6 Comments

• John Q. Publican 9th Jun '09 - 3:37pm

  This is both intriguing and worrying. I recognise that there may well be some level of legal confidentiality issues, but Hemming seems to expect people to support his position without informing them, even remotely, as to what’s going on?

  Why is there a threat of the child being taken into care? I am aware of the occasional problems with British social workers; the Satanic Ritual Abuse scandals which affected several of my co-religionists in the ’80s are one of the most famous examples thereof. But nothing I’ve seen, or heard from those who work in child services, suggests that the social care industry takes children away without any reason at all.

  In addition, they are talking about adoption law here; a child being taken into care is some yards of red tape and at least a matter of months away from any talk of even hypothetical adoption. The one does not lead inevitably to the other; and foster care is not adoption. Children are taken into care because of a perceived [1], immanent threat to their safety or well-being; children are put up for adoption once it has been determined that there is negligible likelihood the birth parents will wish to, or become capable of, taking up their duties. This kid’s not even born yet, and someone is talking about the child being taken from the parents and adopted, without even a scent of a reason?

  If the social services are wrong, tell us what they are saying that is wrong; if their intent to deprive a child of its parents is misplaced, show us why. At the moment, all I can see is a politician getting a BBC name-check.

  Minister Hemming seems to have a real concern and to campaign honestly on behalf of those, of which there are a fair few, that have been mistreated by Britain’s social services. I just can’t see anything here that advances his case, or indeed provides any enhancement to public comprehension of this issue.

  [1] This, of course, has always been the problem. One fifth of government psychotherapists think homosexuality is a disease, and will try to “cure” it: I suspect that many of those would consider gay parents, or pagan parents, or single mothers, to be a clear and immanent risk to the child’s well-being. Mr. Hemming clearly does have a point, in that these decisions can be made without reference to objectivity or any kind of evidentiary process.

• Frank H Little 9th Jun '09 - 8:14pm

  I don’t know the case, but I would guess that two typical errors have been made by social services here: they have placed undue weight on the advice of a single professional (case conferences can be a formality if the SS leader so chooses); and have refused to recognise good evidence to counteract that advice when it has been presented to them. All council departments are averse to reversing decisions once made, but intransigence in social services can be dangerous.

• Mary Reid 9th Jun '09 - 9:08pm

  “All council departments are averse to reversing decisions once made, but intransigence in social services can be dangerous.” – as in Haringey?

• Alison Stevens 9th Jun '09 - 11:27pm

  Very little, has changed since Cleveland in 1986, when 200 Children were wrongly taken into Care, after alleged Sexual Abuse allegations, were made, by Paediatrician DR Marietta Higgs, who gave conflicting Medical theories in Court.
  Her reports were disclaimed, by other Professionals.
  PAIN,submitted recommendations, to the concluding, Dame Butler-Sloss Public Inquiry, to no avail.
  Since the tragic death of Baby Peter, within Haringey,and other Local Authority failings, up and down the Country, Care Proceedings have increased by as much as 75%, within one London Borough.
  Within one part of the Country, Babies are being taken from Hospitals, on Emergency Protection Orders, within hours of birth, in many Cases, Social Services, have very little evidence to support, such drastic action.
  If common sense doesn’t prevail, there could be many miscarriages of Justice,and forced adoption,at the hands of the secret family courts.
  The Government have also reduced, the funding to Banisters, which will force them out of Public Law Cases, leaving Parents to represent themselves,such individuals will not have the knowledge or means, to contest their cases.

• John Hemming MP 10th Jun '09 - 9:30am

  The problem is that the system in England (and Wales) is inherently unfair. The fact that the Local Authority has to agree to the appointment of any expert witnesses and that parents face jail for obtaining a second opinion makes the system flawed. There are many other problems.

  I have, therefore, advised for almost two years that mothers facing removal at birth should consider emigration. Fran Lyon was the first to emigrate and live happily now in Sweden with her baby girl.

• John Hemming MP 10th Jun '09 - 9:39am

  Incidentally I have the figures as to what proportion of babies removed at birth end up adopted.

  Eg of 580 the babies taken into care in 2004 by March 2007 360 had been adopted and 90 returned to their parents.

  Similarly of applications for care orders in 2007 only 0.27% resulted in the parents “winning”.

  In detail:
  In 2007 local authorities in England applied for 8,173 care orders. 7,624 orders were made, 336 applications were withdrawn by the council, 290 “no order” decisions were made and 21 orders were refused. In other words the judgment of risk of the social workers working for the council was so good that they were only completely refused by the judge 21 times (0.27%). More importantly 93% of the time the judge merely rubberstamped the proposals from the local authority.

  http://www.birminghampost.net/comment/birmingham-columnists/agenda/2009/05/28/machine-for-injustice-65233-23734563/