a long period in time. The doctors diagnose on X-ray evidence but the statistics on the problem showed that osteoporosis (the result of long term vit d and calcium deficiency) only shows in about 19% of X-rays whereas those same bones showed deficiency which would lead to fractures in 69% under the microscope. The experts are diagnosing on the X-rays alone so they are seriously missing cases.

In my own experience most cases of neglect and physical abuse are much more clear cut and the parents/parent does admit to the abuse.

That's why a seemingly decent couple fighting the system for years to get their child back rings big alarm bells for me.

Of course vitamin d and calcium deficiency when corrected are undetectable retrospectively which is why extensive testing and bone scans should be undertaken immediately to avoid these miscarriages of justice.

Thanks Sneeze thats interesting because not only am I Vit D deficient but I have a dark skinned child who is a prime candidate for it (I give him suppliments btw).

I'm sure its no consolation to those parents but I hope those who are championing the case are pushing for a protocol in "non-accidental" break situations which takes this into account. In the break injuries I know of, it wasn't in doubt that the injuries were non-accidental so it wouldn't have been relevant - except perhaps that the paretns in those cases might have been encouraged to claim vitD deficiency if they had known! At least a standard test for it would also protect those children who are clearly being abused by their parents from being returned for more abuse.

The consultant paediatrician whose wife was 'white and breast feeding', therefore not a candidate for rickets noticed a minor chest abnormality and their child had early rickets! How many parents would have been aware of this? If it had not been picked up would that paediatrician have had his child taken away?

Scary beyond belief as my grandson was severely anaemic, low calcium and probably vit d deficient (winter baby) because of placental insufficiency. I wonder if he has healed rib fractures which were never x rayed?

I missed the first few minutes, who was the female lawyer working in CP cases?

Hoping it was Spero!

I didn't catch all of it either, the only barrister I heard made reference to was the one who moved to Israel to avoid CP issues, and the LA dropped her case.

sorry to but in like that btw!

more the merrier Nose!

Yes and isn't it merry!

Interesting point on R4 by head of SS that it is possible to get it wrong, and that sometimes it is only possible to tell with the benefit of hindsight.

That is really important to accept. And the most important thing relating to that is how any errors are brought to light, and how the children are informed and supported in coming to terms with the outcome. Imagine spending your entire life believing your birth family is somehow evil, when they are not.

I would imagine that once an adoption has been processed, that is it. It will be low priority for ss - concern is then (rightly under stretched services) only with protecting other children in abusive homes.

This one?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/10107475/An-illegally-arrested-mother-is-saved-by-her-phone.html

Google Michelle Freedman

Does it ever occur to anyone that John Hemming might be right?

No one disputes that mistakes can be made.

We are, after all, all human. but given the huge amount of actual abuse of children which takes place in families, I would hazard a guess, and be guided by professionals such as Spero, that those instances are very few and far between.

Dammit stuck waiting for train! I think the barrister must be Michelle Freedman. She tweeted me to say she would gladly share a platform with Ian Joseph.

So I am not so sure about her.

Right that mothers with mental health issues shouldnt report them?

Right that parents shouldnt take injured children to a&e?

Right that all accused parents are better off fleeing to abroad, regardless of the fact that they may actually have harmed their children?

Or something else...?

He is not 'right' about cash bonuses paid to take babies from loving families.

This he is very far from 'right' to advise he vulnerable on this basis.

He detracts attention from the real and urgent need to make our child protection system better and that, I'm my view, makes him dangerous and contemptible.

Does it ever occur to anyone that John Hemming might be right?

Do you mean that mistakes are made and there should be strenuous efforts to continue to safeguard childrens right to stay with their family where they are not in fact at risk? Then yes of course I would challenge you to find anyone on this thread (or any other) who doesn't agree with that.

It majorly pisses me off that JH and his disciples try to make those that disagree with his advice sound like they are PRO-child stealing social workers when this is categorically NOT the case.

I'm not going to keep reiterating the case of a friend who was incorrectly accused of abuse and my support of her to keep her child. I also have a horrible feeling that another "friend" who is now in prison for child cruelty would have been advised by JH and the like to flee the country with her children. Poor sods would then have been totally isolated in a foreign country with only their abusive mother for support.

It always feels to me like JH and IJ have very little interest in child welfare - it feels much more about winning, of getting one over on social services and publicity.

No one disputes that mistakes can be made.

We are, after all, all human. but given the huge amount of actual abuse of children which takes place in families, I would hazard a guess, and be guided by professionals such as Spero, that those instances are very few and far between.

That may be true, MD. Although would Spero (as much as I respect her stance on this issue and call for appropriate evidence and behaviour from our MPs) necessarily be accurately aware, if it is only through hindsight that these errors come to light, and if looking for them is not a priority for services. I am not trying to be controversial, I guess I am looking to be reassured in some way (though I am not sure who by!).

I'm also not sure that even if the numbers are low, that these children and both their families shouldn't be entitled to support and having their plight acknowledged in some way. They are, if you like, paying the price to keep all children safe, as we would probably all prefer a system that is too cautious over one that isn't cautious enough. Something is telling me we are not quite ready to look at this yet.

I would imagine that once an adoption has been processed, that is it. It will be low priority for ss - concern is then (rightly under stretched services) only with protecting other children in abusive homes.

I don't think that's necessarily so. My understanding is that there is quite a lot of post-adoption support. Also, because adopted children may well have other difficulties including disabilities and SN, they may qualify for social care support as children in need.

The most chilling thing about JH, apart from his belief he is a 'love rat' is that he doesn't give a damn for the children involved.

In a post on here he referred to children as 'stocks' and 'flows' in his spreadsheet.

Wall LJ called him out on this as early as 2008 - in all his submissions to the court in the Nottingham case he did not once mention the welfare of he child.

I think for people like this, children are simply 'units' of the family, which they wish to control.

If Hemming were right, I would expect him to be able to provide evidence for what he says. The fact that he never does so, and constantly evades direct questions when the true answer would be awkward, tells me that he quite clearly isn't.

And, to be honest, Christopher Booker's track record for accuracy is such that I really wouldn't trust any article by him without checking his sources very carefully indeed.

Nenny in theory you are probably quite right about post-adoption support, although in practice, I would think any adoptive parent on here will tell you, that post adoption support is no way near what it should be. Also, why would anyone seek support from the same authority that made a mistake?

Again, this is not down to conspiracy (though there may be elements of cover up in some cases) it is because services are underfunded. Families need services, and need to be heard when services are poor, without prejudice that they are all conspiracy nut jobs.

That is what our MPs should be campaigning for, not fuelling the conspiracies.

I know my fixation on the physical attributes of the conspiracy theorists could lead people to suppose I am rather shallow, but wow, that mugshot of Christopher Booker.

They must be drawn to each other in some deep genetic way.