The Child Minder

Dissected here:

http://fulhamreactionary.blogspot.com/2007/09/fish-in-barrel-candy-from-baby-fisking.html

Here is the beginning of the excellent post.

"The "Dail Mail"? Is that something to do with the Irish parliament? Sorry, it was a cheap shot. But those are often the most satisfying...

The Daily Mail is vile.

That's quite a strong assertion. Why is it vile?

Everybody, apart from its readers, must know that.

Yes, its readers are clearly too stupid to understand. After all, why else would they deny what is obvious to all goodthinkful people?

But the problem is the sheer number of people who do read it – more than the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and Independent put together!

Isn't it terrible that lots of people read a publication we don't like? If only we could do something to stop them!
Still, if it's got all those readers, the Mail must be doing something right, eh?"

Not a very tolerant article.

What lies BTW.

Could Community care confirm if they are about to reveal confidential medical information concerning Ms Lyon's in their magazine?

Could they also confirm they have consent to release confidential medical information?

Could Community Care confirm if they are aware that it is an offence under the GMC's guidelines regarding writing an expert opinion about a patient for the doctor not to have met the person about whom they are writing?

Could Community Care confirm that they understand that a paediatrician cannot diagnose a psychiatric condition, or the potential to have a psychiatric condition?

Could Community Care confirm that that social workers could not approach a paediatrician for an opinion when the baby has yet to be born and that a paediatrician does not have the appropriate expertise to daignose anything in a grown woman?

The track record of social-workers speaks for itself. Kids getting killed constantly because of their supidness and arrogance...etc.
And now their stealing kids to meet teargets to get extra money. They are vermin and scum. But most of all they create misery and allways say `they have the interests of the childen'. If they REALLY cared these social workers would not do the terrible `things' they do!

Like so many in social work and the `policy advisers’ in Whitehall who lead them, Ms Snell prefers to bury her head in the sand and pretend that child protection social work is perfect in its practices and is beyond reproach. This is despite the fact that they have learnt nothing from the multitude of Public Inquiries over the last 40 years, otherwise they would not have repeated the same mistakes and committed new errors. Notably she does not explain why she thinks the media and the public have no right to question and criticise the `professional incompetence’ of social worker and why they need to operate so secretively in Courts and society and to hide their activities from public view.

Providing the matter is not immediately before a Court, then nothing is stopping social workers from responding to concerns regarding individual cases, if the individual concerned has chosen to state their case in the media – individual confidentiality just doesn’t wash – its an excuse for not trying to defend the indefensible.

The media only see a small tip of the iceberg of chaos which social workers in the UK inflict daily on children and families and there can be little doubt that child protection services in the UK are grossly erratic and dysfunctional and are causing immense harm to families everywhere, whilst at the same time ignoring and evading the pain and suffering of children such as Victoria Climbie'.

Nothing short of a complete reform of those services and the associated legal system will bring a competent and respected service to the people of the UK who deserve far better in terms of effectiveness and efficiency from a service which is vastly over-resourced and wasteful. Petulance by people such as Ms Snell for minor criticisms by the media will do nothing to bring about improvements and the first step they must take is to acknowledge and accept that they are often wrong. Only when they can accept the inherent truth of their incompetence can they begin to start on the road to reconciliation with the media and the public. They could start with the 5 million readers of the Daily Mail.

Blimey – I didn’t realise Daily Mail readers were such sensitive souls.
I seem to have upset them by using the word “vile” to describe their newspaper.
Good.
I stand by what I said. I believe the Mail presents a jaundiced view of life in Britain that has a corrosive effect on society by promoting hatred – hatred of asylum seekers, hatred of Islam, hatred of gypsies, hatred of people who claim benefits, hatred of social workers….pretty much anyone who is not a white, middle class property owner with right-wing political views.
I think it twists the facts to fit its own agenda without any consideration for the disharmony it creates - so I don’t think the word vile is that far wide of the mark.
Fulham Reactionary completely misses my point about the large number of people who read the Mail. I wasn’t suggesting they should be stopped from reading it – as a “tolerant liberal” fluffy type I’m hardly likely to do that. What I was saying was that social workers should stop ignoring the Mail’s claims. They need to rebut some of the wilder allegations against the profession. Otherwise some people will really believe that social workers take people’s children into care to meet adoption targets.
And in fact that claim is just a vile lie.

Oh Im sure the Mail creates some disharmony with opinions it propagates. Ive never bought the thing myself.

But governments and social workers furthering liberal policies create a truly mighty load of disharmony all of their own.

Lets try experimenting with not locking up criminals, lets try experimenting with mass immigration, lets base our fostering decisions on political correctness rather than childrens interests etc etc They are all bound to work in the end, after all arent we all nice liberal tolerant types? What could possibly go wrong...

"I stand by what I said."

But I notice you conspicuously failed to answer Penny Mellor's pertinent questions regarding medical confidentiality....

Janet Snell's post in 60 seconds

I'm intolerant of a certain newspaper. I'm a nice tolerant liberal. I hate newspapers talking about the competence and attitude of socail workers. Oh, you know Fran Lyon? She really might be a potential child harmer and nasty piece of work. Don't believe what the Mail says about her. Check back on the 20th to see us make more smears of Fran and tell you some juicy gossip. A big shout out to SWs who want to see our child-snatching practices kept out of the public eye. Apologies to same but it's so important to claim we are not snatching children to meet quotas at all. Despite the fact that we do.

Could Ms Snell confirm or deny that Community Care is about to breach patient confidentiality?

A child snatcher squirms in the spotlight - lovely. Now why don't you get a proper job and stop breaking up innocent families, you lot really are the scum of the earth.

By the way, Ms Snell, not everyone who thinks that there's something seriously wrong with the way the "care" system operates is a Fulham Reactionary or a BNP member, or even reads the Daily Mail. I'm an Independent-reading liberal and I'm DISGUSTED by your smugness, your holier-than-thou certitudes and your refusal to learn from mistakes. Fran Lyon is clearly the victim of bungling, bullying and jumping to conclusions. You are no liberal, Ms Snell. You are the spiritual heir of the Nazis.

Could Ms Snell also perhaps explain why Community Care is waiting until the 20th to publish their article if it is relevant and supportive of Social Service's actions, and particularly as the Daily Mail article reports that Fran Lyon is seeking a judicial review this week, and that might surely prevent publication of any material relating to the case?

I see that Godwin's Law still holds. Thanks for confirming it, squirrel.

the Daily Mail preys on prejudice. We all have prejudice... Ms Snell included I'm sure. But it doesn't mean that Daily Mail readers are a homogenous group of people who all believe everything the paper says. Most people know when their prejudices are being pandered to and deep down do not confuse what they want to believe with truth.

I act as a Mckensie friend to parents who have decided to be self litigant's in court. I have seen with my own eyes and ears how social workers fabricate and lie to cause the Judge to see the parents in the wrong way, they also have a string of psychiatrists who use their OPINIONS of personality types to confirm what the social workers are saying. All this is opinion, many of these parents have NEVER abused their children, but are told they MAY in the future. The experts are paid each up to £27,000 to write a report to convince a Judge who does not even understand the terminology, that these parents are unfit. This is social engineering. Not child protection. This is why I am supporting the national protesting that is going on around the country outside family courts to help parents become aware of their rights and appeal processes, which are not told to them by anyone.

More on the child snatchers

Thank you Adam for pulling me up. Although the Nazis did forceably take children from their parents, the circumstances were different and the analogy is unfair. I apologise. Ms Snell undoubtedly opposes racism, homophobia and similar Nazi enthusiasms. However, belief in the superior moral status of the state over the individual is totalitarian, and does appear to lie behind the kind of thinking exemplified by the Snells of this world. It's also anti-human.

If I was hysterical it may have been because I was annoyed at seeing the previous post signed "BNP member". Oh God, I thought, that'll cheer up the Snell tendency. Daily Mail readers, BNP people, supporters of David Icke: all these nutters are against us, we must be virtuous and right. But we're not all nutters, we're not all moaning about "political correctness gone mad" over our cornflakes. For what it's worth, I think some of the output of the Daily Mail is vile: the way they're constantly sneering at celebrities with eating disorders, for example, and then running articles about dieting.

But that doesn't mean they're not ever right. Snell and her ilk live inside a little bubble of self-satisfaction that renders them psychologically invulnerable to criticism. If they showed a little more humility they might find themselves less hated.

"If I was hysterical it may have been because I was annoyed at seeing the previous post signed "BNP member"."

Good grief, so what...? It's a political party, not an outlawed group!

I might not vote for them, or agree with them, but that doesn't mean I have a fit of the vapours on seeing the name, or immediately discount whatever point the person so-monikered might say.

Could Ms Snell confirm or deny that Community Care is about to breach patient confidentiality?

Ms Snell will do neither, but I fully expect she will proceed to break confidentiality in order to win by smearing Fran Lyon. There's nothing more important than breaking those who oppose you, no matter what rules you have to break or how much wrong you have to do. After all, Ms Snell and her corrupt, vengeful chums will likely get away with it scot free, so why worry about consequences? There won't be any! They'll be protected!

Isn't that right, Janet?

Please could Community Care quantify under what legislation they will be revealing personal details about Ms Lyon's psychiatric background without her prior consent to do so?

Of more concern is the fact that Ms Lyon has not blamed social services for her predicament and has stated publicly that she is happy to work with them, her criticism was of the paediatrician who had never met her and who has no expertise in psychiatry.

For the benefit of all readers, I do not hold any grudge, nor do I indulge in any vendetta against Social Workers. I have serious concerns about how the system operates and the failure of all governments to financially support and properly train those that undertake this type of work and am firmly of the belief that the current problems are not down to individuals but down to a systems failure.

Are community care really telling us that they have encouraged "professionals" to leak confidential medical information and that they are actually preparing to publish it? Are they telling us they will protect these "professionals" from the gmc and the general council of social workers? I sincerely hope that the real, honest and decent professionals who read this newspaper will insist on action being taken against those who are smearing their profession in this way.

Are they telling us that they feel so threatend by Fran Lyon that they feel it necessary to smear her and publish potentially libellous material in a bid to make their case?

I had thought community care were a publication for professionals instead of which it appears they are prepared to sink lower than the News of the World in their bid for the truth.

Fran is asking for a chance, an opportunity to properly mother her baby even if the SS feel that she needs monitoring to do it. It is time to move away from crystal ball reading and start dealing with the real situation.

The Law as handed down in the ECHR note the word DRACONIAN

23] TP & KM v UK (Application no. 28945/95 - judgment 10 May 2001) concerned the removal of a child from its mother into care. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 8 in that the mother was not provided with a proper, fair or adequate opportunity to participate in the decision-making process following the removal of her child. In P. C. and S. v. UK (Application no. 56547/00 - judgment 16th July 2002), the ECtHR concluded that the draconian step of removing a child from her mother shortly after birth was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that it could not be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of safeguarding S. There had therefore been, in that respect, a breach of the applicant parents' rights under Article 8.

Fran Lyon

I thought there could be nothing more terrifying than your first pregnancy. No matter if the baby is planned or not. As a mother of eight children and having had seven pregancies (one being twins), I remember all too well how nervous I was, watching what I ate, what I drank, etc holding my breath whilst midwives checked the heartbeat of every unborn child, straining to look for anything that could be wrong when I was being scanned, even when in labour, having been told that your baby's fine, you still have feelings of dread and questions of what if .... it isn't until that baby is safely in our arms, all fingers and toes accounted for, all the initial checks done that you finally begin to relax.

How wrong I was, it was 8 years ago when I first got involved in a case in which a baby had been snatched at birth, not because of any abuse, not because mother had done anything wrong, snatched on an assumption that mother may, yes may harm the baby, because she may have MSbP. This was when the world of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy became Alice in Wonderland.

The case is a precedent, it is the case of P C & S, these parents went onto win in Europe, they won the right for other parents not to be subjected to the same thing, according to the European Courts of Human Rights, this family's rights were violated in the most draconian manner, they were punished for a crime that had not even taken place, the sentence, that of life, life without ever seeing their child grow up. A life of wondering how that child was fairing, what she looks like, what her favourite food is, what her favourite toys were, a life without ever being able to kiss their child goodnight, read them a story, watch the wonderment on their child's face as she saw her first real elephant or paddled in the sea. All of this of course took years and during the years of fighting, not for themselves, but for others we lost more babies at birth who were then adopted out. It got to the point where I would no longer attend appeals with the parents, I felt like I was failing them, however the emotional impact of watching family after family destroyed was becoming more and more unbearable, if that's how it made me feel, as the bystander, I can't invisage what it must have been like for the parents.

The most terrifying thing in the world is being pregnant with your first child and having the state hovering over you like vultures, just waiting to take that precious life from you as soon as it is born. The effect of the stress this creates for mother and child is yet to be studied, it most certainly isn't in the best interests of the unborn baby is it?

What was the point of P C & S? Nothing changed, not really, their case is quoted by the lawyers representing parents who may harm their child once it's born, the local authorities just change the goal posts and even if the mother is cleared of having any mental health problems or of being a threat, it's taken so long everyone turns around and says that it's too late, your baby has been placed for adoption and it's in the baby's best interest to leave it there.

Sorry in their bid for the truth should of course have read in their bid for the "truth".

The truth of Fran's mothering abilities will only emerge if Fran is given a chance to use them. Why is she being accussed of a crime that has not even been committed?

Disgusting: I cannot see how the way this woman is being treated is defensible. She hasn't even had the child yet, and social-workers are planning on taking it away. She has offered to be placed in a mother and baby unit, so she can be observed - tell me where the problem in that is?

Also, some points worth repeating:

MSbP is NOT a proven illness

Paediatricians aren't psychiatrists

It's MORALLY WRONG to take a child from it's mother

If a mother harms her child, it's sad, but we can't go stealing people's children because there's a chance that she might, we all might. Life is hard and the mind fragile.

I, like most people, don't care about Fran Lyon's/Holton's past, she's still entitled to a future, even if she has issues (or reads the daily mail).

Never forget Cleveland. lest social-work is allowed to become child-abuse.

From what I've learned about Fran, she's far too naively trusting of the good nature and innate decency of others. I think her biggest mistake may have been that she agreed to be monitored in a residential unit. She probably thought that seemed like a reasonable compromise; but I suspect the "care team" took it as an admission that she had something to prove. Why should she submit to such monitoring? Shouldn't it be up to the SWs to demonstrate that they have a case?

What a shoddy excuse for journalist you are Janet Snell - smearing, threatening and blackmailing a pregnant 22 year old.
Does it make you feel good to take a victim and try to destroy her?
Why shouldn't she try to defend her unborn child? Do you think that no mother should have that right? She should just meekly hand over her own baby to you and your cronies? I recoil in disgust from every word of your smug, cruel and wicked blog.

Let me make this clear it was the paediatrician who invoked fear in the social workers.

What are social workers supposed to do when told that a woman is such a danger to all children that she must not be left alone with any of them.

What the social services department need to do is take a step back and think and then appoint the right kind of "experts" - psychiatrists only then will they have the full picture.

Ms Snell please can you answer my questions, if not on this blog, via e-mail.

I think that anyone who is expecting a sensible reply from Ms Snell will have a long time to wait. I do have a question for her though. Why single out the Mail? You mentioned two other papers in your original diatribe, The Express and the Times, both of these publications have also run stories concerning adoption targets, the unnecessary secrecy of the family courts and the incompetence of (hopefully) a small number of social workers. I suspect that, like so many other respondents to this article, I will have a long wait for a sensible response...

It is interesting however to note that Social Services in the Lyon case disregarded evidence in favour of Miss Lyon, from psychiatrists who are actually qualified to do this, in favour of a report from someone who is not qualified to make such a diagnosis and had never met Miss Lyon. Such incompetance and blatent disregard of the facts can only fuel the Adoption targets row. Their decision was not in the bests interests of the child so one has to wonder exactly what their motives are. Public Service agreements anyone?

It appears from her last comment that Penny Mellor has seen the full report from Dr Ward Platt, rather than the short quote that has been reported in the press. One would assume Dr Platt's report was a confidential report that should not be in Ms Mellor's hands? Nor indeed in the hands of the Daily Mail, Telegraph or any other newspaper. It does occur to one that Ms Lyon is in the lucky position of being able to say what she wants to the press without fear of being contradicted by Social Services who will maintain her confidentiality.

Perhaps between Ms Snell (and her article on the 20th) and Ms Mellor, we may get a better idea of what their concerns are to prompt such a drastic course of action?

I feel it's worth pointing out three things:

1. People are making some rather hysterical assumptions about an article that hasn't been published yet
2. Community Care is far from unquestionably supportive of the social work industry. More than once it has exposed wrong doing within the industry.
3. Despite accusations of "intolerance", have you noticed how your often hostile and critical comments are still here on the site?

I also think it is worth pointing out one or two things also, in the article posted by Ms Snell she says `` how key facts about her psychiatric history were omitted``.

The question then needs to be asked, how exactly does Ms Snell know key facts were omitted unless she is in possesion of all the facts, which clearly she is not, so therefore the `hysterical assumptions` description is hardly appropriate. What is actually being suggested is that the opinion of Ms Snell will be presented as fact and the people reading this blog and subsequent articles will be misled.

As for this statement ``It does occur to one that Ms Lyon is in the lucky position of being able to say what she wants to the press without fear of being contradicted by Social Services who will maintain her confidentiality ``.

Yes she is and other parents will follow suit, and exactly why shouldn`t she given the circumstances? She is fighting for her unborn baby and a chance to prove she can be a good mother, not a place in a Tescos queue.

Every mothers duty is to protect her child.

That is what Fran is trying to do.

Try taking a cub from a lioness and see what happens.

This has nothing to do with child protection and everything to do with social engineering.

It is the inside belief that the mother has sinned. I bet you forgot that bit.

Oh yes, it is conditioned thinking.

So the foster carers and adopters are free in their minds to be host families and their consciences free from guilt.

People are being neuro linguistically programmed and are ignorant of it all.

The church has been replaced by the moralist social workers who believe they are doing right.

A nice surprise awaits them soon though.

KARMA- It always returns the pain to its creator.!!!!!!

"Dr Platt's report was a confidential report that should not be in Ms Mellor's hands?"

It is not in "my hands" as you so call it, there are as yet no proceedings under way, it is well known that I was and am associated with Angela Cannings and her case.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1.html&query=cannings&method=boolean

149. In fairness to Dr Ward Platt, we must record his opinion was that the history of this family provided "strong grounds for considering that they (the deaths and the ALTEs) may all be the direct result of imposed airway obstruction by their mother" (our emphasis). In his written statement before us, Dr Ward Platt pointed out that he had alluded to literature published by the date of trial which suggested that about half of the "recurrent SIDS" appeared to be accounted for by unnatural death. He relied in particular on the combined results of papers published by A.J. Waite, Repeat Cot Deaths in Families Enrolled Onto A Support Programme, published in 1996, and the study by Wolkind and others, to which reference has already been made, Recurrence of Unexpected Infant Death. This leads him to the conclusion that once there is more than one cot death in the family there is "a strong possibility that the cause may not be natural".

Ms Lyon was within her rights to approach me and inform me as to his involvement, there is no court related confidentiality at this stage of the proceedings, I have not quoted verbatim what Dr Ward Platt said, I have given my interpretation of what he said.

The Southall judgement is linked below.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/story/0,,1277911,00.html

Dr Gwen Adshead and Dr Christpher Bass (eminent psychaitrists and specialists in the field of FII) published research into this very area in May 2007. I suggest readers of this blog do their research in the same manner as I do before jumping to conclusions, you will have to purchase the full article, if bloggers are really intent on understanding this problem I am sure they won't mind forking out a few quid, just as I do when I seek the truth.

http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/169

Tallulah Milliat makes a pertinent point. Ms Snell cannot be in possession of all the facts. But she appears to be claiming she is in possession of more (or different) facts tham we currently have in this case. Neither is Ms Milliat in possession of all the facts. However, I cannot see a problem with Ms Snell presenting what she believes to fact, or that it will be necessarily be anymore misleading than what Ms Lyon is reporting to be fact. There is, after all, very little in this case that has been independently verified as 'fact'.

Other correspondents are incorrect to say it is always morally wrong to take a child from it's mother. It is not, IF (and only IF) that child is at risk of harm of any sort. The child's rights outweigh that of the parent's right.

Unpalatable as it may be, parents DO on rare occassion harm their children. And we will be the first to accuse social services of neglecting there duty if that happens.

There is no evidence yet in the public arena that Ms Lyon will harm her child or even reason to suspect that she will. Ms Snell seems to suggest that she has evidence to the contrary, or at least evidence that would generate concern. Social Services, one assumes, believe they have such evidence to have recommended such extreme action.

Without any evidence in the public domain, one way or the other, we are all free to jump on to whichever bandwagon suits our persuasions, or our own emotional state. And perhaps that says more about us, our assumptions, and the use of the media, than is does about this case.

Other correspondents are incorrect to say it is always morally wrong to take a child from it's mother.

Point me to where these other commentators have said this please, as I must have missed it. What commentators have said is that SWs snatching children is usually morally wrong because it's done not because the child is at risk (indeed, when the child is at risk, they're usually left in that dangerous situation), it's done to meet adoption targets - and it's also done in cases where the parents being assessed challenge the SWs about why they are there.

I've read a story entered into the comments of another blog where SWs visited a couple, the father asked them about whether they were threatening to steal their baby, for that the SWs decided to do so and told the father, 'Your baby's ours'.

Not because the baby was at risk, ot even because they had targets to keep, but because the had the power to do so, that power had been questioned by one of their victims, so they were going to show him. The baby was duly stolen.

SWs, as evidenced by the above example and also by Janet's very post, are on the whole nasty, vindictive, petty-minded and spiteful people who enjoy ruining other people's lives with the utmost cruelty. They have no capacity whatsoever for compassion, empathy, or good judgement.

Actually, they're not, Kusabi. Almost all social workers are, in their private lives, decent, kind-hearted and deeply compassionate people who believe they are doing good and protecting the vulnerable. That's the tragedy. The training to which they have been subjected is actually a form of brainwashing that replaces their normal instincts in favour of process and various dogmas. Also, many of the people they deal with in their professional lives really are bad parents. This warps many of their brains into cynicism. They see harm where none exists. But they fail to intervene when they should because of the same obsession with process and dogma: viz the case of the gay adoptors who turned out to be paedophiles.

Richard Dawkins has said that "for good people to do evil, you need religion". He's wrong; you just need dogma, professional assumptions or moral certitude. SWs have all three in abundance.

I think social workers are in a very difficult position. They face criticism when they are too quick to take children into care and also when they are not quick enough and children are harmed. Sometimes they just can't win. Everyone makes mistakes but there are few jobs where the consequences are so dire. It's not a job I would want to do, I have to admit.

I assume Community Care is waiting until the 20th because that is when their next issue is out. Having read the magazine a couple of times previously it is hardly sensationalist and I imagine their approach will be to look at how the media covered the case rather than criticise any individual.

Also worth pointing out that Janet is not a social worker but a journalist.

Thanks for sharing the stereotypical way SWs would like to think of themselves, squirrel, but unfortunately you cannot square that with the sort of person who decides to steal a baby away from their parents and tells them, 'Your baby's ours'. That's downright wicked, and someone who genuinely was decent and kind-hearted would never contemplate doing such a thing. Whereas for a SW it's as natural as breathing.

I think since that little example doesn't accord with your pleasant little fantasy, you would prefer to ignore it, yes?

The Kusabi @ 6:13AM - and you *believe* that story?

Let's be clear here.

It's possible that social workers are being overzealous about the potential of certain mothers to harm their children. It's also possible that they've learnt from previous scandals where children have been left with mothers who have gone on to seriously harm them despite indications that they might have the potential to do so, and that they're rather better qualified to judge this than a random rabble on a blog.

But leave that aside...

If there were any evidence at all that social workers were actually taking kids into care for taking the mickey out of them, or for no reason at all to meet targets, rather than out of misguided concern that the parents will turn out to be bad for the children, would those cases not be splashed across the front page of every newspaper known to man for all eternity?

Kusabi, what the hell do you think social workers do with babies that are adopted?

Do they a) try to find loving homes for them among infertile couples who are well-suited towards raising a child; b) train them into a grotesque slave army?

Because from the nature of your posts, it sounds like you believe the latter...

Hey, Mr Band, are you getting agitated over child snatchers being criticized for stealing children just 'cos they can?

Because from the nature of your post, it sounds like you are....

The reason Fran has offered to go into an assessment center, is because in a Family Court you are guilty until proven innocent, the problem with this is that you are not allowed to call on your own witnesses, they are picked by the Local Authority, there is no independence. You are not allowed any family members into court with you, you are banned (gagged) from talking about whats happening to you. You are threatened with prison if you dare to tell anyone. Once the family court proceedings take place no one will know whats happening to Fran. She may even land up in jail and you wouldn't know as no one is allowed to publicize anything. I have witnessed some terrible errors happening in the family courts but I am bound by the secrecy to not tell anyone, this is why I am protesting and informing parents of their rights, to hopefully help the next set of parents going into court that they do have rights to appeal. For instance in court the parents are even allowed into see the Judge's they sit at tables outside the court room and await the decision, agreed by counsel, If the parents object to the decision, the Judge just says the parents are being "unreasonable" and take the parental rights away regardless and free the children for Adoption, that is why we are fighting FORCED ADOPTION, it is a myth that children are GIVEN UP for adoption, they are not they are forced into adoption, this has to stop. Fran when she has her baby will be alone in court, being humiliated about her past, degraded as a human being, she will cry and plead but the Judge will just wave his/her hands in a dismissive manor, not even look at her when she is talking, say "I've heard enough from you sit down" this is what its like inside a family court hearing, this is why they wont allow the public access as the public would be horrified.

"Kusabi, what the hell do you think social workers do with babies that are adopted?

Do they a) try to find loving homes for them among infertile couples who are well-suited towards raising a child; b) train them into a grotesque slave army?"

Well, sometimes it's c) hand them over to abusive foster parents - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/08/do0804.xml

"If there were any evidence at all...would those cases not be splashed across the front page of every newspaper known to man for all eternity?"

Not if decided in the Family Court, as I'm sure you well know...

What a load of dogmatic right-wing guff these comments are. The scorn for SWs seems divided between SWs who don't intervene and are deemed incompetent (Climbie) and those that do and are therefore the epitome of evil(Lyon). The chances of sensible debate about this seem a million miles away.

Ok, here's a sensible conclusion for you. You should be able to fit it on the back of your name tag if you write small so you never forget it;

"Take kids away if they are being abused (Climbie) don't take kids away if they aren't (lyon) And never, ever cover up for designated victims groups even if the liberal-industrial complex has been set to whinecon one in defence of them (Climbie) (Faunch)"

What's disagreeable there - what's to debate?

Oh good grief Daniel, such a sweeping generalisation and ill-conceived notion of what exactly it is that remains the issue here.
Victoria Climbie was failed by lack of information sharing between agencies. Fran Lyon, on the other hand has been condemned on the basis of a report from a Paediatrician who would not know who she was if he met her in the street, whilst Social Services have blatantly ignored psychiatric reports in her favour.The two are not even on the same scale. It is an insult to Victoria Climbies` memory that every time our wonderful faultless Social Services Departments make a mistake that she is used as a poster child to justify their actions.Sickening in fact.

You are correct however in stating that a sensible debate is a million miles away, but that is because one side of the debate refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong.

Gwen Adshead and Christopher Bass - having a personality disorder does not mean that you will abuse your child by proxy - ergo on what basis did the paediatrician make his original statements? And on what legal and scientific basis are the local authority acting?

"This point is of particular relevance in cases of fabrication or induction of illness in children. At least one study found high rates of borderline personality disorder in fabricators (Bools et a|,1994). However,
it would be misleading to suggest that borderline personality disorder causes ihe behaviour, since so many mothers with borderline personality disorder
do not abuse their children in this way."

I would strongly urge all social workers and bloggers to read the following link, the world's leading experts in FII/MSbP and people qualified to make such diagnosises are very very concerned about the use of this label and false allegations. In particular they are concerned about paediatricians abusing their position in falsely accusing mothers.

http://astralgia.com/magazine/munch5.pdf

No comments I see, well there's a surprise, when confronted with evidence that shows what is happening to Fran Lyon is not just immoral, but cannot be supported legally, academically or scientifically.

Of course the likes of Dr Marc Feldman, Loren Pankratz and Eric Mart cannot possibly be right can they, given their expertise in this field.

Not to mention Drs Adshead and Bass and their research.

If social workers are going to work specifically in the field of MSbP/FII and journalists are going to report on it, may I suggest that some research into this area is required before jumping to conclusions about what can and can't be done in "the best interests of the child".

Perhaps Community Care Magazine would like to obtain permissions to replicate the Psychology Today article, or even better interview the people who contributed, afterall they are deemed to be the foremost experts in the world with regard to MSbP/FII.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't buy the Daily Mail.

Just for those people who still like to delude themselves (and others) That neither adoption targets or the accompanying cash incentives exist, please read the following.

Straw rethinks councils' cash for adoption targets
By LAURA COLLINS - More by this author »

Last updated at 23:11pm on 15th September 2007

Comments

Jack Straw is to review the Government's controversial policy of offering councils cash rewards to meet adoption targets.
Critics claim the nationwide system, introduced seven years ago by Tony Blair, provides a 'perverse financial incentive' to remove children from their birth parents.

Now the Justice Secretary has said he will rethink the Government's position following a meeting with Norman Lamb.

Mr Lamb, the Lib Dem MP for Norfolk North, wants social workers to keep more detailed records when they meet families whose children may be put up for adoption.

He has also expressed his concern that the secrecy which surrounds proceedings in the family courts may work to parents' disadvantage.

Janet

I completely agree with you. Well said. As for John Hemming MP, I have yet to see any of his assertions based in evidence. I am still awaiting his responses to the scientific questions raised with him sometime ago.

Emily Cox states the following "It's MORALLY WRONG to take a child from it's mother"

1. I believe that if an assessment is done by an experienced social worker and a team and if the child is at risk, the child should be removed from its mother.
2. It is true that in some instances the system may get it wrong. In most cases, they do get it right.
3.
4. The manner that msbp.com and cohorts work is that they use the media to "advertise" their innocence. Simply because the Daily Mail states they an injustice has been done, does not necessarily mean it is so. As Janet points out, there is always two sides to one story.

As for John Hemming MP, I am surprised anyone votes for this man. He is reckless in scientific matters and no doubt this behaviour will have spilled over into the attacking social workers.

As for medical confidentiality - both Mellor and Hemming know very little about the real meaning. Possibly because they never take the time to read the guidance.

This website does a great job. Well done to all of you. I support you wholeheartedly Janet. Well done.

Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com

Message for Fran Lyon

1. There has been talk of medical documentation etc. There have been a number of people who have threatened Janet on a few issues. I would therefore be grateful if you would seek copies of your reports, scan them inand publish them.Let us make our own mind's up.

2. I would quite like to see all the medical reports/social services records in your case. While no one else can publish them, you can.

3. You state the following on your website
"the chance to prove myself, the chance for change, the chance for the facts to be presented, the chance for calm and reasoned discussion". I would therefore like to see the facts. I don't mean newspaper articles or the material propagated by Mellor or Hemming MP but the real facts. Please therefore will you scan and publish all the documentation you have.

5. Your website has http://www.wardrobehudson.co.uk/askingforachance/Home.html. Again this website has a series of media sensationalised articles and no actual evidence.

6. You joined msbp.com on the 22 Aug 2007 and by the 6th September 2007,the media featured the story.

7. I am of the view that while your story may have merit, at present I see no concrete scientific evidence. Moreover, while you have an interesting cause, the company you keep is less than impressive. One is the support of an MP who is a serial philanderer and the other is a ex prisoner Ms Penny Mellor. Does this tell us something about your choice of people?

8. The Telegraph quotes the case " pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way". You state "He is not a psychiatrist and cannot possibly make assertions about my current or future mental health". Many parents who do emotionally abuse their children do not have mental health problems so why is the psychiatrist point relevant?

9. I would quite like to see the following placed online so we as scientists can make up our minds independently.
a. The subsequent psychiatric opinions
b. The paediatrician's letter
c. The full medical notes
d. The full social services notes ie the reasoning as to why such a decision was taken.
e. Any decisions made by Social Services.

I am sure you will have all the above documentation for the public's view. Quite frankly simply because you say you will be a good mother does not mean I should believe you. Infact, nothing in the media currently suggests to me that you are right. Had you campaigned on your own, I would have had a little more faith but the company you keep and their credibility means we would all need to see the evidence from your file.

I though wish you all the best in the future. I apologise for not being a walkover and as guillable as the rest of the public. Those on our website show us the papers and the evidence. We never believe a person's word just for the sake of it. The public should never be led by the nose by an serial philandering MP and his side kick ex prisoner colleague.

Dr Rita Pal
www.nhsexposed.com
www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com

Fine comments Rita, however, they would be far more credible coming from a person who is still actively working in her field of expertise, rather than an unemployed and disgraced person such as yourself. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will see through your bile filled personal attacks and see you for the spiteful, sad little woman you are. Along with Professor Meadows, you are a disgrace to your profession, so please go and peddle your comm