• Welcome! It’s great to see you.

    Our forum members are people, maybe like yourself, who experience mental health difficulties or who have had them at some point in their life.

    We are an actively moderated forum. We work hard to keep the forum safe.

    To access many more features and forums please register now

County Council Takes Child Away

W

Windblows

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
141
"Lawyers acting for a teenage mother from Nottingham whose new baby son was taken from her by social workers are taking her case to the Court of Appeal.

The baby boy, named only as G, was separated from his 18-year-old mother only a few hours after he was born at a Nottingham hospital in the early hours of last Wednesday.

An emergency ruling at the High Court then decided the child had been taken unlawfully because no court order was sought to take him away.


The baby was then returned, but was again removed and placed in foster care after a judge at Nottingham County Court granted the city council an interim order.

Now it has emerged two appeal judges, both experts in family law ,will be asked to hear an immediate appeal on Thursday.

At the county court, District Judge Richard Inglis said there could be "frequent" contact between mother and son, but a final decision would have to wait until later in the year." Nottingham evening Post 7/02/08

The mother is to appeal.
 
S

Surviving Butterfly

Member
Founding Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
8
I am absolutely disgusted about this.

i have to say that as a daughter of 2 social workers, i know what pressure they are under - but there are so many more ways they could have protected that baby - without withdrawing it from it's mother straight away.

I am disgusted by it -not least by the suggestion that anyone with past mental health issues can't be trusted ever - she may have recovered with the responsibilty of motherhood... who knows - she won't as they didnt give her chance to find out..... and put them both through massive trauma.
 
W

Windblows

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
141
Hi Surviving Butterfly:grouphug:

Yes it is disgusting what is done in such cases as this - which is just one of far too many. The government sets adoption targets which send the social workers into the wrong mode - overlooking the joined up needs of a baby and mother like this.

Have you looked up fassit?

http://www.fassit.co.uk/

Might be best not to show this to your parents unless they are still able to think for themselves and have aquired or can attain a humanistic insight.

Hope you are OK. :flowers:
 
W

Windblows

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
141
Baby K mother G

In Mondays local post it was reported that the mother has 3 hours contact with her baby 5 days a week whilst the proceedings continue.

This is not good.

The ability of mother and baby to form a healthy bond between themselves is being grossly undermined.

It would be bettter for the mother to be given 24 hour support if they are so concerned that there may be a danger - until they have assertained any truth of it. The support given should be of an empowering sort, not someone just hanging over her trying to find fault.

There are recognised forms of good practice and paternal strengths that seem to be getting overlooked - I do hope that this is not so.
 
E

ems

Active member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
40
Location
plymouth
council take away baby

"Lawyers acting for a teenage mother from Nottingham whose new baby son was taken from her by social workers are taking her case to the Court of Appeal.

The baby boy, named only as G, was separated from his 18-year-old mother only a few hours after he was born at a Nottingham hospital in the early hours of last Wednesday.

An emergency ruling at the High Court then decided the child had been taken unlawfully because no court order was sought to take him away.


The baby was then returned, but was again removed and placed in foster care after a judge at Nottingham County Court granted the city council an interim order.

Now it has emerged two appeal judges, both experts in family law ,will be asked to hear an immediate appeal on Thursday.

At the county court, District Judge Richard Inglis said there could be "frequent" contact between mother and son, but a final decision would have to wait until later in the year." Nottingham evening Post 7/02/08

The mother is to appeal.
I JUST THINK THIS WHOLE SCENARIO IS SAD. NOBODY CAN GIVE THIS LADY BACK THESE PRECIOUS DAYS SHE SHOULD HAVE HAD WITH HER BABY.
SURELY THEY COULD HAVE ALLOWED HER TO TAKE HER BABY HOME AND OVERSEEN HER CARE TO MAKE SURE SHE IS OK. I FEEL INCREDIBLY SAD FOR THIS GIRL AND ANY OTHER WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD THIS SORT OF THING HAPPEN TO THEM.
IT IS HEARTLESS
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
2,364
Location
East Lancs
I told myself not to post on contentious issues again but I feel I must speak up for the authorities.

As an ex magistrate, I found that the press never, even when they could, advise there readership of both sides of the story, which in turn left the authorities seemingly in a very bad light.
I do not know the ins and outs of the case, and no doubt there will be many, nor can I condone the actions of either side without access to ALL the facts. Since then this is the case I offer my cautionary sympathies to both sides and hope/trust that an amicable ending in the interests of the child will come through.

One other thing is the damned if they do and damned if they don't way the media come across in many situations has lead me to have a deep misstrust of them, and as such no longer buy so called 'newspapers'

Comment please on all issues but always ask yourself have I been told everything! Another good reason why my radio goes off at 12 noon when Jeremy Vine comes on!

Michael
 
E

ems

Active member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
40
Location
plymouth
I told myself not to post on contentious issues again but I feel I must speak up for the authorities.

As an ex magistrate, I found that the press never, even when they could, advise there readership of both sides of the story, which in turn left the authorities seemingly in a very bad light.
I do not know the ins and outs of the case, and no doubt there will be many, nor can I condone the actions of either side without access to ALL the facts. Since then this is the case I offer my cautionary sympathies to both sides and hope/trust that an amicable ending in the interests of the child will come through.

One other thing is the damned if they do and damned if they don't way the media come across in many situations has lead me to have a deep misstrust

Comment please on all issues but always ask yourself have I been told everything! Another good reason why my radio goes off at 12 noon when Jeremy Vine comes on!

Michael

I DONT READ NEWSPAPERS AND I TAKE A LOT OF WHAT I HEAR WITH A PINCH OF SALT. MUCH OF WHAT IS PASSED TO US AS NEWS IS RUBBISH. TAKE THE BBC. HAVE YOU EVER WATCHED THEIR MORNING NEWS PROGRAM. WHAT IS PASSED AS NEWS IS THE NEWS PRESENTERS PUSHING THEMSELVES AND THEIR COLLEAGUES AS CELEBS. HAVE NOTHING TO SAY - AND WHAT THEY DO SAY IS TOTALLY BORING.:sleep: SOME TIMES ITS ISNT EVEN WORTH PUTTING THE NEWS ON TO HEAR WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
I WAS RESPONDING TO THE STORY OF THE CHILD BEING TAKEN AWAY BY SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE VIEW OF A WOMAN WITH CHILDREN, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE WELL GROWN.
THERE IS NOTHING QUITE LIKE THE LOVE OF A MOTHER. THE BOND BETWEEN MOTHER AND BABY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY VITAL IN THE EARLY DAYS OF DELIVERY.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A REASON FOR THE BABY TO BE TAKEN AWAY - BUT SURELY THIS GIRL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO TAKE CARE OF HER BABY INSTEAD OF JUST WHISKING THE BABY AWAY INTO CARE. THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE BABY TO BE IN CARE SO WHY NOT SPEND THE MONEY ON HELPING THE GIRL AND KEEPING HER BABY WITH HER. IF IT DOESNT WORK OUT THEN PUT THE BABY/CHILD INTO CARE.
AFTER ALL WHO DIED AND MADE SOCIAL SERVICES GOD?:(:cry::scared:
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
2,364
Location
East Lancs
I totally agree, honestly!

All I was trying to say is that I wished I got the other side of the story as well, then I could make my own mind up instead of sensational headlines telling me what to think!

The only person who really ever gets hurt is the child an my thoughts until I know any better remain there.

Michael

ps
it is hard to get the mood of the writer, please note that I am writing this in a conversational way and just expressing my thoughts, all of which I am prepared to modify with more information.
I do not decry anyone in any shape or form, I hope you read this in this light
Michael
 
E

ems

Active member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
40
Location
plymouth
I totally agree, honestly!

All I was trying to say is that I wished I got the other side of the story as well, then I could make my own mind up instead of sensational headlines telling me what to think!

The only person who really ever gets hurt is the child an my thoughts until I know any better remain there.

Michael

ps
it is hard to get the mood of the writer, please note that I am writing this in a conversational way and just expressing my thoughts, all of which I am prepared to modify with more information.
I do not decry anyone in any shape or form, I hope you read this in this light
Michael
I TOTALLY AGREE - THE BABY/CHILD IS THE ONE WHO WILL HOPEFULLY GROW UP. THEN HE/SHE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER LIFE HAS THROWN AT IT. WHICH CAN BE A WHOLE OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S BAGGAGE.
 
W

Windblows

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
141
other side?

Although this thread was introduced with an article from the local newspaper it is a 'topic' that I, sadly, know more about than most.

By 'topic' I do not mean this particular case but the general. However what is unusual here is that the media are being allowed to report anything about the goings on at all.

Personnally I do not think the post has been one sided. They are reporting what is known from whoever has been put in a position to provide information. Social workers often have heavy restriction put on them about what they can do or say publically. Nothing has really be heard directly from the mother herself.

It must be really terrible for her to be put under such a spotlight but I do not know what sort of character she has. I hope it is a strong one. Much personal information has been printed about her possibly without her consent. I do not know. She would probably like to have more say about what is written and to give her side herself. Even though her identity is concealled the truth remains truth whatever that may be.

We should not judge her on what we are allowed to know from whatever source.

Just imagine if you were that baby in 20 years time and you were suddenly made aware of your mothers true identity, you might seek her out and meet her - and the only thing you found to dislike about her was the sadness in her eyes. Who could you blame for that?

Anyway there are many parents in Nottingham in other situations that have separated them from their children. It is an isolating experience which is why the self help group PATCH was formed. The next meeting is on 5th March'08 and if you want to know more details about this contact me privately, please.
 
Last edited:
E

ems

Active member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
40
Location
plymouth
baby taken

In Mondays local post it was reported that the mother has 3 hours contact with her baby 5 days a week whilst the proceedings continue.

This is not good.

The ability of mother and baby to form a healthy bond between themselves is being grossly undermined.

It would be bettter for the mother to be given 24 hour support if they are so concerned that there may be a danger - until they have assertained any truth of it. The support given should be of an empowering sort, not someone just hanging over her trying to find fault.

There are recognised forms of good practice and paternal strengths that seem to be getting overlooked - I do hope that this is not so.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU 100%.
IF THE MONEY THAT IS BEING POURED INTO MAKING LIFE HELL FOR THIS LADY WAS PUT TO SUPPORTING HER WOULD THIS NOT BE BETTER.
MY HEART GOES OUT TO HER AND ALL OTHER MOTHERS AND FATHERS WHO ARE PUT IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS.
BUT THIS SORT OF THING IS DONE TO ELDERLY PEOPLE TOO. ELDERLY COUPLES WHO HAVE LIVED A LONG HAPPY MARRIED LIFE MAY END UP IN CARE AND BECAUSE THEY (THE AUTHORITIES) WONT SPEND A FEW EXTRA POUNDS
HELPING THEM STAY TOGETHER THEY SPLIT THEM UP. ONE GOES INTO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOME AND THE OTHER INTO ANOTHER.
HOW SAD. THERE IS NEVER MONEY TO SUPPORT PEOPLE BUT THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE MONEY TO WRECK PEOPLE
:(
 
Rambuie Perspecador

Rambuie Perspecador

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
338
Location
Nottingham
I cannot believe that the authority's actions could EVER, in ANY way be construed as 'protection for a tiny child!' You would have to be warped, insensitive, from another planet, or of another species to accept that as an explanation in this case. Who are these people? More to the point who the h*ll do they think they are??
 
W

Windblows

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
141
E

ems

Active member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
40
Location
plymouth
secret family courts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3406214.ece


You might have to cut and paste the above into the address header ( open another page for it if so ) but this example from the Times yesterday is another rarely told story of the abusive practice too often experirenced here in Britain.

You are right - these things are not good ways to waste money or lives.
THIS IS SO UNJUST
I GET SO UPSET WHEN I READ OF THINGS LIKE THIS

LIFE IS A BITCH AND THEN WE DIE

:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:
 
W

Windblows

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
141
From The Daily Mail

Baby 'snatched' from mother minutes after birth is ordered BACK into foster care
By DAVID WILKES


A mother who had her baby son taken illegally by social workers wept yesterday as a court ordered he should be put in care after all.


The 18-year-old, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, broke down in tears and had to be supported by two relatives as she received the devastating news.


It has been a three-day rollercoaster for the young mother. Her son, known as Baby G for legal reasons,was snatched from her in hospital by social services two hours after birth.

Scroll down for more...


Family courts decide on children's lives behind closed doors



Then the infant was returned to her later that day after a High Court judge ruled the officials had acted illegally because they did not have a court order.


Yesterday, after a further hearing before the Family Proceedings Court over two days, district judge Richard Inglis upheld an application by Nottingham council for an interim care order.


The mother attended the behindcloseddoors hearing yesterday but did not give evidence.


"It has been a thoroughly traumatic few days for her and she is devastated and drained," a friend said afterwards.

The case highlights the lack of transparency in the family courts, with the reasons behind the decision will not be revealed to the public.


Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who campaigns for greater openness in the system, said: "If they are going to take such draconian action as to separate a newborn baby from its mother, they should be willing to justify it in the open.


"What worries me most about these types of cases is they do not explain what they are doing or why.


"There are other options, like a mother and child foster placement or an assessment centre so that they do not have to be separated.


"But they almost seem to revel in separating newborn children from their mothers in this country."


Baby G was born in hospital in Nottingham at 2am on Wednesday and social services took him around 4am. His mother, who has mental health problems, has just left local authority care.


The baby was taken after staff at the hospital were shown a "birth plan" that was prepared by social workers.

The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood, was to be separated from the child, and no contact would be allowed without supervision by social workers.


Mr Justice Munby made an order in the High Court in London that the baby should be returned to his mother, which he duly was.

In his ruling, he said that "on the face of it" social services officials had acted unlawfully because they had not obtained a court order.


Giving his decision at the Family Proceedings Court in Nottingham yesterday, Judge Inglis said: "The court has decided that the welfare of G requires that he lives in local authority foster care on an interim basis.


"His mother will have frequent periods of contact with him.


"When further inquiries have been made the court expects to be in a better position later this year to make a decision about who should care for G."

Afterwards, Nottingham council said that the interim care order "enables the council to provide appropriate protection for the baby, whilst continuing to support the mother, who is also our concern".


It added: "The council and a range of other partner agencies had enough concern for the baby's welfare during the pregnancy to believe that action would be needed to protect the baby when it was born."


The decision was made at a case conference in December 2007 at which the mother and her legal representative were present, the council said.

"The law does not allow application for a court order before birth. The protection plan made in advance included the intention to apply for a care order immediately following the birth of this baby."


Margaret McGlade, chairman of Nottingham's safeguarding children board, said there will be a review of "the communications between all parties, particularly following the baby's birth to see if there are any lessons to be learned".


Last night the mother's solicitors, Bhatia Best, said they are considering a renewed application to the High Court under the European Convention on Human Rights. end of article.

If you can bear to read another example even worse try here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=517667&in_page_id=1879
 
Top