Social Services a disgrace

[Chicken Runner61]

I personally believe that it should not be about benefits but about whom is best placed to care for the children and I think the courts largely do strive for that. I do not see how that is the fault of the social services or the courts though.
I thought we were talking about Westdene seagull, seeing his kids more. I have personally took a case to appeal myself and to be honest the Judges seem more favourable than when I had counsel. In nine months I spent 50k, I had a solicitor on £220+VAT per hour and a barrister on £200+VAT per hour.

I partly agree with you but having seen the system first hand and hundreds of cases of others i think the best interests of the children are served by helping the whole family including the parents.

The courts just want to find a quick legal, non emotive solution to a legal dispute. Worse still the system is based on last century ways of living and social standards and a time when one parent took time off to care for the children.


Cases that went to court were mainly to punish or lay blame at the person at fault for the divorce or to provide care or assistance to the party left to care for the children. nowadays the court doesn't really care why the divorce or separation has happened but one party wants to punish the ex for the failure. What better way to punish an ex than to stop them seeing their children and to financially impoverish them. And what better way to win completely than to accuse them of abuse or harm to a willing court that wants a simple easy quick end in a court that can make judgement without jury and without a public appeal process.

The easiest way to win a case in the family court is to allege something, stop contact, alienate the children and claim the home in the process.

Its not always about money sometimes its about power - Even Bob Geldof had problems even with his wealth which is why he brought his case up to try and help fathers without money on their side.

Surely a better way to resolve divorce and separation would be to have a single lawyer, judge, social worker and financial advisor working with the family to find a solution that works best for them all rather than two fee earning lawyers barristers etc etc trying to rip the other side apart to win the case for their client?

 

[Chicken Runner61]

This. There are numerous cases where people have moaned that Social Services didn't do enough to protect the kid, baby P as the prime example. Before I read the Guardian I already assumed there was far more to this than the original link to the Independent. It seems clear there was a risk to the baby hence the reason a court ordered the c-section and I have absolutely no problem with that. Where it appears to have fallen down is the lack of communication with the Italian authorities. However, what would you think of social services is the Italians took the view that it is the woman's child therefore she has to have it and within a couple of months she hasn't taken her meds again and the baby ends up abused or even dead. There is a whole lot of info that we aren't privvy to and it is therefore very difficult to be objective about the decisions made.



I thought the proposal was that the starting point would be 50/50 access, not that you have the right to 50/50. In other words, mother and father start on an equal footing then all other factors are then taken into account, most importantly, what is best for the child. I'm no expert on the subject but read the following which gave it a bit of clarity.

http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media...iscusses-the-5050-shared-parenting-principle/

Feel for your situation and hope you can eventually reach an amicable solution for all parties. Best of British.

Shared parenting won't get through - the financial costs to the country would cripple it - they just get Butler-Sloss to trawl out the same old crap that it might not be in the interests of the child - interests of the government more like - thats why they keep tinkering with the child support agency and blame absent fathers.

Absent fathers are the ones that DONT go to court for contact - Absent fathers just disappear or pay the minimum - Funny how shared parenting works for the couples that resolve matters WITHOUT going to court but warring parents can be forced to share?

 

[EDS]

I'm not trying to be argumentative here but

I spent thousands in nine months, that was at the beginning. This has been going on five years now and even though I have counsel now if I ever needed to go my upturn in fortunes only happened three years ago so I was not able to then. Believe me it is not as hard as you may think, also I much prefer women Judges as they seem more sympathetic where as the two men I have had have been shite.

 

[EDS]

I partly agree with you but having seen the system first hand and hundreds of cases of others i think the best interests of the children are served by helping the whole family including the parents.

The courts just want to find a quick legal, non emotive solution to a legal dispute. Worse still the system is based on last century ways of living and social standards and a time when one parent took time off to care for the children.


Cases that went to court were mainly to punish or lay blame at the person at fault for the divorce or to provide care or assistance to the party left to care for the children. nowadays the court doesn't really care why the divorce or separation has happened but one party wants to punish the ex for the failure. What better way to punish an ex than to stop them seeing their children and to financially impoverish them. And what better way to win completely than to accuse them of abuse or harm to a willing court that wants a simple easy quick end in a court that can make judgement without jury and without a public appeal process.

The easiest way to win a case in the family court is to allege something, stop contact, alienate the children and claim the home in the process.

Its not always about money sometimes its about power - Even Bob Geldof had problems even with his wealth which is why he brought his case up to try and help fathers without money on their side.

Surely a better way to resolve divorce and separation would be to have a single lawyer, judge, social worker and financial advisor working with the family to find a solution that works best for them all rather than two fee earning lawyers barristers etc etc trying to rip the other side apart to win the case for their client?

But thats why there is a push to mediation now. I realise there is a tendency to blame the father for everything and try to say things that are not true, but you just have to ride that storm and I believe eventually the truth comes out. Not to mention there is no harm in recording conversations etc and also keep a diary, Judges like to be able to have a chronological history.
Believe me I know how messy these things can be, but I do not think the system is actually that bad. If you get a decent Judge and set out your case well then you have every chance to be honest. I fail to see why WS, could not get an extra night with his children to be honest.

 

[HovaGirl]

This case is abhorrent and just the latest in a long list of abhorrent practices undertaken by the social services in this country. In my own dealings with them, I've been appalled at the way they do their work. To them human beings are "cases" to be "signed off" like items on a shopping list. They cause more hurt than they prevent and I would say staffed by people without any common sense whatsoever. If it isn't in the manual, they don't really know how to deal with the variables in the human condition.

 

[HovaGirl]

Clearly, the majority have a strong dislike of Social Services. I wonder what people think we need instead of our current Social Services?

A completely overhauled Social Services, staffed by people of high intelligence, humanity and common sense.

 

[drew]

A completely overhauled Social Services, staffed by people of high intelligence, humanity and common sense.

And who is going to fund this because, from memory, I get the impression you are from the right of the political spectrum and we all know that the Tories see public services as easy meat and the best way to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy.

 

[HovaGirl]

And who is going to fund this because, from memory, I get the impression you are from the right of the political spectrum and we all know that the Tories see public services as easy meat and the best way to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy.

Well, someone has to fund it, Left or Right, because it isn't working. (And I don't wake up every day repeating an "I'm on the Right" mantra. Sometimes I'm Right-Wing. Sometimes Left-Wing, like most people really are.)

 

[Mutts Nuts]

Except it didn't actually happen as the initial reports stated

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/02/forced-caesarean-risk-mother-child

The health trust asked for the court order, not social services

(Essex social services won a high court order for the birth to be carried out by caesarean section and the baby girl, born in August, was taken into care. )

What part of the above sentence taken from the Guardian report is it that you do not understand


(He also criticised Essex council for failing "to follow proper proceedings". He said: "The rules are straightforward when it comes to foreign nationals and care proceedings. The foreign country concerned should be contacted through their central authority (in Italy's case part of the Justice Ministry). This clearly did not happen and for this Essex County Council are clearly in the wrong. Essex have not managed to explain why no one in the wider extended family was competent to look after the baby when they were already looking after two of her siblings.)

As the above also from your Guardian report , the social services in this country are beyond belief.

 

[beorhthelm]

(Essex social services won a high court order for the birth to be carried out by caesarean section and the baby girl, born in August, was taken into care. )

What part of the above sentence taken from the Guardian report is it that you do not understand

what about this part:

"The health trust had been looking after the mother since 13 June 2012 under the mental health act. Because of its concerns, it contacted Essex social services. Five weeks later it was the trust's clinical decision to apply to the high court for permission to deliver the unborn child by caesarean section "because of concerns about risk to mother and child", the council said."

everyone seems to be overlooking the mental health act and what provisions this might provide. it seems to me that social services are involved as a matter of routine. we also dont know how pregnant the woman was. if you are going for a caesarean you have to consent to it: if you are commited under the mental health act you are deemed unable to make such a decision, so a court order would be needed.

and thats another point apparently ignored, a high court made this decision, not a social services, clearly its within the law and in the best interests of mother and baby in the view of the court.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

what about this part:

"The health trust had been looking after the mother since 13 June 2012 under the mental health act. Because of its concerns, it contacted Essex social services. Five weeks later it was the trust's clinical decision to apply to the high court for permission to deliver the unborn child by caesarean section "because of concerns about risk to mother and child", the council said."

everyone seems to be overlooking the mental health act and what provisions this might provide. it seems to me that social services are involved as a matter of routine. we also dont know how pregnant the woman was. if you are going for a caesarean you have to consent to it: if you are commited under the mental health act you are deemed unable to make such a decision, so a court order would be needed.

and thats another point apparently ignored, a high court made this decision, not a social services, clearly its within the law and in the best interests of mother and baby in the view of the court.

Let mr get this right, you think the decision to carry out the caesarean on a patient diagnosed with Bipolar who had a relapse after not taking her medication was the right decision.She had been in there so called care for 5 weeks.

 

[beorhthelm]

Let mr get this right, you think the decision to carry out the caesarean on a patient diagnosed with Bipolar who had a relapse after not taking her medication was the right decision.She had been in there so called care for 5 weeks.

im saying that, in the opinion of medical professionals and a high court, apparently it was. since we dont have much more information, we dont have grounds to say it wasn't, and a lot of indignation is ignoring many of the facts that are public. for all you know the baby was in distress, and if not under the mental health act she would have signed herself for an emergency c-section. she may have even consented, but unable to do so officially due to being sectioned.

the only really story here is what has happend to the baby afterwards, though the fact the mother remains sectioned and has two other children we are told she is unable to look after, suggests the mother is incapable of care. if there is a question of ethics, it's do we want to accept the mental health act and the powers that gives the authorities over those deemed mentally ill? its not really about family courts or human rights as the Inde piece wanted to paint it, although what happens to the daughter now is for the family courts, but thats really a seperate matter.

 

[Albumen]

Who'd have thought removing 100's of millions of pounds from public care and privatising the NHS wouldn't work? Amazing. Still, carry on voting Tory.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

im saying that, in the opinion of medical professionals and a high court, apparently it was. since we dont have much more information, we dont have grounds to say it wasn't, and a lot of indignation is ignoring many of the facts that are public. for all you know the baby was in distress, and if not under the mental health act she would have signed herself for an emergency c-section. she may have even consented, but unable to do so officially due to being sectioned.

the only really story here is what has happend to the baby afterwards, though the fact the mother remains sectioned and has two other children we are told she is unable to look after, suggests the mother is incapable of care. if there is a question of ethics, it's do we want to accept the mental health act and the powers that gives the authorities over those deemed mentally ill?

The lady clearly holds down a regular job in Italy her employers paid for a training course in this country, she has 2 children currently being looked after by her family in Italy.I cannot understand why correct medication could not have been given followed by helping her return to Italy to have her baby there, with the support of her family and the Doctors that she knows.Stinks to me of social services keeping them selves employed.

 

[drew]

Let mr get this right, you think the decision to carry out the caesarean on a patient diagnosed with Bipolar who had a relapse after not taking her medication was the right decision.She had been in there so called care for 5 weeks.

5 weeks when she was clearly heavily pregnant. The decision for the c section was because of health risks to both mother and baby. We don't know what those were. Could be that she was threatening to harm the unborn baby or even had made attempts to do so. It could be she had another health condition that meant a normal birth could be dangerous. You very casually describe her condition as just being a relapse due to not taking her medication. Look at the dates. Baby born in July yet it is 7 months before she returns! Now we don't know whether during that time there was a lot of discussions taking place or it could be it took that long to get her meds sorted and the condition stabilised. If you look at the Guardian report, it states that she returned in February and stated she had now accepted her condition. Doesn't that suggest to that before that she hadn't and maybe couldn't be trusted to keep taking the medication?

Personally, I see no problem with the decision for the c-section. The actual problem that I see is after that and whether enough was done to establish whether there was an effective support structure in place back in Italy.

 

[beorhthelm]

...I cannot understand why correct medication could not have been given ...

no, you dont do you. but those medical professionals involved do.

 

[Bognor Bystander]

A completely overhauled Social Services, staffed by people of high intelligence, humanity and common sense.

So you know the people who work in Social services don't possess any of these do you ? Jees, I shouldn't be surprised but still am that another thread turns into an NSC binfest with some people talking sense but others maybe with an agenda speculating to fill in the blanks (and for that reason I'm out of here).

 

[EDS]

So you know the people who work in Social services don't possess any of these do you ? Jees, I shouldn't be surprised but still am that another thread turns into an NSC binfest with some people talking sense but others maybe with an agenda speculating to fill in the blanks (and for that reason I'm out of here).

Some be fair some social workers are complete morons but that is only a small percentage, the majority are good at what they do

 

[upthealbion1970]

Some be fair some social workers are complete morons but that is only a small percentage, the majority are good at what they do

In your opinion, others including myself will suggest the balance is the other way around.

 

[Billy the Fish]

As others have said I don't think the c-section is the problem here. The problem is what they did afterwards.

Surely the most humane thing to do would be to get the woman and her child back home as soon as possible so she can recover from her illness with her family. If her other two children are looked after by their extended family then you have to afford this child the same rights. Placing the child in care when it has family willng to care for it seems completely barbaric.

It's a tragic story really, and rather unfortunate that she has a breakdown while abroad.