Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

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

My rigorous mind considers that a 99% chance of a parent being guilty of abuse constitutes a fairly definitive conclusion.

but perhaps you were mistaken in your assertion that there was a 1% chance that the parents might be entirely innocent?

because by my rigorously intellectual use of maths, I divine you meant to say there was an 80% chance the parents were innocent.

see how nice I am?

We dont know for definite that the only reason is expert testimony though, we've only heard their side! There could be reports of shouting from neighbours or maybe they said something concerning to their GP. Perhaps DV incidents have been investigated by the police. We have no idea, only their word that there is no explanation for the fractures.

MD,

Hmmm. The reality is somewhere in between. You need to look at things like correlations (then you cannot just multiply our probabilities), medical text books written by people with overly strong opinions and bad science behind them (as in the 'shaken baby' controversy) etc.

Panorama is not typically DM journalism. They make mistakes but they are in general well researched. I just cannot fathom how anyone can look at those parents and think "abusers". Maybe my bias, of course. None of us (including you, amazingly) can exclude their own bias.

I did exclude my own bias. As I excluded yours.

Do keep up.

Not prepared to admit your maths is a tad poor? Or you made a typo?

And perhaps you would like to look at your second sentence and rework it so it as makes sense?

Anyone who thinks they can reach any conclusions about anyone's 'guilt' or innocence from watching a television needs to think again.

Most of my cases have final hearings of between 3-5 days. A court day is roughly 5 hours of evidence heard.

Evidence from all sides.

TV programmes can raise useful questions and highlight important issues but if you think they prove anything one way or another then you are a fool.

MD,

"Not prepared to admit your maths is a tad poor? Or you made a typo?"

Neither, I made a couple of assumptions to show you how maths works. I then explained how small changes within the assumptions could lead to dramatically different outcomes.

However, I am pleased to see that you can meet the "developing" criterion in understanding how probability is used in court. You still need to work a bit on my subsequent posts to become "secure" in your knowledge of this area.

Well done for trying though!

why thank you Larry!

I am overwhelmed by your, er, clarity and, um, kindness.

But let's not descend into a bunfight shall we? Not really the point.

MD,

Agreed.

pax!

Ah but spero, imagine how much could be saved in court costs if all cases were presented by panorama. Perhaps we could vote on the decision via the red button?

If some have their way this may not be far from our future.

Larry, I think we can safely say that you haven't worked with a large quantity of families at the "coal face" as it were if you can come out with statements akin to "well they they look innocent to me" based simply on their testimonies

And I am not talking about specific ones like in the programme. I reserve judgement on them, like I do on everyone unless I am in full possession of all sides of the history

Are you really soooo naive ?

AF,

Maybe I am and no, I haven't; not in the sense that you mean, anyway.

Should only 'experts' be allowed a say or an opinion, though? That is how a lot of mistakes seem to happen, a class of people believing that, due to their expertise and knowledge, they are immune to the checks and balances that apply to everyone else.

Larry, where has anyone stated that there should not be stringent checks and balances all the way through the process ?

Where has anyone said any of it is infallible ?

You are mistaking the argument and countering it with "they look kosher to me" based on a one sided entertainment show on the Tellybox

It's not Eastenders,, Larry

Larry did you read my point about adoptions being granted for some time after placement and the adoption can be stopped at any time up to the point of the final order. In my experience the process isn't often started before about 20 weeks after placement and that's only the start of the adoption process, it would be unusual in my experience to have a legal adoption in less than 9-12 months from placement.

So your idea that it is theoretically possible for the child to have only known the child for one day and the adoptive parents would already have more rights than the birth parents just isn't true. More commonly the adoptive parents would have the child living with them for a year before they have any rights at all.

I'm not this changes your mind in any way - I just to be sure you are dealing with the facts. Adoptive parents don't walk in on day 1 of meeting a child and miraculously become their legal parents.

I wish I could think well of everyone based on how they look and what they say, but experience tells me otherwise unfortunately

Again, this is a general comment

I think some people view adoption more like buying a pet goldfish or something, the second the transaction takes place, the fish belongs to you, and the pet shop have no rights at all to stop the transaction after it has taken place

"The fatc that it is a horrendous unjust trauma for the birth parents still doesn;t mean its the right thing for that child."

I agree that, in and of itself, it doesn't. In those cases, very sadly, maybe the adoptive parents should retain the child. What also seems very sad to me is the closing out of the biological family. There are so many family models deemed acceptable today (with step parents etc). Why can something more creative not be done in the interests of the child? The no contact bar one letter per year seems solely in the interests of the adoptive parents.

I have to say, I am inclined to agree with you Larry on this point, to an extent. Contact is arranged on what the adoptive family feel is in the best interests of the children, which can often be managed very well. However it is also dependent on what the adoptive family can cope with so it is slightly unfair to say that the feelings of the adoptive family does not play a significant part.

I do think this is something that could be better managed and addressed in training, and also in better post-adoption support so that positive contact can take place at the level a child needs.

Not one of these conspiracy theorists have come back with any actual evidence, despite some of them saying the information is out there if you would only look.

I have read this thread and the other thread on this subject with great interest, as well as watching the panarama program. My family is being torn apart at this very moment of the back of so called specialists saying "in my opinion" and SS making a complete balls up of the whole process.

I don't believe it is a witch hunt or conspiracy as some mention, but it sure as damn does feel like it. The SS dealing with this so far are poorly trained and completely incompetent.

Their report is misleading and very negative and when challenged on the fact that some statements were in correct or pieces of information were missing the reply was "Oh I forgot about that". Well that is in the best interests of the children isn't it.

Family court secretive,to protect the children. I don't think so, more to protect the injustices the SS are making.

This needs to be brought to a abrupt halt. Its a coincidence panarama was on as social services started to rip my family apart during Christmas period, but to think this is going on and actually be involved in it in this day and age is beyond me.

We have to protect our children and as some say, one injustice is to many. But lets be real, we are all human and mistakes can and will happen. I started to think that we could be one of those freak injustices. But how wrong was I, research,research and more research is just turning up more and more injustices. Not one off freak injustices.

Is no body in SS realising there is a series issue here or are they just happy to plod along taking happy children from happy families.

once they have adopted those parent can and usually are exceptionally good

I've no doubt this is true and that your sentiments echo those of many adopters and I agree assertions around targets driven by financial gain are spurious and not all helpful for debate. Fear of getting it wrong perhaps, and sometimes cover up, I can still see could be true, but again, evidence is needed either way.

If it's not too hard or emotive a question to ask, Maryz (or others) do you think it is right that elements of the permanency of adoption are there to attract adopters, or to avoid them from pulling out and fear of children languishing in care?

I am finding this a tough one. If a potential adopter is likely to pull out on the chance they MIGHT need to deal with an adoption turning out to be wrongful, then I think I would question whether they really are good adoptive parent material to begin with.

Are these issues addressed in training prep at all? Is there any merit to better awareness and training with respect to preparation for an adoption possibly being wrongful?