BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:13 AM

I have the feeling John/Giok and Kevin protest too much. They're judging those who would discuss the topic as ghoulish or knee-jerk reactionary, when most of the posts here have been parental scolds and well-reasoned. It begs the question--do either of you see one of these doctors professionally or socially? Is there something more behind your defensive postures? The wild fund-raising and headline support for the parents sounded so bizarre. You can't judge the reader for picking up on the carnivalesque nature of the show.

I think Victor may have pulled a very good answer out of the muddle that is the news about this story. It's even easy to visualize how perhaps the plan was to give the children something to sleep and each parent, independent of the other, gave a dose, accidentally overdosing. I'm not throwing this out as the next big headline, I'm just saying it is actually an understandable situation, but it isn't acceptable to drug kids to sleep, so it still isn't right, ethically, if not wrong legally.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:19 AM

I am not in any way involved with anybody in this case SRS. Just feel that there's an awful lot of judgemental posts on the basis of not enough information.
It's all hypothesis and supposition.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:34 AM

Yes, hypothesis and supposition--and a missing child.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:36 AM

Yup, and that's what we should all be worried about, not our opinions as to why it happened, or what happened, or who's fault it is.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

FACT = Ten doctors and their wives went on a holiday as a group and brought their children.

FACT = More than one of these couples left their children under the age of five alone on more than one occasion while they drank and partied into the small hours of the morning in a bar.

FACT = Not one of the other 18 adults (all close friends) remained in Portugal to assist in the search or gave a character reference as to the behaviour of the McCann's. In fact all returned to England and Wales on their scheduled flights without saying a word.

FACT = Kate McCann permitted two cleaners into the apartment before the police arrived and they have confirmed the room in which the children slept was clinically clean.

FACT = Police noted the McCann's twins were difficult to waken.

FACT = The McCann's both returned to Britain to attend a family christening on a day of one the most intensive searches for the child.

FACT = Kate McCann employed the services of both a local beautician and hair stylist throughout her agonising stay in Portugal.

FACT = If a single mother from Bolton had left her child alone and bought a bottle of wine in Asda and popped into a friends house and drank it and on her return found her child was missing there would be a public outcry and rightly so.


This case stank for the first day. The general public were asked to fund their stay in Portugal despite the McCann's joint annual income of 192,000 pounds. They courted the media and celebrities and encouraged thousands of people throughout Europe to search for their child. Am I angry ? Your bloody right I am.

God forbid if your child is abducted in the future, you may find public support and understanding is a little thin on the ground due to the events surrounding this particular case.

I repeat, One of the McCann's knows what happened that poor child which makes them both guilty of the crime. I suspect more than one of the children in that group were given sedation by a parent. Thus the wall of silence by the other members of the group.

As to the comments of support and understanding for the McCann's above, I wait with anticipation to read the comments from the same posters within the next 14 days or so. One thing the British public do not like is being taken for a ride.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM

Yup, and that's what we should all be worried about, not our opinions as to why it happened, or what happened, or who's fault it is.
G.

No, it isn't. If we don't know who, we aren't going to know how or anything else at this point. The child is gone. Now find the culprit.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:53 AM

Isn't that what the police are trying to do?
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM

Judging on the basis of ignorance is different from judging on the basis of direct observation. Hence "ghouls". Very probably not in life in general, but in relation to some of the posts in this thread it seems justified enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:56 PM

I disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:40 PM

Unfortunately for us in the UK we are going to continue to be bombarded with all of this.

I've just been watching the news where a relative of the family has said that because the child has not yet been found the fund raising will have to continue.

The details of the fund state that this money will only be used to help other children once this particular child has been found alive. I really am not clear why such an immense amount of money is needed.

It is not surprising that some people find the whole thing distasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

Perhaps someone earns a hefty fee for "managing" the fund?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 02:31 PM

Leave No Stone Unturned is a registered Limited Company (Registration number 6248215) registered office -
PO Box 53133 London E18 2YR. Auditors: Haysmacintyre, Fairfax House, 15 Fulwood Place, London, WC1V 6AY.

and NOT a charitable trust

1.1 The full objects of the Fund are:


1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;


1.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and


1.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

AND.............note.........
1.2 IF the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

The directors of the company are Peter Hubner, Brian Kennedy, John McCann, Esther McVey, Doug Skehan and Philip Tomlinson. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

I'm sure it SHOULD be possible to find out exactly how much and what the money has been spent on so far if it is as "transparent" as it claims; no doubt a great deal has gone in the "personal expenses" under 1.1.3. some of which have been referred to elsewhere in the thread.

However a quote from Gerry McCann seems that there is thankfully for the well meaning contributors some limit on the use of the capital sum at least!

"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion,"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 03:04 PM

btw, amongst some of the more distasteful definitions of a "ghoul" is "a creature who preys on children"

I'm not sure who the real ghouls are here... . .

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:50 PM

The latest news from Portugal matches the DNA of the blood in the car to that of Madeleine, the car not hired until 25 days after her disappearance.

Can anyone else hear backpedalling?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM

"Latest news" doesn't always mean that, as opposed to rumours. Stories that I've read have been pretty clear that there is no question of traces of blood in that car, merely DNS traces which might have been those of Madeleine, and which could have been deposited from a toy or garment.

Of course perhaps those stories are wrong too. My point is, in the absence of actual facts, as opposed to rumours, it's premature, pointless, and rather sick to go building up speculative bonfires of hate.

And if anyone is thinking, "well the police don't go naming innocent mothers as suspects", it's as well remembering the cases of the late Sally Clark and Angela Cannings who were tried and convicted and jailed for the murder of their children - only for it turn out subsequently that the "scientific" evidence and testimony on which they were convicted was complete rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

Only time will tell if the parents are in any way involved - nobody knows that except them.

I think that one of the most important moves has been the involvement today of the UK Social Services which will reassure many people. One of the facts that we do know is that irresponsible parenting was involved in this disappearance and the professionals do have a responsibility to the child to look into this.

The whole thing is a mess and seems to be getting worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM

"I think that one of the most important moves has been the involvement today of the UK Social Services which will reassure many people"

Victoria Kalimbier, Maria Caldwell, etcetera atcetera. Don't mention bloody Social Services in the UK to me.
What about the poor girl who's baby was taken away from her in the delivery room by social services because her partner's child in a previous relationship was diagnosed as suffering from shaken baby syndrome. No charges were brought by the police in that instance, but the social services have decided he is not a suitable parent, and have taken the baby and are seeking to have it adopted.
They do some good things, but they have made some MONSTROUS cock ups in the past, yet seem to be responsible to nobody!
What good they are going to do in this instance god only knows.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:15 PM

I got my news from the BBC... they've been wrong in the past but I tend to trust them.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:16 PM

Social Services don't actually have the power to decide that someone isn't a fit parent. That's a court decision.

Unfortunately it's pretty common for the media to get the facts muddled up and for readers to muddle them still further, till it turns into urban legends.

Social Services screw things up from time to time, that's true enough. What organisation doesn't? What individual doesn't, for that matter? Most of the time they do a pretty good job. I'm sure the same is true of their opposite numbers in Portugal.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:22 PM

I have said it before and I will say it again ......                                                   

SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM PARENTS! - got it????

The legal system of this country (England and Wales) makes that decision made on the evidence available.

I admit freely that sometimes that "evidence" may be the theory of a particular medical so-called "expert" etc and subsequently turn out to be tragically incorrect; unfortunately similar mistakes have been made in other courts and make me relieved we no longer have capital punishment - but - it does not condemn the whole of the justice system!

Bear in mind that the public also "wants it both ways". Social Workers are pilloried if they leave children with neglectful or abusing parents and condemned if they remove them to care (as above)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:25 PM

Giok, you are right - not just by social services but also by the forensic service for which I used to work (many years ago). I worked with Ron Outerridge who was in charge of the forensics in the Stefan Kiszko case (but before that case I hasten to add). That was a gross miscarriage of justice - he was "stitched up" (there's no better way to word it) by Chief Superintendent Dick Holland and Ron Outerridge.

Involving social services may not do any good but a lot of people have felt resentful that up until now it appears to have been virtually ignored.

In all child cases justice for the child has to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:27 PM

I do agree with Emma B.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:28 PM

Courts, which in most child related cases are closed courts, only act on the evidence supplied by Social Services, and sometime the police. Neither organisation inspire my confidence.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM

The Scottish Family court is different from that in England and Wales - I worked in the system for 30 years!
A Social Worker may make a "recommendation" but it must meet the agreement of the appointed court officers.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:36 PM

I am not talking about the Scottish system

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:37 PM

Then get your facts right!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:44 PM

I have mate, I have

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM

sounds more like "judgements" to me again!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

Read that and weep

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

Family Courts can and do reject recommendations made by Social Workers.   Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Reporting restrictions on Family Courts tend to obscure this.

Social Workers make mistakes. Police officers make mistakes. Teachers make mistakes, Doctors make mistakes. Bus drivers make mistakes. Human beings make mistakes. It goes with the territory.

We can and should try and learn from mistakes, whoever we are. But we're never going to eliminate them entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Sapper on the TRC doing the late shift
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:50 PM

There have been many cases where, acting on "evidence" supplied by Social Workers and other professionals, gross injustices have been perpetrated on innocent families and individuals.
Amongst others the cases of Cleveland, Shieldfield, Pembroke and Orkney come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

I think I may have mentioned Giok that courts are often swayed by incorrect medical evidence?
Yes it IS a tragedy for the individuals as it was for the child who was diagnosed as haveing impetigo when she had been subjected to long term physical abuse and subsequently killed because a care order could not be obtained!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:58 PM

Social Services screw things up from time to time, that's true enough. What organisation doesn't? What individual doesn't, for that matter? Most of the time they do a pretty good job. I'm sure the same is true of their opposite numbers in Portugal.

I agree with that.

It is also true of the police and the forensic science service.

On the whole all of these organisations do a very good job and I do have to say that I feel the Portuguese police are also trying to do a good job in what seems to be very difficult circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

"Family Courts can and do reject recommendations made by Social Workers. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Reporting restrictions on Family Courts tend to obscure this."

This is true and the rules of "confidentiality" do not allow for the public to know ALL the personal details - rightly so IMHO! or for that matter the many many more cases that succeed in protecting children from harm.

However, where serious errors of judgement have been made you can be sure that an open and lengthy full enquiry will take place and look at how such mistakes may be avoided in the future. Unlike many other professionals social workers are held open to professional discipline!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:26 PM

After the enquiry into the death of Maria Caldwell we were assured that procedures were changed, and it wouldn't happen again. How many children have died since then?
The usual excuse made for ruining the lives of families wrongly accused of abusing their kids is "Well it's better to err on the side of caution"
I don't know why but names like Timothy Evans leap unbidden to my mind when I hear excuses like that!
giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM

At the risk of repeating myself yet again......

"Bear in mind that the public also "wants it both ways". Social Workers are pilloried if they leave children with neglectful or abusing parents and condemned if they remove them to care (as above)"

It's nice to have a handy scapegoat for societies and communities ills isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

So are you saying that they get it wrong both ways?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

I think you're the only person here saying that Giok! Now what would you do in the current case under discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

The trouble is that child abusers/neglecters are a bit like people who have addiction problems. There is a lot of covering up, slyness and lying. There are bound to be some mistakes as there are in all professions - look at the mistakes in the medical profession for example, but look at how many people's lives are also saved and the quality improved.

In a lot of jobs the mistakes that happen maybe don't have such serious consequences.

In some professions the responsibilities are not always matched by the pay - but that is another issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:43 PM

True eanjay. We only hear about the failures not the thousands of successes.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM

They get it wrong both ways, I'd say that too. It's not a perfect world, and it hasn't got perfect people who always do the right thing.

In the current case under discussion, as in every case, the thing to do is find out the facts and examine the evidence and make the best judgement of what to do on the basis of the facts and the evidence. Not speculate on the basis of a mishmash of rumours and guesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM

At the moment a decision HAS to be made about the twins on the basis that the McCanns have been named as "suspects"

I'm interested in hearing Giok's decision as he is so critical of the Social Services, Child Care courts and expert witnesses ability to make the "right" decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

I don't know how this works, but if parents (any parents, not just these particular ones) go to prison do the children get taken into care or can other family members look after them? The reporting here drammatically says that the twins may be taken into care, in these circumstances, but surely there would be other options. After all, if the parents are completely innocent and the remaining children were taken away from them then that would be a gross injustice, although I do feel that they should, in some way, answer for leaving the children alone in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:01 PM

I think Social Services are looking at it from the point that if there are suspicians they need to keep an eye on the twins while the parents are still 'out'.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM

any more reports on whether the kids were sedated? By injection perhaps? Would that be cause to lose a license to practice medicine? I would hope so. Also, reports of one of the party leaving a three year old vomiting child alone while they dined. It gets more and more bizarre if reports are true...who knows...and we have to be outraged by this...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:05 PM

I would keep my nose out of it, there is no proven case against the parents. That is one of the Social work problems, find people guilty by their lights, and not by the law of this land.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM

If a parent is even suspected of harming a child - a decision HAS to made upon the evidence available; that's the law and the job of the court and social workers etc Giok!

Now please give us the benefit of your knowledge in this difficult decision

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:13 PM

"if reports are true...who knows..."

And equally "if reports are not true...who knows..."

No doubt in time there will be reports based on actual facts rather than hints and rumours. But that's not the case as yet, and we just don't have a valid basis for making those kind of judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:15 PM

What happened to innocent until proved guilty, You cannot work with such inelastic and unbending rules.
Anyway the legal system under which they have been declared 'arguidos' is a different system altogether, and has different definitions.
There is NO evidence that they have harmed a child!!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

The law is there to protect the innocent but bear in mind we have two innocents here that also needs its protection! My gut reaction thinks they are involved but the evidence does seem to be mounting against them.