Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

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

Because the civil courts operate to a different standard of proof - balance of probabilities.

To charge and convict the parents of cruelty or assault, that would have to be proved before a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Before the CPS decides to prosecute it must be satisfied that it could have a chance of getting a conviction on this high standard, and also that it is in the public interest to prosecute.

As many parents accused of cruelty/assault are no longer looking after their children, very often I find that the police/CPS have no interest in pursuing criminal charges against them.

^ I find this more than anything worrying. Are we are saying that hypothetically this parent is able to break their babies bones and we do not feel their child is safe with them. However we don't want to go through all the faff of a trial where the evidence can be properly dissected and the parents punished accordingly?

You misunderstand the roles of the civil and criminal courts.

Family courts operate to the civil standard of proof as we, as a society, have decided that is what we need to do to keep children safe. If all and every allegation of abuse had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then many children will be left in homes where they will be abused.

Care proceedings are a robust examination of ALL the relevant evidence, which the parents see well in advance of the hearing and which they discuss with their lawyers, who present their case. All paid for by the State.

If you are not happy with children being protected in the civil court system, then you need to agitate for change and reform and take it up with your MP.

Who I hope to god isn't John Hemming.

Uh oh. Check out tomorrow's DM front page
pbs.twimg.com/media/BeIjknZCUAAM9a8.jpg

Sigh. and check out familylawweek.co.uk which has been publishing lots of family court judgments for years, without any help from the Daily Mail.

For fucks sake...

Cindy3674 - I am the mum mentioned who read up on the law, fought my case and won. Please pm me if I can help in any way - I will advise as best I can. You are far from alone and I can point you in the direction of good help, support, advice, and legal rep
(none of this will involve buggering off to Spain )

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540919/At-Victory-secret-courts-Rulings-family-cases-public-Mail-campaign.html

SW's now named.

oh gawd

Well, if things have to be published (and I've said how distasteful I find it that some nosy Aunt Petunia could gawp over the lives of children like mine and know all about ther lives long before the children are old enough to know the details) I hope at least they stop some of this scaremongering

Of course, the forced adoption are probably now going to turn around and say "well, everything in that court judgement must be made up then" when they see loads of judgements which don't support their POV

Families and children not to be named,

but LA'S, SS, Experts will be.

So when you read things in the judgments about how awful conditions were for the children ... Will you accept that, or will you say these are lies, made up to snatch children?

For this is what John Hemming says. That is why he advises parents to leave the jurisdiction.

Spero

Can you clarify something for me please?
That last article from the DM, isn't this something that's already happening? (And dm trying to take the merit??) or does it actually relate to new rules for family courts?

I rarely post but have been following all the threads since the italian woman case.

As far as I know and off the top of my head on the train, rules relating to journalist access to court were relaxed 2 years ago BUT there are still pretty hefty restrictions on what they report, so more work needs to be done there.

Cases about family law have been published for years and are freely available on many sites. I like familylawweek.co,uk.

Whatever Munby has done or will do regarding transparency in the family courts will have fuck all to do with the Daily Mail, apart from fact he recognises that their disgusting and irresponsible scaremongering is largely responsible for massive distrust and fear of family courts.

I think we just have to open up the courts far and wide now, so that there is transparency and accountability and abusive parents will just have to live with fact that all the lurid details of their lives will now be a public show.

And the tragedy is, whenever you ask children if they want their cases publicised, the answer is NO.

I'm slightly concerned about this new development. Sw's are already overworked and underpaid and now they could face attacks from parents rights groups due to their names and areas being revealed. Surely this is going to encourage people to leave the profession and put people off training so ss could become even more over stretched

Yup.

and given that I and many others believe the largest part of the problem with the child protection system is the lack of well trained and well supported SW practitioners, there is a risk that setting them up for further public vilification will simply exacerbate that problem.

But as JH and his many legions of fans seem to think that all SW are corrupt lizards, no doubt this is exactly what they want.

the only agency then protecting children will be the police.

Happy Days are coming.

Hi Spero, what happens then in cases in that a parent has harmed a child, but the other parent had no idea? I assume they would lose their child?! That situation would be tricky I imagine.

It will all depend on the circumstances.

If the parents don't live under same roof and other parent had no idea and isn't found to have failed to protect, child may live with other parent if he/she can offer good enough home.

If however parents live together, it may be the view of the court that they failed to protect and then they may be assessed as unfit to carry on caring for the child.

Typical examples I have dealt with are young couple - mother goes off to shops for half an hour, comes back to find baby fitting. Baby taken to hospital found to have fractured skull, father denies anything happens.

Whether or not mother can then keep looking after her baby will depend on a variety of factors - what finding does the court make about how baby fractured his skull? If father did it, did the mother know he did it? If she didn't know he injured the baby, did she have any reason to suspect he might? i.e previous history of violence/drug abuse.

Each case depends on its own facts. But it is NEVER a simple linear process from - you have mental health difficulties or you injured your child = you must lose the care of your child.

There are many, many factors in play and all are examined closely.

Thanks for the answer Spero. I was under no illusion that any DM campaign would be able to achieve anything meaningful!

And thanks for all the time you spend om here trying to dispel myths and untruths. I have personally gained a lot of knowledge from these threads.

Thanks Claire.

I hope all who agree that this is an important issue will read the actual guidelines of the. President of the Family Division rather than the frothing of the Mail

wp.me/p200Rf-Vi

Hi inlovewithgarp

I thank you for your offer of help and I may be intouch, but as we stand at the moment we are awaiting first hearing. It has been a very stressful time and will continue to be, I just prey the correct decision is made.

What is happening to us is exactly as on the panarama program and it is beyond belief in how social services deal with such cases.

In brief 3 month does not seem to be moving her arm much, taken to doctor. Doctor has a squeeze and move around cant find anything. Tells parents he cant see anything wrong, but if they are still concerned in morning take to hospital. Watch baby untill morning, still does not us arm as usual. Taken to hospital, ex-ray shows a fracture above elbow. SS informed.Asked how it happened, the only explanation the parents could think may of caused it was other daughter (18 months) running and landing on 3 month on play mat.

SS put down unexplained injury and will not let child leave hospital. Grand parents agree to supervise 24-7, but will not sign documents because SS had copied and pasted it and it had wrong names in it.(rightly so) Eventually document produced with right names and was signed, But SS have put in a report that grandfather is awkward to deal with. Also SS have omitted the fact the parents gave a explanation of how it could of happened in said report, and when challenged on that fact in a recent meeting with other professionals (I dont include SS in the professional bit I might add) Her explanation was "Oh I forgot".

The SS do not know there head from there asses, they keep assigning different ones to the case. Another one turns up today saying a japanese student who is living in home where supervision is taken place has got to be CRB checked. Its a joke, what the hell is she on about (she is probably a X hippy and smoked to much pot).

After a few phone calls eventually a call back to say no that will not be happening, No CRB check on student. Some one with some common sense some where at last. But no doubt it will mean that SW wont be back and another one will be assigned.

As I said SS do not know there heads from there asses

well I am afraid my sympathy level has just ratched down a couple of notches, Cindy.

Sweeping assertions such as SS do not know their head from their arses, or that a social worker is an x hippy who smoked too much pot don't say a lot for your ability to think clearly.

Yes is sounds awful. And the stress you must be under is the only mitigating factor against your assertions.

Of course any other adults in the home of a child under a CP order have to be checked out.

Please stop calling social services the SS, even if they were evil baby stealers, thats not quite on par, is it

oops, sorry Beyond.

you didnt say it MD?