Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

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

[Sixweekstowait]

Sphero - they can sign anything they want, it doesn't make it true.

[Spero]

Bourdic - I don't know what jurisdiction you have experience of, but it doesn't seem to be the UK family court system. 'Prosecution' and 'defence' are in the criminal courts.

I repeat, there can be no 'shopping around' for experts in family cases.

[Spero]

I think there have been clear miscarriages of justice, such as the Webster case where the child's injuries were in fact a result of scurvy and not deliberate inflicted abuse. The doctors involved failed to diagnose scurvy because none of them had ever come across a case before.

That was horrible. But it wasn't a deliberate evil act of corruption such as JH would allege.

i have just got back home so haven't yet seen programme, but will. I have read all of JH's interviews in the press today however, so I think I have a flavour.

[bunchoffives]

The secrecy of the family court means that the evidence SS used is often not made public and cannot therefore be challenged.

The president of the family division of the high court, Sir James Mumby has said that the secrecy of applications for the removal of children cases must end. The secrecy allows miscarriages of justice to go unchallenged and make a desperately unequal fight actually impossible for parents who wish to appeal.

I think John Hemmings gets more and more outrageous in order to attract publicity. It may ruin his reputation but he does achieve publicity.

[Cranky01]

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.


I agree with you I would do anything to keep my child out if care.
Interestingly the dad who made the statement about committing the abuse said he admitted doing it because he thought the baby would stay with his mum

[Sixweekstowait]

Spero - probably didn't express it well but I meant not specific scientific knowledge but an understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge- especially medical science. Ie - the certainties and uncertainties , the scope for various interpretations of the same set of data etc, the role of probability and what the concept of probability means. I still maintain that it was shocking that no one on Sally Clarke's defence team was able to understand the fundamental flaw in a Meadows arguement - not rocket science

[Spero]

If one good thing can come out of the whole sorry Hemming mess of the last few weeks is that I think we can all agree that the family courts need to ensure that their judgments are widely publicised and that more people can get a better understanding of why and how decisions are made.

I am not sure JH is proof of the old adage - there is no such thing as bad publicity.

[bunchoffives]

Spero you have just acknowledged you have no medical training or knowledge and go on to casually announce that rickets is incredibly rare. The Panorama programme's whole point is that in fact it is not incredibly rare anymore and in fact vit D deficiency is incredibly common - in fact 25% of the population are known to be severely deficient and this is thought to be an underestimate

[Spero]

Bourdic - it was indeed absolutely shocking that no one in that court could challenge Prof Meadows. I recall the Royal College of Statisticians getting quite snooty and saying if anyone had asked, they could have put him straight very quickly.

But no one did ask, I accept that.

I think the problem is made of many different strands in that case. Meadows had achieved enormous prominence as The Expert - people felt wary about challenging him. Also, it is hard to challenge someone when you don't know they are wrong. this is the danger of the 'unknown unknowns'.

All I can suggest is that we try to carry on learning the lessons from these tragedies - I try to be open about what I know are huge gaps in my knowledge about structure of bones etc and how they break. Usually however, medical expert opinions about these types of injuries will be accompanied by lots of references to research and other articles so we can try to understand.

But ultimately and fundamentally, it is very difficult to be an 'expert' in many fields. So we all have to help each other out.

[Italiangreyhound]

Spero (hi, hope all is well), don't let JH put you off the programme it is very interesting and if anyone I know got any kind of fracture now I would asking for Vitamin D test.

[Spero]

sorry I am not expressing myself well.

Rickets was thought to be very rare, and it was very rare until relatively recently I understand. the medical profession didn't act quickly enough to catch up with the changing reality.

That is a problem. I agree. But it isn't a problem bourne of wilful cruelty or wishing to ensure that there are plenty of lovely babies snatched for adoption.

If a child has broken bones and the parents can't explain how it happened, I think it is right that we as a Society, take that seriously and investigate.

I really think it is very important to get the focus right. Otherwise we all waste a lot of our time and energy chasing conspiracy dragons.

[Spero]

Yes, if I represent parents accused of breaking a child's bones now I will certainly want to investigate the possibility of Vit D deficiency and I imagine most doctors will also be much more on the ball about this.

In cases involving bruising for e.g. there are tests about the child's blood coagulation to see if there is a clotting problem.

[Orestes]

Difficult programme with difficult and emotive issues.

Mistakes are made in very rare cases with very rare diseases; and as other posters have pointed out, this might be a discussion that should be had with doctors rather than social workers. Medical science progresses - and what is known in one year may be disproved a few years down the line - these are difficult lines to call and everyone involved needs to be aware of that because of the consequences - of getting it wrong, but also of getting it right.

My concern tonight is with the coverage once again given to JH MP and his urging of parents to flee the UK to "get a fair trail". Firstly, one would hope that an MP would support and endorse our legal system and democracy - and if he has issues with it, seek to change it from the inside, help people fight injustice, rather than encourage people to avoid it.

Secondly, Mr JH is in a very secure position with the many complaints and allegations he makes. He campaigns for a lifting of what he sees as the "secrecy" of UK family courts; yet lifting that secrecy would allow parents who have, and whose children have suffered, as a result of his misinformed, dangerous and self-serving interventions, an opportunity to give the other side of the case and show how he has personally intervened in cases that have led to the neglect and abuse of children whose parents he has encouraged to flee. Of course, such parents cannot speak out, because of the same secrecy Mr JH MP claims to so abhor.

I wish him every success in his campaign for an end to secrecy in the Family Courts so that those children, parents and families who have suffered as a result of his self-serving interventions and 'advice' can speak out without being in contempt of court.

I'm guessing that JH really doesn't want to see that.

[munchkinmaster]

I watched this aware all the time that paediatrician dh's blood pressure might tip over the edge at anytime and we'd be the ones in a and e.

He says these bloods etc would be done as standard and was rather affronted by the vague insinuation that the medical profession was unaware and caught off guard by the re-emergence of rickets (thank god the bbc spotted it).

I thought the whole thing was rather sensationalist and one sided. I couldn't get the gist of what really happened in court. If someone had had no bloods done then surely a good lawer could get them off? Did the woman who got her kids back do so by a piece of luck or would the system always have inevitably got there? I was left feeling that I'd only gotten half the story.

I'm not sure who it benefited to see their grief at parting for the last time. Really emotive stuff but didn't get us any further into the issues at hand. Also whether they did it or not that felt like exploitative tv to me.

[bunchoffives]

If a child has broken bones and the parents can't explain how it happened, I think it is right that we as a Society, take that seriously and investigate.

Yes AND with humility. Consultant level medical doctors are often accused of enormous arrogance. They will not admit the limitations of their knowledge. That would mean that they may not be employed again by the court if they develop a reputation for being reluctant to pronounce definitively on a case where another expert witness doctor would. They would risk not being employed by the court again and losing a lucrative source of income as well as status.

Perhaps we should consider that an expert witness could be called to court without being paid - like jury service? Then there would not be a vested interest in pretending to more certainty than actually exists.

[bunchoffives]

The child that was returned was eventually diagnosed with a rare genetic complaint because the fracture symptoms continued in foster care when the parents had had no contact.

I think the programme was right to show the last meeting of parents and child (and gp ) because it does underline what is at stake here. So many people seem to lose sight oif the fact that most children taken into care won't be adopted, are likely to experience serial foster care homes in their short lives and suffer great emotional trauma.

I can't understand why grandparents or extended family aren't made much more use of in these cases.

[Sixweekstowait]

Spero - you're right, I don't know about the use of medical experts in the family courts, just elsewhere. But in the programme a judge does say something on the lines of experts being too definitive in some cases, sounding too certain. If that's true, it can't be right for them not to give the full picture

[Italiangreyhound]

munchkinmaster I felt it was right we saw the emotions behind the situation. I don't think the parents were being taken advantage of. I am sure they would want people to see what comes after a decision like that from social services. I am very supportive of social servies, who do a good job (I think) much of the time, in very, very difficult circumstances. Yet when mistakes are made or alleged to have been made then I think it is right to see all sides to it. I don't think they went overboard on that side of it. Sadly, people are judged by how they emotionally respond to things so if the parents and grand parents had appeared cold and matter of fact then the viewer may well not have felt they cared as much as they did. Just my opinion.

[Sixweekstowait]

Bunch- you've said it so much better than I managed to

[Sixweekstowait]

23.26 post I was referring to

[Orestes]

Hello BoH

In such cases grandparents and extended family are always investigated as carers before foster carers or adoptive placements.

Sadly, its not always possible to place children with family... but there is a legal requirement to investiagate those options first as far as I'm aware.

[Spero]

I am not going to argue against the arrogance of doctors. I have had many uncomfortable encounters with rude and arrogant doctors.

However, none of them I thought were giving evidence to protect their 'lucrative court incomes'.

Experts in any field who don't write good reports will generally not be instructed again. Because in family cases such instructions are joint, everyone has to be happy with the identity of the expert.

I have not seen this problem of the expert who gives an opinion based on what he or she thinks the parties want to hear. Far from it.

[munchkinmaster]

I'm not saying they should not have shown the grief at all. It was heartbreaking and powerful. But they showed long scenes which felt intrusive to me. I think that time might have been better spent exploring the issues more thoroughly. They made a shocking and sensational piece of TV but I would prefer more detail and argument. I'm not sure you could say it was balanced, I think it was quite one sided.

[Spero]

Yes, it is a statutory legal requirement to investigate kinship placements if children can't be with their parents.

LA must carry out viability assessments of family members BUT these family members have to be identified to the SW!

In many cases, family members pop up very late in the day indeed which isn't fair to anyone, least of all the child because proceedings then get delayed whilst a viability assessment is carried out.

Now that we are told we much complete care proceedings in 26 weeks, I think there is going to be a lot less leeway for this.

[confuddledDOTcom]

Half the problem with Sally's case was that it was presented as SIDS or murder, it most obviously wasn't SIDS so it must have been murder. When they went back over it years later they found a cause. It's been awhile since I read her book though so I don't remember all the details.