| Social workers antagonising parents: Experts cashing in by manufacturing risk?

PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN PARENTS – IS THERE ENOUGH UNDERSTANDING BY PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN CARE CASES? ~ Kirsty Richards, Jordan Publishing.

 

Since I wrote my last opinion piece in April 2013, I continue to practice in children law proceedings (both private and public) and read the article by Kitty Knowles in the Metroyesterday (2 December 2013) : ‘Social Services have a baby taken from mother’s womb’.

While it is inappropriate to comment on that particular case without being aware of the full facts and circumstances, it raises a very serious issue for practitioners involved in care work when psychiatric and/or psychological concerns are raised against one or both parents.

The article in the Metro reports that this particular mother had been taken to a psychiatric ward after failing to take her medication and suffering a panic attack. The local authority then had concerns for the welfare of her unborn child.  After a period of 5 weeks, it is stated they forcibly sedated her and performed a caesarean section, placing the child with foster carers and refusing to return the baby to its mother due to their fears she may relapse. See the response from the local authority at http://www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/Essex-County-Council-responses-to-interest-in-story-headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspx

My discussion here centres around the attitude towards any mental health diagnosis, not with regards to the specific case mentioned above.

One would usually expect to see some Expert Reports commissioned during public law proceedings and it is the attitude of some professionals as to the lack of empathy in considering a particular diagnosis, with the effect of “writing off” of parents which is a growing concern in care proceedings.

I have vast experience of public law cases whereby following the receipt of an Expert report, with a diagnosis of either a Psychological/Psychiatric condition, that particular parent is very quickly written off as a possible carer by the Local Authority and other professionals involved in the case when there is clearly scope to consider a more holistic approach as to what support and care package could be provided to enable that parent to provide good enough parenting to the child subject to proceedings.

The recent judgments in Re B-S (Adoption: Application of s 47(5)) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, [2014] 1 FLR (forthcoming) and Re G (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation)[2013] EWCA Civ 965, [2014] 1 FLR (forthcoming) have provided practitioners and the court with a much needed reminder that the premise of the Children Act 1989 is to afford children the opportunity to remain with their birth parents if it is at all safe to do so.

Further reminding us that if support is required to enable that parent to look after the child, a thorough analytical report is required setting out exactly what support is required, whether it can be provided and if not, why not.  A holistic approach is required in care proceedings, with thorough and in-depth planning so as to allow the court to reach decisions as to a child’s long term care arrangements with a sound evidential basis.

All too often, professionals will read a psychological/psychiatric report and all too quickly assume its conclusions render that particular parent unable to provide good enough parenting to their child/children.  We should keep it at the forefront of our minds that there is no such thing as perfect parenting and the test is one of ‘good enough’ parenting, which should be achievable with some support in place for particular parents that require it.

As an example, earlier this year, I had an expert report commissioned in a public law case which concluded both parents have personality disorders and the very nature of their particular disorders means they will struggle to deal with information from the local authority (and other professionals) if it is not presented to them in a particular way.

The expert recommended that parties acknowledge the diagnosis of the parents and ensure they communicate with them in an open and honest way, in order to achieve a good working relationship with them.  (It had also been a part of that report that there is clear evidence the parents are able to communicate with some professionals; those that speak to them in an honest way and so the presence of this particular personality disorder did not mean it was an unworkable situation).

Sadly, I did not see any other professional take those conclusions into account and saw an overwhelming attitude that there was no time to put in the extra support needed in terms of explaining things clearly to those parents – leading, inevitably to a poor relationship between the parents and local authority, in particular, who the parents considered would always make decisions and tell them about changes rather than engaging them in open communication and decision-making regarding their children, for whom they still held parental responsibility for – alongside the local authority.

The refreshing judgments coming from the Court of Appeal, such as Re B-S and Re G, are simply reminding practitioners of the basic point that every child deserves to live with his/her biological parent if it is safe to do so. Practitioners and other professionals dealing with care work are supposed to be involved in the careful planning for these vulnerable children and in writing off their parent(s) simply because a psychological issue has been identified is surely providing that child a disservice. A truly holistic approach requires all parties to challenge any linear care planning put forward by local authorities and for there to be, in my view, a better understanding of psychological issues and indeed an empathy towards those suffering personality disorders (for example), who will need more support than others to provide that good enough standard of parenting.

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming says he plans to raise the case discussed in the Metro in the Commons and I think that most certainly should be done.  He states that ‘[he worries] about the way these decisions about a person’s mental capacity are being taken’ and I too am concerned that unless there is a conscious effort by all involved in care proceedings to look beyond mental health issues, too many children will be stripped of the opportunity to live with their birth parents and that surely goes against the very premise of the Children Act 1989?

Kirsty Richards is a Senior Family Solicitor at GT Stewart Solicitors in London.

The views expressed by contributing authors are not necessarily those of Family Law or Jordan Publishing and should not be considered as legal advice.

________________________________________________________________________

Treason2

| Do stay-at-home mothers upset you? You may be a motherist!

Do stay-at-home mothers upset you? You may be a motherist ~

 

 

Women who choose to remain at home to look after their children face a torrent of prejudice. Here are four of the worst examples.

Dr Aric Sigman, at a conference convened by Mothers At Home Matter (if you want a clue, as to its agenda, I refer you to the name), warned of the rise of “motherism”; a prejudice against stay-at-home mothers. Sigman is well known for his re-traditionalising intentions, to which end he has been accused of misrepresenting behavioural and neurological evidence, aclaim he has denied. So, he says “motherism” is dangerous because it puts women off being stay-at-home mothers, which is the developmental ideal. I’d reject the second part of the argument, but not the first – there is a prejudice against stay-at-home mothers. There is a presentation of women who look after their own children full time as air-headed, spoilt and dowdy. However, there is also a prejudice against women who look after their children but aren’t dowdy (yummy mummies); women who go back to work after having had children; women who stay out of work but also employ nannies; women who work part-time and look after their children the rest of the time.

I think the only way you could gain approval for your time-management, as a mother, would be to look after your children all the time as well as working full-time but for some socially useful enterprise (ideally voluntary work), while never relying on a man for money, yet never claiming benefits either, but God forbid that you should have a private income. Mothers in society act as whipping boys for almost all other social fissures; oh, the irony of there being no female equivalent for the phrase “whipping boy”, when it is almost always a female. Oh the side-spitting irony. Here are four examples of “motherisms” at work:

1) What they say: “I don’t see why mothers need these enormous buggies”

If you were pushing anyone who couldn’t walk but wasn’t a baby, people would happily put themselves out a bit. The act of pushing a baby, however, confers an aura of smugness about you (“look at you, so in love, with your baby”) that makes it unthinkable to just help you out. There’s an element of sense in this; mothers are in love with their babies, for the most part. And they would see you step into a puddle just to avoid the smallest jolt to their airsprung sleeping chariot. But it’s not the end of the sodding world, is it, mothers temporarily losing their social etiquette while they fall in love with their babies?

2. What they say (at the school gates, whispered): “You never see the mother”

Even if the child is dropped off by the father, there is very little quarter given to the mother who isn’t visible to the child’s social circle, and not much consideration of the possibility that maybe her work starts at 9am precisely so she can get home by 6pm. I personally think this is a Freudian throwback, the resentment of children of the 70s and 80s, who were the first generation having to contend with bloody maternal no-shows at the harvest festival. It’s the only rationale I can think of for why a person would think it was any of their business how a mother organised her time.

3. What they say (going in to a cafe, during the hours of standard economic activity): ‘Look at all these women who don’t work. I wish I could afford not to work’

I personally think the greatest misconception around childcare, shared by a huge proportion of the adult population, the people who’ve never done it, plus people who’ve done it but can’t remember it, is that it is easy. It is by far the most demanding job conceived by society, wringing you out like a blood-drenched bedsheet, each day leaving you physically drained and mentally poleaxed, without even the energy to close your own mouth or hold your head upright, often making an involuntary gargling noise. Some of it’s quite fun. But anyway, that’s an aside. There’s no economic sense to this question; if the women drinking coffee weren’t looking after their children, someone else would have to, which would in most cases cost as much as their wages. So what people are really objecting to is not that mothers can afford not to work, but that they can still afford coffee.

4. What they say: ‘I never have anything to say to these yummy mummies’

Dressed up as a deficiency of the speaker (I never have anything to say) it is actually a charge levelled at the mother, that she has no interests; why? Because, being “yummy”, she is narcissistic and can’t see beyond pilates and Brazilian hot waxing. The true resentment is of her wealth – that her life isn’t one of drudgery and servitude, but spa treatments and interiors. Well, that’s fine – it’s possible to make a good case for objecting to wealth, since so much of it is unjustly come by. But at least object to the people unjustly coming by it. It seems a little tangential to make the wife the object of the opprobrium. All she’s done is have a kid and fancy up her pubic area.

buggy

‘If you were pushing anyone who couldn’t walk but wasn’t a baby, people would happily put themselves out a bit.’ Photograph: Rex Features/J.Norden/IBL
__________________________________________________________________

    • HumanRightsA

| Why do judges in our family courts ignore the law?

Why do judges in our family courts ignore the law? ~ , The Telegraph.

It is a basic principle of British justice that no one should be sent to prison except in open court, so that their name can be known and why they have been jailed. But this has long been one of those basic principles that are routinely ignored in our ultra-secretive family courts.

In a parliamentary answer given by Harriet Harman in 2006, she said that some 200 people had been jailed in secret by the family courts in 2005, and that her government now wanted to open up the courts to ensure that this scandal did not continue. Last May and July, following publicity given to a case in which a woman was secretly sentenced to 12 months in prison for rescuing her father from a care home, where he was being mistreated, the new head of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, issued guidelines reminding his fellow judges that this was against the law, as clearly restated in the Rules of the Supreme Court as long ago as 1965.

In recent years, I have come across many cases of judges continuing to break the law in this way. In one instance, a father who had already lost his two teenage sons because they were held to be “at risk of emotional abuse” from their mother, from whom he had separated, was before a judge who wanted to order the removal for adoption of his third son, aged four. When the father left the courtroom in disgust, the judge ordered his arrest for contempt.

While he was in custody, his new partner, still at home and fearful that the little boy might also be removed, panicked and took him to a secret destination. The judge summoned the father back to court to ask where they had gone. Since his partner’s flight was on the spur of the moment, the father explained, truthfully, that he had no idea. Refusing to believe him, the judge angrily sentenced him in secret to 12 months. The police tracked down the woman, who was convicted of kidnapping the boy but let off with a caution. The father was released after six months in prison, but given a penal notice forbidding him to have any further contact with his boys, all now in foster care, whom he had brought up and who loved him.

In another recent case, a couple whose son had repeatedly run away from a care home were secretly jailed for not disclosing his whereabouts. In October, months after Munby issued his guidelines, three judges in the Court of Appeal upheld their sentencing. Also last month, John Hemming MP protested that the sentencing of a woman to 28 days by another High Court judge, Mrs Justice Theis, was yet another example of “secret justice” in breach of Munby’s guidelines and the law, because, although her court had been technically “open” for the brief period of the sentencing, the case was not advertised and no one was allowed to know the woman’s name or why she was imprisoned.

It seems that Lord Justice Munby has a battle on his hands to persuade judges that it is their duty to obey the law of the land.

Judges have a duty to obey the law of the land, but this is is not always happening in the family courts

Judges have a duty to obey the law of the land, but this is is not always happening in the family courts Photo: ALAMY
________________________________________________________________________

Travestyofjustice1