Skip to main content

Sunday Telegraph Story

The linked story is about a case where the intervention of Childrens Social Services has simply undermined a family. One of the state's reasons for taking the baby is that the father does not agree with what the Social Workers think.


andrew said…
When I heard of Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming’s press comments last week that “newborn babies are being removed from their parents in order for councils to meet adoption targets” my gut reaction was that he must be wrong. Despite all of my concerns over the years about the unnecessary removal of children from parents with learning disabilities, I found it difficult to believe that any professional social worker or social services system could be acting in this way. Indeed, I fell back on the argument that it is a judge who makes the decision, not social services, they merely provide evidence.

Undoubtedly there are times when children should be removed from their natural parents, when the level of abuse or neglect is such that serious damage has already been done, or is inevitable. I have seen this during assessments I have carried out when acting as an expert for the court. The concerns detailed by social services have been well described and are of a serious enough nature to make the decision by the court pretty clear cut. Yet despite a fairly obvious decision, a lengthy process still has to be gone through, assessments carried out, alternative supports explored and so on.

I feel for social service departments who are under a legal obligation not to reveal any details about cases, it is difficult for them to point out that this child has received numerous cigarette burns, or the like, whilst in the care of their parent. And I find it difficult to see how Hemming can state: "What is utterly the clear evidence that social workers are literally snatching newborn babies and children from good, stable, loving homes." I don’t believe there is that evidence. There are plenty of stories from aggrieved parents who will quite naturally want to give a rather one sided view of the need for removal, safe in the knowledge that details will probably not be released.

Having said that, although the courts make the final decision, they do seem to often play it safe, they do, of course, place a great deal of weight upon the social workers reports, and some of those reports are written, I believe, with a particular prejudice. A particular problem I have encountered is that once there is a belief that a parent is not ‘good enough’ all that remains is to find the corroborating evidence. And if you look hard enough that is exactly what you will find. This ‘mind set’ is the problem for many parents with learning disabilities, a view is taken and the evidence found.

There is also pressure to get through the process whilst the child is as young as possible, thus improving future adoption chances, I believe the quota idea came from trying to get more looked after children adopted. It would certainly be wrong to have targets to increase the numbers of children removed from parents, such actions have to be a bastardisation of the process, don’t they??

Therefore, I still can’t believe that any social worker or service would be consciously taking into account an adoption quota when writing their reports, or making their judgements. To do so would throw the whole system into such disrepute as to make it unworkable. We need much clearer evidence of these allegations, relying on the accounts from aggrieved parents (whether rightly or wrongly) is not enough.
John Hemming said…
I have had these things confirmed by social workers, but unsurprisingly they don't want to have their names known.
moira said…
I find it totally incredible that an expert in court should write this.

Firstly in many cases there are not lengthy assessments.I was in court after only been involved with SS for 2 weeks.They wrote terrible perjurous statements and they did not even know me. They system is unworkable.There are some terrible social workers out there who are vindictive and nasty characters. Unless you have been a parent under social services its difficult to make people believe how corrupt some of these workers are.

If you look at the Websters case when they lost their 3 children,the second judge criticised the original court proceedings as the final decision was made in one day.So obviously what you are saying is incorrect.

A child can be considered for adoption after 3 and a half months.That is not enough time to get to know a family and carry out the lengthy assessments.

You refer to parents with learning disabilities and say you find it difficult to believe that a social worker could act in this way.
Well the government has admitted in a report that social workers are acting this way. It said they were behaving in a negative way and not considering support,just taking the children away.

I have the report if you want to see.

Yes the judge does make the decision but the family courts are biased towards social services. Solicitors say the judges rubber stamp what social workers want to err on the side fo caution.

I nearly lost my child through corrupt and uncaring social workers.I am convinced they wanted my child for adoption quotas.Otherwise why would they present me as a terrible mother when the opposite is the truth.

I assure you there are some cynical and wicked people who are working in social services. I think its because they will give anyone unsuitable a job due to shortages in the profession.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.