What is happening to our judicial system?

[chav1]

is there a website where we can keep upto date on this case...?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Not that I am aware of Chav......it was just a very small column in the Mail on Sunday.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I missed that in today's paper - haven't had chance to look at it yet.

First saw this story when we were away from home and I was appalled that the children could be taken from their parents without a sensible reason being given.

Like Chav said previously, IQ doesn't mean much more than the fact that you are either good at doing IQ tests or not good at doing IQ tests. Place a test before somebody who has never done anything like that before and they'll struggle. Later place a similar test in front of the same person and they'll do much better because they'll know what to expect.

The house was clean, the children clean, well fed and cared for. They love their parents and the parents love them. You can have highly intelligent parents who have very little time for their children, who do not interact with them and plonk them in front of a TV all day so they can get on with their own lives uninterrupted. You can also have highly intelligent people who beat the livings daylights out of their children for not coming up to scratch.

These children had never suffered at all. No justification was given for why they were taken away apart from the IQ of the mother. But the mother isn't unable to cope. She does everything any other mother would do. Maybe she cleans her teeth more thoroughly than some people which according to a dentist might be a good thing. The point I'm making there is that if all they could find to criticise was the length of time she took to clean her teeth then there can't have been any problems.

OK they both lost their temper with the SS. I think I'd have lost my temper too with people poking their noses into my life and crowding into my house all the time so I couldn't get a thing done. Nothing abnormal in that. When my first child was born I was inundated with well meaning "advice" from all and sundry (much of which was contradictory) and I just ended up telling them all to "depart hence" and let me get on with things MY way.

I sincerely hope that the children are returned to their parents and that it hasn't done any lasting damage to the poor souls. By all means SS can keep an eye on them if they feel the parents may need help at any time but there's a world of a difference between that and kidnapping the children. How many more cases ar thre like this which we don't even know about?

I don't know if the parents were paid anything by any newspaper which originally published the story, but good for them if they did get some money because I'm sure good lawyers aren't cheap and I wouldn't begrudge them whatever it costs to fight their case. Maybe with an MP being involved there could be many more going to court with similar cases.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I just wonder if the Social workers will be as quick to intervene in the case of Kate Moss......she has a two year old child and if what is in the papers is to be believed, then she surely is not a fit person to bring a child up.

Apparently, it is cheaper to put a child up for adoption that to give the parents the support they need...... there is also the thorny issue of adoption targets to be met........this is not the only case in Essex where children have been removed from parents who are deemed unfit. I don't understand it at all.......single teenage mums get the help they need, so why can't other disadvantaged groups get assistance.

[Margaret Pilkington]

There was nothing at the end of the article to say that they had been paid.......The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday has highlighted a number of these cases......now a couple of MPs have taken an interest and I think that this maybe what has made Justice Pauffley grant leave of appeal.

[pendy]

To be strictly fair to all parties, this is somewhat one-sided information, which makes it impossible to make an informed judgment.

It does seem from what appears above that the family were given the option of the father giving up work to assist mother in looking after the children. If he did so, the implication is that the children could remain with their parents. He did not choose to do so.

A person with an IQ of 60 is NOT equivalent to an 8 - 10 year old child. IQ stays fairly constant throughout life. I would have serious concerns about the ability of someone with so low an IQ to cope with emergencies or unforeseen events - and such a person would not have the capacity to envisage the consequences of some actions or events. Sad, but true.

As to Mrs Justice Pauffley, to be fair to her, her remit is the welfare of the children. She does not have any authority to consider the needs of the parents. The welfare of the child in the Family Courts is paramount.

I does concern me that the case was heard in private, and that the parents had no representation. As Lettie said, that is extremely unusual, there are usually case conferences with GPs and other interested persons.

Finally, it is a sad fact that most social workers have little or no formal qualification. You might imagine that the least they should have would be a degree in Sociology, but not so. It also does sometime seem that the job attracts inadequates who compensate by interfering in other people's lives.

I hope the parents are successful in their appeal - at least then we might be given more facts on which to base our conclusions.

[slinky]

Originally Posted by pendy

It does seem from what appears above that the family were given the option of the father giving up work to assist mother in looking after the children. If he did so, the implication is that the children could remain with their parents. He did not choose to do so.

Well at least he was trying to support his, CHILDREN and his wife by working.
I know a lot of families that wouldn't really give a flying **** and just go straight onto benefits, loads easier wouldn't you say.
Yeah well the man did right, SELF RESPECT is important to. Who would have paid for these children had he given up work?? Yes the tax payers I most certainly think.
Isn't it better children grow up to see at least one parent working to support the family??.
And the social services had no right in trying to make a man that works for a living, give up work, just because his wife has learning difficulties.

[Margaret Pilkington]

It does also depend on the type of IQ test that was used......as mentioned in a previous post not everyone is good at doing IQ tests......and the social workers did say that the children were clean, well fed and cared for...... surely to put some support in is not beyond the realms of possibility........the husband was given the option of giving up work, but then they would be needing benefits to survive........it seems a strange way to help the children.....to remove them from loving parents. Perhaps the fact that the youngest child has since developed hydrocephalus may have something to do with the adoption being put on hold too...or am I being just too cynical.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Alison Lapper did not have her child removed from her.... she had support services supplied. Do you think that is because she is only severely physicallly disabled.......?
The mother in this case is said to be mildly educationally impaired.......doesn't she qualify for the social support and care that was offered to Alison.......?
Am I being just a bit cynical in thinking that Social Services thought that this couple would be an easy target due to their perceived compromised intellectual status.......?
A Nanny state.........?

[SPUGGIE J]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Alison Lapper did not have her child removed from her.... she had support services supplied. Do you think that is because she is only severely physicallly disabled.......?
The mother in this case is said to be mildly educationally impaired.......doesn't she qualify for the social support and care that was offered to Alison.......?
Am I being just a bit cynical in thinking that Social Services thought that this couple would be an easy target due to their perceived compromised intellectual status.......?
A Nanny state.........?

With your experiance as a nurse wont let you be cynical.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Another update on this case. The couple have had their appeal quashed by another judge. There were however, concerns expressed about the secret nature of family courts. This couple are now considering taking their appeal to the house of Lords and failing that to the European Court of Human Rights