Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

Panorama - I want my baby back

996 replies

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 13/01/2014 21:29

Anyone watching?

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

OP posts:
wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:07

Personally I think that the more publicity given to cases of wrong removal the better? Do you think Jill McCartan was wrong to go to Spain? And what of her daughter wrongly removed? Who is going to rectify that? That little girl will hate her adoptive parents when she grows up!

Lioninthesun · 14/01/2014 11:09

And although I see how tempting it is for SS to be able to say "see, that mum set fire to her baby which is why we took her away" for all to see, I think we have to have some rules to say these cases can't dominate national press - I forsee pages full in the Daily Fail pointing fingers, giving out full names/addresses and witch hunts left right and centre. Yes there are monsters in our midst but if we are going to 'out them' and leave them to fend for themselves against the mob, how much better morally are we? I know there is an argument you reap what you sow, but vengeance is not the way to a better society and I fear that is what the media will be peddling next.
To be honest I see this as what will happen, with perhaps a dozen stories a year where the child is returned to the parents. The papers won't be interested in that by then though, far more sensationalist cases will prevail as ever.

Lioninthesun · 14/01/2014 11:13

Wizard what about the cases where removal was the correct option? I can see why SS think allowing full access would be good because the myths about that it is not a minority who are wrongly removed.
I personally don't want to have breakfast over reading about a 7yo boy being gang raped by his dad and his friends or similar every day of the week.

Lioninthesun · 14/01/2014 11:16

As I said before, if you think the papers are going to focus on the soft focus fluffy bunny stories in all of this, I don't think we live on the same planet.

It will however help prove what a tough time social workers have, which would be a huge boost for them and hopefully help weed out the bad ones.

I just don't think I can tally that to the way it will make our society turn on each other. It is a shame the trust in SS has been so broken really, but admittedly something does need to be done.

nennypops · 14/01/2014 11:18

Legal aid is still automatically available in relation to care proceedings, irrespective of the means of the parents. However, it is true to say that it has been cut down in a number of respects, and it is also rarely available for advice in the early stages when parents think there is a danger of their children being taken into care but it hasn't actually happened yet.

This is yet another of the areas where government cuts are actively harming the most vulnerable members of society. However, once parents are eligible for legal aid in my admittedly limited experience the majority of solicitors and barristers who take child care cases will bust a gut to make sure the parents' case is presented as well as possible.

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:20

Will you point me towards where I have said there are not correct removals. I asked about what do you propose we do about cases of wrong removal? How do parents get justice? You know about the Websters case of course (and now Jill McCartan).

This has been brewing and it will not go away now!!

nennypops · 14/01/2014 11:23

I don't think anyone on here is in a position to say whether Jill McCartan was right or not. We simply don't have the full facts on which to form a reliable opinion.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 14/01/2014 11:28

Hello wizardpc, and welcome to mumsnet. I notice you've posted on the very similar thread in adoption too, you must have very strong opinions about this.

OP posts:
wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:30

I do yes. I am not affected thankfully. However I am very active online with some of these cases of wrongful removal. I can think of very few greater infringements of on one's human rights.

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:31

@nennypops - so what should be done when a child has been wrongly forced adopted. There have been many cases of this.

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:33

Tough luck? Move on. Have another kid? Is that OK? Does that make it better?

Looking for an answer here.

Spero · 14/01/2014 11:37

Legal aid is no longer available i family cases unless there is domestic violence.

this does NOT apply to parents in care proceedings. It applies to parties in private law proceedings, such as contact, residence, divorce etc.

Spero · 14/01/2014 11:39

wizardpic - I agree there have been serious cases of miscarriages of justice.

But I do not agree the numbers run into the thousands, nor that they are explained by endemic corruption in the entire system, as JH alleges.

What is going wrong, I think, is that the whole system is creaking under the strain. Children in care have appalling outcomes in terms of educational achievement etc and we need to do something about that urgently.

We need better training and better support for SW so they can work more effectively with families in the community to keep them together, if at all possible.

That is almost always what the children want and it is what domestic and international law demands we investigate and support, if possible.

nennypops · 14/01/2014 11:39

wizardpc: do you have direct evidence of the "many cases" of wrongful adoptions?

Sneezecakesmum · 14/01/2014 11:41

I am in no doubt that the babies featured in this program were taken away on flawed medical evidence.

The vitamin D deficiency is not fully understood in regard to rickets because it has been virtually unknown for decades so no research into early signs and affects on babies bones has been done.

For the experts to say the babies X-rays showed none of the classical signs of rickets, ie bowing of the long bones, is absurd as this will only occur when weight is put through the bone. Something a 3 month old baby will not do.

The family court is the only court where you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Where parents are trying to prove they are NOT guilty despite the fact you cannot prove a negative!

The evidence of vit d deficiency will disappear in blood samples taken a year later when the diet and sunlight corrects the problem so it is something that cannot be proven retrospectively unless samples are taken at the time and stored.

What should as a minimum now occur is a thorough in depth testing of the baby and the mother including bone density scans and even genetic testing for conditions which cause fractures.

Would the parents be able to demand these tests if they were aware of them? I doubt it as the child would then be a ward of court and the parents have no rights. The expert witnesses involved may see their expertise questioned if they authorised the tests. So no incentive to do them and the family courts bias against innocent parents would continue.

Of course there are parents who abuse their children and these children need protecting, but the heartbreaking cost to innocent parents and their children must also be considered and avoided.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 14/01/2014 11:43

"Adoption has to be reversible where it has taken place incorrectly!! Wrong on adoptive parents? Not as wrong as on those parents whose children have been illegally stolen."

I was under the impression that the main reason was that it wasnt fair on the child nothing to do with the adoptive parents. Is that wrong?

Why would SS take away children willy nilly, if there is no financial incentive given, and they do not think there is really any risk to the child. Why would they do that?

OP posts:
Sneezecakesmum · 14/01/2014 11:45

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

A horrifying example of an 'expert witness' believing she was right.

This is not a failing of SW but of a medical profession which will often not accept deviation from the traditional medical view. They are often shockingly blinkered and resistant to anyone questioning their expertise.

Sneezecakesmum · 14/01/2014 11:46

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_child_abuse_scandal

Spero · 14/01/2014 11:49

O Cleveland was appalling. Watching the videos of the interviews with the children is heartbreaking - 'we are not going to let you go until you tell us what daddy did to you'.

But part of the tragedy is that these SW really thought they were doing the best for children. Trying to protect them. Because it is true that some parents DO sexually abuse their children. People posting on mumsnet know that very well - because it happened to them.

So again, the emphasis on better training. Even now, I see transcripts of police interviews with children which are shockingly bad - said to a 6 year old 'so what do you think she was thinking that you would say?'

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:49

@nennypops

yes

Spero · 14/01/2014 11:50

If you have evidence of 'thousands' of cases of wrongful adoptions, why isn't this evidence in the courts, before Parliament or in the Daily Mail?

Why is JH so coy about providing it? Can you send him the details so he can pass it on to me next time I ask him?

wizardpc · 14/01/2014 11:53

@spero Sneezecakesmum

so what do we do when it's proven it's wrong to have forcibly adopted children? Is it OK, kinda tough luck guys....we were wrong? Ooops.

Personally I think that a child's real parents/family are always the better option - if an adoption is proven illegal.

Minimum £1 million compensation when proven.

I think adoption has to change and allow contact with real parents in some cases - that way changing residence wouldnt be so difficult.

You CANNOT under estimate the wrong of having your children illegally removed.

nennypops · 14/01/2014 11:54

So can we see the evidence, wizardpc?

Lioninthesun · 14/01/2014 11:55

Oooh someone with FACTS!
How very exciting!
Amazing that you happen to have them and no one else does?
Your secret is safe with us Let's see!

Lioninthesun · 14/01/2014 11:56

So I am guessing taxpayers foot this bill then, Wizard or are we going to drain the SS resources further? Or perhaps the medical professional who got it wrong would be sued? Maybe that is why they want paying up front,;danger money.