Cleared of child abuse? Baby already adopted, tough luck.
Discussion
I am not sure what you mean by that. I have only had to go to the Family Division of the High Court a few times, to deal with cases involving incapacitated adults rather than divorce or child care cases. It struck me as an odd place, very different from most British (and British style overseas) courts and tribunals that I have seen in action (none of which are perfect, but most of which trundle along reasonably well most of the time).
Common sense and natural justice did not seem much in evidence. Of the Judges, Butler-Sloss in particular struck me as a travesty of a Judge, or perhaps a simulacra of one, acting the part whilst being completely useless. She is now retired, after an unmerited spell in the Court of Appeal, but at least there she would sit with two other Judges, usually real ones, to counterbalance her.
The Family Division's reputation is generally poor amongst those who practise in the other divisions. As I mentioned above, the practice of family law does not attract the brightest lawyers, and many of the practitioners in the family courts are just the sort of lawyer that most of us would want to avoid, which is a pity as those lawyers sometimes have to deal with difficult and important issues, as well as the mere money grubbing between warring spouses that is their daily cud.
Common sense and natural justice did not seem much in evidence. Of the Judges, Butler-Sloss in particular struck me as a travesty of a Judge, or perhaps a simulacra of one, acting the part whilst being completely useless. She is now retired, after an unmerited spell in the Court of Appeal, but at least there she would sit with two other Judges, usually real ones, to counterbalance her.
The Family Division's reputation is generally poor amongst those who practise in the other divisions. As I mentioned above, the practice of family law does not attract the brightest lawyers, and many of the practitioners in the family courts are just the sort of lawyer that most of us would want to avoid, which is a pity as those lawyers sometimes have to deal with difficult and important issues, as well as the mere money grubbing between warring spouses that is their daily cud.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th October 08:24
Easy for us to say that, but that couple have been through the grottiness of an adoption selection process (no fun) and have had some time to bond with the child as their own, so the situation would be very hard on them too. Two sets of blameless people mangled by what sounds like an unduly rapid move to adoption against the background of a deeply flawed criminal enquiry.
Having said that, I do not join in the calls for scalps, or attribute bad faith to the pubic sector workers involved. People make mistakes, sometimes very bad ones. I suggest that most public sector workers, contrary to PH myth, are honest, try to work hard, do the best that can with often poor systems and inadequate resources, and so on. They are citizens and tax payers like the rest of us (Oh, except all the standard PH offshore types), not members of some dark liberal establishment conspiracy to f
k everything up.
Having said that, I do not join in the calls for scalps, or attribute bad faith to the pubic sector workers involved. People make mistakes, sometimes very bad ones. I suggest that most public sector workers, contrary to PH myth, are honest, try to work hard, do the best that can with often poor systems and inadequate resources, and so on. They are citizens and tax payers like the rest of us (Oh, except all the standard PH offshore types), not members of some dark liberal establishment conspiracy to f
k everything up. Breadvan72 said:
Easy for us to say that, but that couple have been through the grottiness of an adoption selection process (no fun) and have had some time to bond with the child as their own, so the situation would be very hard on them too. Two sets of blameless people mangled by what sounds like an unduly rapid move to adoption against the background of a deeply flawed criminal enquiry.
Having said that, I do not join in the calls for scalps, or attribute bad faith to the pubic sector workers involved. People make mistakes, sometimes very bad ones. I suggest that most public sector workers, contrary to PH myth, are honest, try to work hard, do the best that can with often poor systems and inadequate resources, and so on. They are citizens and tax payers like the rest of us (Oh, except all the standard PH offshore types), not members of some dark liberal establishment conspiracy to fk everything up.
Having had to deal with a few different social workers in three different areas, I found them to either be incompetent or just obstructive for the sake of it (and usually wrong).Having said that, I do not join in the calls for scalps, or attribute bad faith to the pubic sector workers involved. People make mistakes, sometimes very bad ones. I suggest that most public sector workers, contrary to PH myth, are honest, try to work hard, do the best that can with often poor systems and inadequate resources, and so on. They are citizens and tax payers like the rest of us (Oh, except all the standard PH offshore types), not members of some dark liberal establishment conspiracy to f
k everything up. This was when trying to get care support for my Dad, who had Alzheimers and needed a lot of care towards the end of his life - the cretins in Social Services inevitably made a bad situation worse - idiot things like obstructing getting the correc tequipment for the home when the alternative was him having to go into a home (at more each month than the equipment would have been) or telling us things that were just completely wrong when we tried to get care support. In the end when we found we could just get Direct payments and manage his care ourselves, it was much better for not having Social Services involved - I don't have any sympathy for the grief Social Workers get - in my experiance it's entirely justified...
A lot of posters are jumping to conclusion that there is great injustice here but are missing several very important points.
- You are only hearing the parents side of the story in the media. The courts heard it all.
- The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent injustice against the accused. The judges ruling to dismiss the criminal case for abuse does not result in the conclusion the child should be returned.
- The family court case is looking at the best interest of the child on balance of probabilities.
- The fact the final diagnosis of Rickets actually changes nothing. This is caused by nutritional deficiency in vitamin D, at the very minimum this is a very clear sign of neglect and the child's best interest need to be held utmost.
- The overriding justice here is that the interests of the child over ride the desires of the parents.
- You are only hearing the parents side of the story in the media. The courts heard it all.
- The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent injustice against the accused. The judges ruling to dismiss the criminal case for abuse does not result in the conclusion the child should be returned.
- The family court case is looking at the best interest of the child on balance of probabilities.
- The fact the final diagnosis of Rickets actually changes nothing. This is caused by nutritional deficiency in vitamin D, at the very minimum this is a very clear sign of neglect and the child's best interest need to be held utmost.
- The overriding justice here is that the interests of the child over ride the desires of the parents.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 10th October 12:01
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the fact that the job is so reviled contributes to insufficient numbers of talented people going into the job. I don't suppose that the pay is all that fancy either, but am not sure what social workers earn.
My mother was a social worker for her entire career. It pays low 20's, so less than a nurse. You also have to provide a car as there is a lot of driving to be done. They do not (or did not) get one provided.They have real problems recruiting and retaining staff, my mothers office normally had one or two positions unfilled. That didn't reduce the workload though. It simply got shared out and you had to deal with it.
Its a low paid high stress job with little reward. On top of that the press, and the general public hate you. Its not a job I would ever do.
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the fact that the job is so reviled contributes to insufficient numbers of talented people going into the job. I don't suppose that the pay is all that fancy either, but am not sure what social workers earn.
A girlfriend from a few years back was a social worker in Kent based in the foster care team, her role was to find foster placements, develop a foster care network etc. She spent her entire life struggling to find solutions within a very limited budget and often at very short notice- children being removed from families at anytime of the day/week etc. She was young (ish), progressive and understood that the structure of social services was far from fit for purpose, there were a lot of long term team members who were equally unfit for purpose which combined with limited resources made the role wholly unattractive to anyone sane.
As a result the whole social services sector (where she worked) was constantly rocking and inevitably dreadful scenarios like this case happen- listening to her I'm amazed they aren't more common. For info her salary was £26k as a fully qualified SW which given her responsibility and expertise seemed low to me.
Tragic for the parents and child involved and I can easily shed a tear for them.
It is sadly a situation that many separated fathers can relate to when they are denied contact with their child, often being accused by the mother of being violent/abuser/paedophile as part of the process.
It is sadly a situation that many separated fathers can relate to when they are denied contact with their child, often being accused by the mother of being violent/abuser/paedophile as part of the process.
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps the fact that the job is so reviled contributes to insufficient numbers of talented people going into the job. I don't suppose that the pay is all that fancy either, but am not sure what social workers earn.
The continuous vilification and very low pay can't help, but it has been a vocation for those I've know.Martin4x4 said:
A lot of posters are jumping to conclusion that there is great injustice here but are missing several very important points.
- You are only hearing the parents side of the story in the media.
- The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent injustice against the accused. The judges ruling in the criminal case for abuse is not proof the child should be returned.
- The family court case is looking at the best interest of the child on balance of probabilities. The fact the final diagnosis of Rickets changes nothing. This is caused by nutritional deficiency in vitamin D, at the very minimum a clear sign of neglect and the child's best interest need to be held utmost.
Your post is entirely incorrect, every single one of your three points is wrong.- You are only hearing the parents side of the story in the media.
- The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent injustice against the accused. The judges ruling in the criminal case for abuse is not proof the child should be returned.
- The family court case is looking at the best interest of the child on balance of probabilities. The fact the final diagnosis of Rickets changes nothing. This is caused by nutritional deficiency in vitamin D, at the very minimum a clear sign of neglect and the child's best interest need to be held utmost.
" - You are only hearing the parents side of the story in the media."
There is no other side; when prosecuted, the prosecution did not present any evidence against the parents.
" - The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent injustice against the accused. The judges ruling in the criminal case for abuse is not proof the child should be returned."
This is not a case where evidence was presented for the defence and for the prosecution and a jury weighed the evidence and reached a conclusion. In this case the prosecution was entirely without basis and no evidence was entered at all. Prior to trial, the prosecution themselves obtained the opinion of their own expert, who stated that he doubted that any abuse occurred at all. Because of this the prosecution entered no evidence against the natural parents. They entered no evidence because they had no evidence.
" - The family court case is looking at the best interest of the child on balance of probabilities. The fact the final diagnosis of Rickets changes nothing. This is caused by nutritional deficiency in vitamin D, at the very minimum a clear sign of neglect and the child's best interest need to be held utmost."
This comment is entirely without basis. There are several causes of Rickets, only one is an inadequate diet. It can also be caused by a genetic defect or by kidney, liver or intestinal conditions.
Other cases featuring misdiagnosis of Rickets:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/09/par...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/20/chi...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16726841
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/ge...
(as an interesting side note - the barrister Michael Shrimpton mentioned in one of those articles, in further research on the topic, seems to have been jailed for 12 months for claiming he had information on a planned nuclear weapon attack on the London Olympics)
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/09/par...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/20/chi...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16726841
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/ge...
(as an interesting side note - the barrister Michael Shrimpton mentioned in one of those articles, in further research on the topic, seems to have been jailed for 12 months for claiming he had information on a planned nuclear weapon attack on the London Olympics)
Edited by creampuff on Saturday 10th October 12:53
Martin4x4 said:
Ad-hominem attack followed by ignorant rhetoric based on a lack of comprehension.
Nice try.
Which specific bits of your post are correct then? Specific bits. I can easily link you to public domain information which directly contradicts everything you have written, what can you point to to support what you have said?Nice try.
You said a criminal finding of not guilty still means there could be on the balance of probability some abuse occurred. But the prosecution entered no evidence of abuse at all.
You said Rickets is a result of inadequate diet. The NHS's own website lists genetic, liver, kidney and intestinal problems as also causing rickets.
Edited by creampuff on Saturday 10th October 12:59
Martin4x4 said:
creampuff said:
Your post is entirely incorrect, every single one of your three points is wrong.
Ad-hominem attack followed by ignorant rhetoric based on a lack of comprehension.Nice try.
The reports of the case suggest that the natural parents had a positive defence to the allegations against them rather than this being a case where the prosecution could not meet the standard of proof required to convict. It is correct that a care order could have been obtained on the basis of probability, and if there is a genuine concern about child safety then that must come before anything else; but in the present case it appears that the parents may have been positively exonerated by the medical analysis. There may, of course, be some information that we do not know about. The prosecution and the social services may be hindered in speaking out because they cannot breach confidentiality about the case. I mention this in case it later turns out that the parents are not blameless, but at present it appears from the available information that they are.
creampuff said:
Martin4x4 said:
Ad-hominem attack followed by ignorant rhetoric based on a lack of comprehension.
Nice try.
Which specific bits of your post are correct then? Specific bits. I can easily link you to public domain information which directly contradicts everything you have written, what can you point to to support what you have said?Nice try.
You said a criminal finding of not guilty still means there could be on the balance of probability some abuse occurred. But the prosecution entered no evidence of abuse at all.
You said Rickets is a result of inadequate diet. The NHS's own website lists genetic, liver, kidney and intestinal problems as also causing rickets.
Edited by creampuff on Saturday 10th October 12:59
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff