Skip to main content

The interests of the child are paramount

The link is to a story from Australia where the Child Protection team got upset that a foster carer took a child to the doctor without their permission.

Generally it is accepted that the interests of the child are "paramount". What that means is that the child comes first.

The big question is what that means in practise. The various professionals argue the case that they are acting in the interests of the child and hence it means that people should do what they say.

What the evidence is quite clear about is that they have conflicts of interests in certain circumstances. Departmental and personal interests reign supreme in comparison to the children concerned.

The evidence in terms of "looked after" children (the new term for children in care) - sometimes converted to the acronym LACs - is that being "cared for" by the system on average damages life chances.

That is not to criticise individuals generally within the process. It is the system that is dehumanising and results in situations like that in Australia. The absence of scrutiny makes the institutional interest stronger. It is important to remember that when people argue for the continuation of secrecy in public family law that this is not to protect the children. Children who are "released" for adoption are advertised publicly on websites. The secrecy of the family courts acts primarily to protect the professionals involved from scrutiny.

Comments

TonyF said…
Just read the article, ridiculous attitude of the authorities. So this means if a child is in serious danger you have to wait for the red tape mob to give you the OK to save the childs life? I sincerely hope that is not the practise here!!
john said…
I am not quite sure what the rules are in the UK.
Emily C said…
What I want to know is whether she'd have been prosecuted for neglect if she hadn't taken the child to the doctor?
ex brummie said…
Mr. Hemmings
I used to be one of your constituents. Did you not know this was happening in your own back yard? It is called the Silvermere Centre and is a danger to any and every family that comes in contact with them.

Forget children in real danger........they focus their attention on blond blue eyed children that they can snatch out of bed in the middle of the night........from middle class, university educated parents who are members of MENSA- and don't say it doesn't happen cause it happened to me. No drug abuse, no domestic violence......nothing

When we were eventually allowed into a case conference about our child we were told "your opinion does not matter you are ONLY the parents" and then walked out of the meeting with the SWs behind us saying "oh he is so cute, this is an easy adoption, I will get my bonus this year- yes!!"
john said…
I am aware that mothers have on a number of occasions been attended by ambulances as a result of what is done at the Silvermere Centre. I am also aware that children are put on the child protection register in Birmingham unlawfully.

If you know of any of my constituents (or even ex-constituents) who wishes me to look at issues on their behalf please do encourage them to contact me. If I am appointed as a lay advisor then I can be provided with all the information about the case.
Emily C said…
I was on the adoptions committee for a while. One of the reasons I resigned (though myriad) was the use by social workers of the phrase "transracial adoptable commodity" to describe a very pretty 2 year old mixed race girl. Children are children not commodities.
TonyF said…
Social Workers uses the phrases they are told to use by the upper echelons. So it would be better not to resign because of a phrase but protest to the Cabinet member for Social Care asking why this phrase is allowed
Emily C said…
Tony I can assure you this was only one of many reasons I resigned. Some were personal. Aspects such as this certainly assisted my decision though.
http://social-services-disrupt-family-life.blogspot.com/

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…