What a Sad Story

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Baby P was a horrific case but the agencies now act OTT incase of another 'Baby P' situation.

All these agencies act to save themselves from being sued in the first instance, if you ask me.

No they don't. That's just emotive claptrap.

 

[Smurfy]

Anyone who has known people affected by this knows that often the judicial process is a huge stitch up, and little better than a kangaroo court. Small surprise social services need to hide behind court gagging orders 'to protect the child' in order to conceal their appalling actions and maintain the tyranny. Social services employ clinical psychologists who deliver the reports they need to back up the decision that has already been made that the child must be adopted. Those clinical psychologists who do not deliver what is required will not be rehired by the local authority. If as a parent you do not have the financial resources to hire your own clinical psychologist, you will likely be up against a court system that will rubber stamp the recommendations of social workers who have hired professionals to back up their own prejudice. Many MPs know what is going on, but there is not much they can do about it, short of using parliamentary privelege to try and shame their local authority.

 

[vernon]

Anyone who has known people affected by this knows that often the judicial process is a huge stitch up, and little better than a kangaroo court. Small surprise social services need to hide behind court gagging orders 'to protect the child' in order to conceal their appalling actions and maintain the tyranny. Social services employ clinical psychologists who deliver the reports they need to back up the decision that has already been made that the child must be adopted. Those clinical psychologists who do not deliver what is required will not be rehired by the local authority. If as a parent you do not have the financial resources to hire your own clinical psychologist, you will likely be up against a court system that will rubber stamp the recommendations of social workers who have hired professionals to back up their own prejudice. Many MPs know what is going on, but there is not much they can do about it, short of using parliamentary privelege to try and shame their local authority.

Now there's a conspiracy theory if ever I saw one.

 

[vernon]

But in dealing with this and any other child protection case, decisions can't be focused on one single issue. A whole host of information comes into play.

You are still missing the point of my post. Go back and read it and the posting that it was correcting.

 

[Sara_H]

You are still missing the point of my post. Go back and read it and the posting that it was correcting.

Possibly. I have a head cold and am very fuzzy this morning. I guess my wider point is that in cases like this children are not removed from families based on a single issue.
Courts take those decisions (and not lightly) based on a raft of information. Sadly the misrepresentation of these processes by the media means that the public at large have a very skewed view of child protection proceedings.

 

[Smurfy]

Now there's a conspiracy theory if ever I saw one.

LOL! Guess you've never seen the gruesome manner in which social services and the courts operate (which is understandable, as it is highly secretive). I've heard it all from someone I know, who fortunately had the support to take them on, and win*. But that is a highly unusual outcome, as most parents stand no chance against a system where the power balance is so skewed. It would be better for you to keep quiet and learn than parade your ignorance here.

* They are still fighting against shamed, lying social workers, who are dragging their feet with respect to carrying out the court's orders.

 

[MontyVeda]

You are still missing the point of my post. Go back and read it and the posting that it was correcting.

Possibly.
...

Just wanna state that Vernon was simply correcting my sloppy post.

 

[Sara_H]

LOL! Guess you've never seen the gruesome manner in which social services and the courts operate (which is understandable, as it is highly secretive). I've heard it all from someone I know, who fortunately had the support to take them on, and win*. But that is a highly unusual outcome, as most parents stand no chance against a system where the power balance is so skewed. It would be better for you to keep quiet and learn than parade your ignorance here.

* They are still fighting against shamed, lying social workers, who are dragging their feet with respect to carrying out the court's orders.

I suspect that as a teacher, @vernon is more experienced than your average MOTS with regard to the workings of child protection procedures.

My suggestion is that you don't form an opinion based on what you read in the press or from what an aggrieved parent has told you.

 

[winjim]

Even with specialists involved things can go badly wrong. Specialists are not infallable.

Read this salutary tale of the Cleveland Sex Abuse scandal from the late eighties.

That seems to be a catalogue of errors all stemming from two doctors using an inappropriate diagnostic tool. It's not clear however, whether they were specialists in sexual abuse, or general paediatricians. I would argue that in cases such as the one in the OP, a general paediatrician is not nearly specialist enough. Although of course specialists are fallible, which is why dialogue and transparency are important, and decisions must be challenged and justified.

There is certainly a need for general paediatricians to be aware of rare diseases that may present with symptoms of abuse so that they can refer cases to the appropriate specialists. There are pathologists trying to raise this level of awareness through conferences, papers, TV interviews etc, as well as trying to establish guidelines for investigative protocols to be followed when abuse is suspected.

 

[Smurfy]

I suspect that as a teacher, @vernon is more experienced than your average MOTS with regard to the workings of child protection procedures.

No he isn't. Just like every other member of the public, he is not privy to the proceedings of family courts. The only way he'd know is if reporting restrictions are lifted for individual cases, or he knows people who have experienced the family courts and social workers first hand. The fact that he thinks what I said is a conspiracy leaves me in no doubt about his lack of knowledge.

My suggestion is that you don't form an opinion based on what you read in the press or from what an aggrieved parent has told you.

Yeah, whatever. Try telling an affected parent that.

 

[Sara_H]

That seems to be a catalogue of errors all stemming from two doctors using an inappropriate diagnostic tool. It's not clear however, whether they were specialists in sexual abuse, or general paediatricians. I would argue that in cases such as the one in the OP, a general paediatrician is not nearly specialist enough. Although of course specialists are fallible, which is why dialogue and transparency are important, and decisions must be challenged and justified.

There is certainly a need for general paediatricians to be aware of rare diseases that may present with symptoms of abuse so that they can refer cases to the appropriate specialists. There are pathologists trying to raise this level of awareness through conferences, papers, TV interviews etc, as well as trying to establish guidelines for investigative protocols to be followed when abuse is suspected.

The press have been very coy about presenting us with much information at all. General paediatricians have responsibility for undertaking child protection assessments. X-Rays should have been reviewed by a paediatric radiologist. We don't know if that happened.
There are clear professional clinical guidelines around what tests and examinations should be carried out in these circumstances.

The apparent discrepancy here between the criminal courts decision and the family courts decision may well be due to the fact that family courts operate on balance of probability, rather than unreasonable doubt.
In other words there was enough evidence to say that the baby's injury's were on the balance of probability caused by physical abuse, but that it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

No he isn't. Just like every other member of the public, he is not privy to the proceedings of family courts. The only way he'd know is if reporting restrictions are lifted for individual cases, or he knows people who have experienced the family courts and social workers first hand. The fact that he thinks what I said is a conspiracy leaves me in no doubt about his lack of knowledge.


Yeah, whatever. Try telling an affected parent that.

Professionals who work with children are often an important part of CP proceedings, are often involved with family court proceedings. Of course they have a clearer picture of what happens with regard to child protection proceedings.
As to affected parents, yes its traumatic for families. Absolutely horrific. And professionals vary massively in how sensitively they work with families. Labelling all social workers based on the reflections of an aggrieved parents is a nonsense.

 

[vernon]

No he isn't. Just like every other member of the public, he is not privy to the proceedings of family courts. The only way he'd know is if reporting restrictions are lifted for individual cases, or he knows people who have experienced the family courts and social workers first hand. The fact that he thinks what I said is a conspiracy leaves me in no doubt about his lack of knowledge.

The lack of knowledge here is yours regarding the extent of my experience of child abuse and family court matters. You have one 'case study' which is a lot less than me and one more than I wish I had.

 

[winjim]

The press have been very coy about presenting us with much information at all. General paediatricians have responsibility for undertaking child protection assessments. X-Rays should have been reviewed by a paediatric radiologist. We don't know if that happened.

The trouble is we're now looking at the case with hindsight, knowing the diagnosis so it's a bit backwards. As you say, we don't know who was involved but perhaps earlier involvement of a paediatric radiologist, haematologist and chemical pathologist would have prevented the misdiagnosis. Quite apart from any protection issues, the child has been living with these conditions, presumably untreated, for the last three years, when they should have been picked up earlier.

 

[sight-pin]

Anyone who has known people affected by this knows that often the judicial process is a huge stitch up, and little better than a kangaroo court. Small surprise social services need to hide behind court gagging orders 'to protect the child' in order to conceal their appalling actions and maintain the tyranny. Social services employ clinical psychologists who deliver the reports they need to back up the decision that has already been made that the child must be adopted. Those clinical psychologists who do not deliver what is required will not be rehired by the local authority. If as a parent you do not have the financial resources to hire your own clinical psychologist, you will likely be up against a court system that will rubber stamp the recommendations of social workers who have hired professionals to back up their own prejudice. Many MPs know what is going on, but there is not much they can do about it, short of using parliamentary privelege to try and shame their local authority.

I know some of what your saying to be true, Social workers can be sided with you all the way and then all of a sudden switch because of costings...i know this for fact.

 

[Sara_H]

The trouble is we're now looking at the case with hindsight, knowing the diagnosis so it's a bit backwards. As you say, we don't know who was involved but perhaps earlier involvement of a paediatric radiologist, haematologist and chemical pathologist would have prevented the misdiagnosis. Quite apart from any protection issues, the child has been living with these conditions, presumably untreated, for the last three years, when they should have been picked up earlier.

I suspect they probably were picked up at the time of the initial CP medical. Part of the"evidence" for the family court might have been, did the baby continue to "bruise easily" after going into foster care.