Due to the actions of Social Workers these children and their parents will suffer a lifetime of abuse

That is REAL abuse.

When I am allocated a case I try to be objective and I do undertake my own primary enquiries during assessments. However, by the time I get the case it has already been ‘worked’ in the duty team and so the majority of what I read in the case files is subject to the opinions of the workers who held the case before me (influenced by their prejudices, experience, competence and time limitations). I recognise that this is bound to sway my opinion; I’m human – as are those who were involved in the cases before me.

That said, in preparing my evidence for court my perspective has often been changed by challenges from the people who are directly involved in the case, i.e. parents and family. My opinion has also been changed by challenges from colleagues, through supervision and from the different perspectives of independent (although sometimes not always entirely objective) people brought into the proceedings. Child abuse is not limited to the lower socio-economic strata of society; it’s just that they’re less good at hiding it and defending themselves. That’s why, Rob Knight, I think you’re absolutely right. We should challenge and debate these issues.

I do have some misgivings about the media being allowed into public law proceedings – mostly in relation to the confidentiality of the children involved – but also in relation to staff safety. As CP front-line social workers we have to endure the kind of abuse that no other professional would put up with. If people assault service personnel they simply withdraw services; if people assault health professionals they can refuse to treat; if people assault the police they can arrest; if people assault me I, or one of my colleagues, have to continue to work with the abuser because it is nearly always in the best interests of the child (and media vilification and the threat of litigation? Let’s not even go there! ). I certainly would not want people who have personal or perceived ‘axes to grind’ knowing my name and being able to find out where I live.

However, I think that it has to be a good thing that any professional is challenged (reasonably, through critical debate – not by smashing their cars up, assaulting them or attacking their children!) when they are making proclamations about other people’s lives. I think that if society in general had access to the full facts and perspectives of cases that are heard in the public law arena they would be more likely to give reasonable independent evaluations. And they would be less likely to attack the people who, in the majority, are committed to doing a good job for the most vulnerable people in our society.

This is why, on balance, I think that public law proceedings should be much more open to public scrutiny via the media. Maybe even before cases get to court. Remember ‘Baby P’, anyone? Sorry I forgot, he’s known as ‘Peter’ now. Now that it’s too late.

a) That from time to time through the use of experts financially beholden to the local authority mothers have the Official Solicitor wrongly appointed to prevent them from fighting cases to have their children adopted. That is to be specific that the mothers are not in truth incapable of instructing a solicitor, but the court decides that they are.

b) That when the OS is appointed they from time to time merely concede the case of the local authority without challening it in any way.

It is quite clear from all of the papers and all of the experts and, indeed, from mother herself, that she dearly loves (KP) and would wish to be able to look after her indeed as would any mother but, sadly, a number of professional psychologists and other people have felt that she is unable to do so and would put (KP) at risk and that is through no fault of her own. The Official Solicitor has accepted this conclusion on the mother’s behalf.

Assessments have been done of her family, of her parents, of her brother, (RP), and it is felt that it would not be in the best interests of (KP) to live with them.

The threshold criteria are made out and I take the view that it would be in the best interests of (KP) to be made the subject of a care order and I make that care order.

The care plan is one for adoption. The Local Authority have covered within the care plan, some letterbox contact with (KP) by the mother and help will be given to mother in that regard – but the Official Solicitor, who acts on behalf of mother, has accepted that the placement order will be made because mother is not capable of giving consent to the making of a placement order. As I understand it, prospective adopters have not been identified yet and the Local Authority have, in a sense, asked for a year to see whether they can place (KP) in a suitable placement and if not then, of course, the subject of contact will be under review but I feel, again, it would be in the best interests of (KP) if a placement order is made with a view to adoption and therefore I do dispense with mother’s consent because she is incapable of giving it.

Yes, well, thank you all very much in this, obviously, very difficult case.

The administration of a psychometric test and the issue of capacity are two separate issues, surely (although an adult may be incapacitated due to lack of intelligence).

The central issue seems to concern the mothers ability to safely care for a premature, and disabled child with complex health problems?

The Mental Capacity Act [2005] provides the following guidance.

To determine incapacity you will need to consider whether the person you’re looking after is able to understand the particular issue that they’re making a decision about. You need to consider if they have:
an impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain, and an inability to make decisions.

A person is unable to make a decision if :
[1] they cannot understand the information relevant to the decision,
[2] retain that information,
[3] use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or communicate the decision.

If I have understood you correctly the psychologist advised that the mother lacked capacity to instruct her own solicitor?

But who (if anybody)in the care team or social services determined she lacked competence to mother the child, and on what criteria did she fail (see 3 criteria above)?

The issue about capacity for dealing with the child is more complex and again involves a continuing process.

b) It was part of the proceedings hence the court rules apply.

First of all which individual within the professional network deemed the mother to be sufficiently lacking in capacity to care for a premature baby with complex care needs;
Was it a psychiatrist?
Psychologist?
Social worker?
Paediatrician (bearing in mind a great deal of concern hinged on the medical needs of the child),

Secondly, once Social Services acted on this opinion i.e. that the mother lacked capacity and was hence a danger to her child, was there not scope for advocates to request a second, independent opinion (on the question of capacity) before the case came to court?

As far as the second statement is concerned. Although it was not lawful to obtain a second opinion in the first set of proceedings a report from a Dr Ramakrishna Madina dated 6th December 2008 clearly and incontravertibly rebuts the rulings on competence. The European Court have been sent a copy of that report.

I didn’t try to divert to a US only perspective – if you read back to early comments, there’s a reference to the recent film ‘The Changeling’, which is what I was actually referring to, in addition to the Orkney and Rochdale cases.

What I have done is pointed out, quite correctly, that there are few, if any, similarities between this particular case and any of the others that have been cited by people in comments.

Ultimately, what this all comes down to is evidence and I’m afraid that if you read the Court of Appeal’s ruling in full its perfectly apparent that neither RP nor John Hemming could produce any corroborating evidence to support any of the allegations made during the appeal nor have they been able to provide a second opinion to rebut the rulings on competence.

Look, I admire a lot of what you say and the prodigious effort you put into it. My comment about Muchausens’ was based on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

which states fairly clearly that Roy Meadows came up with the idea. Whether or not it was further developed by others. If that is wrong, then, I too am wrong.

You say you have an interest in analysing the ‘group think’ that surrounded the UK Satanic Abuse cases. So, why did you attempt to divert it to a US only perspective at [33]? That, sir, was an attempt to rubbish an opposing viewpoint, and clearly, if you did know about these cases, as you now claim to do, then it makes you an advocate rather than the seeker after truth I have largely come to respect.

Anyway, it is precisely that ‘group think’ which is at issue here. Whatever you care to say to the contrary, bureaucracies have their own internal dynamic, and it is not always obvious to an outsider that this is in the public interest, rather than in it’s own interests. Off topic a tad, but the Catholic Church was also guilty of a cover up, was it not?

It is difficult for the powerless, such as myself, to do much other than point out the abuses that are made of power by others.

Looking back over your post it is pretty plain that you and John Hemming don’t see eye to eye on this case. My tuppenceworth was to quote the Lou Reed line:

“don’t believe anything you read,
And only half of what you hear.”

Or vice versa, I forget which.

Oh that rings a bit of a bell with me. Representatives from social services have sometimes been drawn into the debate over possession pornography, and some of them are pretty big believers in snuff films on the internet, systematic sex trafficking and mass organised murder of prostituted women within Europe etc..

(which is not to say that there aren’t plenty of very real problems out there, only that some experts and professionals have succumbed to woo).

I don’t profess to be the ‘world’s leading expert’ on Orkney, Cleveland and Rochdale, however I have read the official reports on all three incidents and a far amount of the published post-hoc analysis that followed – all have proved to be of considerable interest to research psychologists working on, for example, the study of cognitive biases and group think.

I should also point out, as a matter of factual accuracy, that it is David Southall who is most closely associated with Munchausen’s by Proxy. Roy Meadow’s field was SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).

Of course, neither is at all relevant to this particular case, which hinges on questions of competence.

If you want to debate the validity of the WAIS test or of psychometric testing, generally, then I’m game – at least we’ll be in the right disciplinary field.

As for there being room for doubt, I’ve already specified the criteria for falsifying the assessment of RP’s competence – a contrary second opinion provided by an appropriately qualified psychiatric professional.

Whatever you do, don’t be blinded by John’s tendentious version of events.

RP has not been ruled competent to litigate. The question of her competence has simply been circumvented by her appearing as a litigant in person, with the support of two McKenzie friend, including John Hemming.

What John hasn’t bothered to explain is that, ordinarily, a McKenzie friend is not permitted to address the court directly – they can speak only to the plaintiff.

However, in this case its evident that John was not only permitted to address the court directly but present a significant portion of RPs case. This is not standard practice but it is something the court will permit if its apparent that the plaintiff is not competent to present their case without that level of assistance.

Agreed. I have never said it was easy . But…

My problem with this analysis of a particular case is that Unity allows no room in his world for any doubt whatsoever about the ‘professionals’. In his world, ‘professionals’ are right. On the basis of the case Unity has made here I have already conceded [31] that, given where we are now, it would be next to impossible to reverse the decision. How we got into this fix in the first place is however moot. You might like to consider Cath Elliots’ points…

Ahem.

For instance, he deliberately attempted to divert your attention away from the scandals that were Orkney and Rochdale, both of which are extremely well documented, by claiming that it was an American problem [33]. It wasn’t and it isn’t. Both cast doubts on the assumptions that ‘experts’ made. When your ‘experts’ are given to woo, what hope is there?

It is stating the obvious, but if your case is strong enough, you don’t need to use diversionary tactics, which is what Unity did. He now returns as the worlds leading expert on Orkney, Cleveland and Rochdale and dismisses them as irrelevant [57].

Well, no, they aren’t. They are part and parcel of a mind set that is irrational. For instance, in it’s meek acceptance of the anal dilation evidence, as you pointed out..

Or, more to the point in this case, a complete failure to look at alternatives to adoption.

There are enough problems with adult – child relationships without clinicians inventing stuff. Münchausen syndrome by proxy, originally identified by a certain Roy Meadow is not now acceptable as evidence in a UK court. I wonder why that is? Could it be that it was based on two case studies?

I suppose someone could write a thousand words that said otherwise.

My point, such as it was and is, is that the general public ought to be firstly informed about what is being done in their name and secondly highly sceptical of neat solutions that just happen to coincide with whatever the ‘professionals’ and the judiciary have decided.

I do not think Unity, or anybody else here disputes just how high the stakes are (whenever child protection proceedings are instigated), or that professionals are infallible, clearly they are not – perhaps we can ALL agree on these two basic premises as our starting point?

One of the cases mentioned by Unity [57], the Cleveland case, is instructive.
I would certainly recommend Beatrix Campbell’s analysis of the difficulties faced by both families and professionals alike.
http://www.beatrixcampbell.co.uk/books/cleveland

For example, one of the defining features of Cleveland was the iconic ‘anal dilatation’ sign – in other words could anal dilatation be demonstrated clinically (especially on preverbal children) after they had been buggered – remember, the anus tends to be the preferred orifice when children are very young (some as young as two, I believe) because in females the vagina is less accommodating.

As mentioned above Marietta Higgs [57], a paediatric consultant staked her reputation on the veracity of the sign, a decision which was to result in her being banned from sexual abuse work – needless to say consequences exist for BOTH camps (families and professionals), ask the social workers sacked after Baby P debacle.

Turning to the case in hand I do not discount the possibility that RP might have managed to care for her child but each family’s needs must be balanced against the many others who also require either statutory or requested social services?
At the very least we must recognise the possibility that if a great deal of money is necessary to sustain care arrangements (for a single family) then there is ALWAYS a risk that someone, somewhere will be disadvantaged because there is less cash (within a finite budget) for their needs – to my mind this a vital and often neglected point.

Of course, as John Hemming has already pointed out this entire case might have been settled (without the present media furore) had a separate and independent professional arrived at the same conclusion regarding the mother’s ‘capacity’.

As I mention at the outset [8] there is an understandable instinct to keep mother and child together whenever this is possible but even relatively junior social workers soon come across cases that turn the stomach – and even if outright abuse is not occurring social workers still a sense of guilt about the many children trapped in families that are offer very little in the way of nurturing, support or life opportunities.

Unless he believes 9/11 was faked using holographic projectors retroengineered from alien technology scavenged from Rosewell he comes accross as relatively sane.

Contrarywise.

I’d also like to point out that errors made elsewhere and under very different circumstances are in no sense evidence of, or even suggestive of, mistakes in this particular case.

What?

IIRC, and I think I do, your lot were wrong about Rochdale child abuse, Orkney child abuse and for all I know, anything else you thought was evil.

In fact, you are:

Cue trumpets:

Not very good

I’m perfectly aware of the events that took place in Orkney, and in Rochdale and Cleveland, none of which are relevant to this particular case, which is well documented and very well evidenced.

It also worth pointing out that it was only in the case of Marietta Higgs, in Cleveland, that professional medical staff were involved in making grievous errors of judgement

IIRC, both the Orkney and Rochdale cases arose in situations in which social workers over reached themselves and their professional abilities without recourse to consultation with appropriately qualified medical and psychiatric professionals.

I’d also like to point out that errors made elsewhere and under very different circumstances are in no sense evidence of, or even suggestive of, mistakes in this particular case.

This will fall off the front page very shortly and your, hmm.., bending of the truth will be forgotten.

It would have been interesting to see you explain your ignorance about Satanic Child Abuse claims in the UK , but there you go.

You are very naivé, or summat…

A hero of this site.

Wholesale condemnation of the way nine Orkney children were removed from their homes two years ago after allegations of ritual sexual abuse was made yesterday in Lord Clyde’s report on the affair. No charges were ever brought.

Although the judge said that his report was ‘not an onslaught on all the agencies involved’ his many criticisms implicate nearly everyone as having made ‘honest mistakes’.

He said its intentions were not recriminations but reform.

The report’s 194 recommendations will now shape a White Paper on child care in Scotland next year. Ian Lang, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said some of the recommendations could be implemented without undue delay while others needed primary legislation or further consideration.

The report said social workers failed to keep an open mind about the allegations of organised abuse, failed to consider alternatives to the children’s removal, failed to assess adequately the risk to the nine and failed to treat them as individuals. Results of medical examinations, which showed no signs of abuse, did not prompt reassessment of the allegations. The skills of those interviewing the children – the police and social workers from the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children – were described as ‘inadequate’ and ‘deficient’; interviewers made ‘inappropriate use of leading questions’.

The report’s overall findings were welcomed by the parents from the four South Ronaldsay families, who say they will sue for compensation for the trauma they claim their families suffered. However, the question of the parents’ guilt or innocence did not form part of Lord Clyde’s remit. But the judge said: ‘There is a principle in Scotland known as the presumption of innocence.’ He would be sorry if that presumption was not ‘so effective as to settle the position so far as anyone is concerned’.

One of the fathers said yesterday: ‘I think it is as clear as it could be that we have been fully vindicated.

‘To discover it is not a whitewash is absolutely brilliant. We expected nothing.’

Unity, there is a lot more about that.

Now here’s a thing. I assume a psychologist like you could work on it.

It is an interesting fact, and relevant to this case that psychologists, psychiatric specialists and others have misdirected themselves. Much as you, rather conviently misdirected us over ‘Satanic Child Abuse’

Your rather cheap comment:

As such, parallels to ‘Satanic Abuse’ panic or to cases which occurred in the US more than half a century ago are not particularly germane on this occasion

is in denial of the cases in the Orkneys and the Midlands where lives were – and I hesitate to say this – fucked up by people like you.

Get a fucking grip.