Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

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

I'm not watching as I remember too many cases where this has been suggested before and it breaks my heart.
Yes ss do make mistakes and in the past have made humongous ones, and now people just presume because they were a long time ago it doesn't/ can't happen again.
I can remember Cleveland and can't imagine the devastation caused to all those innocent families.
It is humane to put parents through that and it continues today, maybe not on that scale, but I always hear parents say they are frightened to go to A&E or doctors for some dcs complaints or injuries. It isn't innocent until proven guilty, but inform the authorities.

Italian, he said he was pressured, they said he'd confessed early on in an interview and later retracted it, but the whole thing was really skated over, you can't expect ss to ignore a confession in this kind of case, imagine the retaliation if it came out they did?

Should say inhumane

Cosy I think the problem is that up til now, there was seen as no need to continue further investigations after the initial diagnosis because the idea that ongoing fractures not visible on X-rays could be occurring was not known to be true. In other words, the scan itself was seen as proof, and so no further investigations, medical or otherwise would necessarily occur although the child might well have gone on to have further hidden fractures (remember, they only usually presented with one suspect fracture, but then scanning found numerous unsuspected ones).

Also, some had not had Vit D testing at the time of fracture and some had- the Bristol mum had both Vit D testing and the fractures had carried on, in some ways luckily for her because this led them to suspect genetic issues.

I can't say whether these particular examples are examples of this, their guilt is not ascertainable, but the point is that court-appointed medical experts are often extremely dogmatic about their opinions like a lot of consultants and this is a lot more persuasive than the poor gibbering parents who can't explain anything. And, if you have a closed court system, and you can't see what the experts said, how many times they testified, what they got paid, and the outcomes of other cases, then it is deeply unfair. Now I know about this- if I, god forbid, had a child who had an unexplained fracture, the first thing I would be doing in hospital is asking for Vit D testing, as well as calling that family lawyer and getting previous cases to look at. Knowing that in fact, it is far from certain that multiple fractures always mean abuse means that all the times these court experts stood and said the opposite, they were wrong, even if the individual cases were guilty or not. And, it is partly a function of a secretive system.

I do agree about showing the adopted little baby's face though, totally wrong.

That's a very good point Lilka.

Sally Clark's babies didn't die of SIDS though.

I think, unfortunately, rather than sticking to medical facts and looking for those answers, which seemed very credible, in the case of a doctor whose child was reported to have rickets, they got into the sensational side of things and it was not very clear.

I don't think the programm was trying to address all aspects of children taken into care or adopted but sadly that becomes part of the picture. Of course this is one of those situations where people have either harmed their children or not, and so people may be looking at the people and making mental judgments etc whereas I think it should be medical judgments. The 'expert' witness stuff made me worried because I know of a time not so long ago where doctors thought ME (Chronic fatigue) was all in people's minds! Of course his does not mean that all people acused of harming their children could claim medical reasons, it means that things should be judged on evidence. I felt the programme was best when it looked at that. But it did also pull the heart strings and maybe that was part of the picture we needed to see.

As Lilka points out guilty or innocent parents would all proclaim innocence and all fight for their kids and all feel terribly hurt by the process. So it has to be medical and physical evidence.

I can't say whether these particular examples are examples of this, their guilt is not ascertainable, but the point is that court-appointed medical experts are often extremely dogmatic about their opinions like a lot of consultants and this is a lot more persuasive than the poor gibbering parents who can't explain anything.

This is the most vaild point.

sooperdooper not expecting them to ignore it. It was my impression that he felt (I got that impression not sure why) that he felt he would help the situation by admitting he may have accidently hurt the baby. Not in any way defending his decision to say this, but I got the impression if he said that they would allow the mum to keep the baby.

Not sure that it is the most valid point. Parents can call their own experts.

I found the programme unsatisfactory because so much was up in the air. We couldn't hear the Social Services sides of the story and were being expected to take what the parents said on trust. The fact that they could point to a couple of cases where parents had turned out to be wrongly accused was terrible, but I don't see that you can sensibly extrapolate from that that the misdiagnosis of fracture cases is a major issue.

I was particularly appalled to see John Hemming being given a platform to spout dangerously misleading statements about the UK court system, and to advocate that parents take their children abroad. Where they are innocent, that could well be taken as evidence of guilt; and he doesn't seem to contemplate the possibility that they might actually be guilty, in which event he is telling them how to carry on with abuse.

Another problem with medical evidence is that too many people in the court system ( judges. Barristers, solicitors) don't have any understanding or very limited understanding of medicine/science/statistics etc and so accept as facts what are in reality conjecture /probability/ theoretical etc. In Sally Clarke's case the information Meadows gave on the statistical probability of both children dying was completely flawed and yet no one questioned it in court - a doctor said it, it involved figures, it must be true. If only we valued being numerate and understanding the nature of scientific knowledge more.

Not if they don't have access to legal aid, they can't, nenny.

confuddled, Meadows used his made-up 'statistic' about cot death to condemn Sally Clark as a murderer. Her family history of multiple infant deaths was only uncovered later, after she'd been wrongly imprisoned and separated from her poor daughter. I cannot imagine the pain of her family, with Sally cleared too late to save her from serious psychological problems and alcohol dependency.

I often wonder whether Meadows has any conscience. Whether the damage he caused to so many families haunts him.

Yes the specialist interviewed said his own son had those tiny fractures and low vit D. Low vit D is very very common in UK. He said the only way to be sure - and that it should be routine where these tiny fractures are first diagnosed in hospitals - would be to do a bone density analysis, test of bone mineral composition and blood tests, as well as testing levels of vit D. Rickets is hard to spot on an x-ray unless it is pretty developed, which would be unlikely in a young infant.

So the point is that when SS are contacted by hospitals and DC removed from families these tests are done the SAME day, so that rickets/genetic conditions can be eliminated as a possible reason for fractures. Whether the child subsequently improves or not does not really have a bearing on any case. The foster family or children's home or whereever the child is removed to could expose the child to sunlight the day after removal causing the condition to improve - ergo the lack of subsequent symptoms may not be conclusive of anything. In addition, as soon as weaning or bottle feeding started the condition would be likely to improve.

It is horrifying what these children and families go through and this will be the next scandal. These cases stem from ignorance. Medical professionals never seem to admit that they do not know what they don't know.

The irony is that if the mother in Spain had agreed to separate from her DH she would probably have had her DD returned. I'm afraid that I would do whatever it took to get my DC back in that situation because I know that children taken into care are often abused and emotionally traumatised for life. I would do anything to prevent that happening to my child.

Bourdic, I'm sure you are right that a great deal of the problem is a lack of understanding of scientific thinking by everyone in the courts system.

Another of the issues with expert witnesses is our adversarial system - experts end up being ' hired guns'. They should be there for the court not for one side or the other but to establish what can be certain and what not

confuddledDOTcom I don't know what was the cause of death for Sally Clark's babies. I do feel sure that some women were accused of killing their babies and maybe it was later found they had died of SIDS or a genetic disease.

edam - when do parents in care proceedings NOT have access to legal aid? It is non means and non merits tested.

JH advocating that people flee the country rather than engage with Children's Services is what I hope will finally make his party take an interest in his activities, rather than dismiss him as harmless old buffoon in ill fitting suits.

I have been tweeted some interesting links of JH sharing a platform with Brian Gerrish - who believes that Lianne S who fled to Spain and murdered her children was a 'victim' of evil SW and her paedophile partner was wrongly convicted.

Yy re John Hemmings - he called it a 'tsunami' - what fear-mongering nonsense. Didn't add anything to the debate.

Nenny, the man has no idea of social responsibility. Which is always a good quality in an MP. Apart from anything else, he's certainly basing his view on different "facts" to the rest if us!

It would be fair enough if anything to advise on particular cases that he knows about, but to say that anybody being involved with SS is best off to scarper?!

And the BBC are promoting this as fact

Bourdic - experts are NOT 'hired guns'.

They have to sign a declaration that they are offering their opinion for the benefit of the court, not for any party that pays them.

In care proceedings they are jointly instructed and jointly paid by ALL parties.

There have been some horrible miscarriages of justice, I do not deny that. Sally Clarke's case was particularly haunting - I will always remember the look on her face when she was released. There was no victory there for her.

But for JH to encourage people to flee on the basis that such miscarriages of justice are inevitable, commonplace, even deliberate, is just wicked.

I think any child protection legal action is eligible for legal aid?

I know someone who stopped acting as a (very well paid) expert witness because when approached by either defence or prosecution, it was clear in many cases they were 'shopping' and not at all interested in the truth but in hiring an expert who would provide the version that best suited their case. He eventually felt that the whole system was so discredited he didn't want to be part of it any more.

I am not sure what you are going to do about 'lack of scientific understanding' in the courtroom.

I trained for a number of years as a lawyer. I didn't have the time or the funds to also train as a paediatrician, a radiologist or a neurologist. Therefore, if I have a case involving a potential inflicted non accidental injury, I can only rely on the medical experts who report to the court.

If they are dodgy then yes, there is going to be very little I as lay person can do to remedy this.

But I don't think I have ever met a medical witness who I suspected was trying to lie for money to stitch a parent up. Rickets have caused enormous problems in family cases because it is so rare now in the UK I don't think any of the medical experts had ever come across a case before.

Spero, did you see the programme? What do you think about the argument that vitamin D deficiency has been mistaken for abuse?